Open Access
Subscription or Fee Access
Font Size:
"That They Might Have Ontology": Radical Orthodoxy and the New Debate
Abstract
Round Table discussion on Theology and the Political: The New Debate, by Creston Davis, John Milbank & Slavoj Zizek, eds. (Duke University Press, 2005).
I begin with an attempt to discern the contours of the “debate” contained in the edited volume Theology and the Political: The New Debate. While the Radical Orthodox contributors are eager to critique those outside the fold, only two authors seem to talk back to them: Kenneth Surin and Mary-Jane Rubenstein. I agree with Surin’s rejection of ontological hierarchy and Rubenstein’s recommendation of Nancy’s notion of “being-with,” and I use their arguments to critique Radical Orthodoxy’s ontology and their simplistic approach to “secular” authors, respectively. Insofar as one must discuss ontology in relation to theology and the political, I propose that we must actually develop a new ontology rather than simply reassert some version of the Thomistic synthesis. Finally, I fault the relative lack of reference to actual political practice, and above all the complete absence of Latin American liberation theology, in a volume ostensibly discussing “theology and the political.”
I begin with an attempt to discern the contours of the “debate” contained in the edited volume Theology and the Political: The New Debate. While the Radical Orthodox contributors are eager to critique those outside the fold, only two authors seem to talk back to them: Kenneth Surin and Mary-Jane Rubenstein. I agree with Surin’s rejection of ontological hierarchy and Rubenstein’s recommendation of Nancy’s notion of “being-with,” and I use their arguments to critique Radical Orthodoxy’s ontology and their simplistic approach to “secular” authors, respectively. Insofar as one must discuss ontology in relation to theology and the political, I propose that we must actually develop a new ontology rather than simply reassert some version of the Thomistic synthesis. Finally, I fault the relative lack of reference to actual political practice, and above all the complete absence of Latin American liberation theology, in a volume ostensibly discussing “theology and the political.”