-
Five: The Catastrophe of Memory:Derrida, Milbank, and the (Im)possibility of Forgiveness
- Indiana University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
129 five The Catastrophe of Memory Derrida, Milbank, and the (Im)possibility of Forgiveness Mark Dooley The movement known as radical orthodoxy, the most notable exponents of which include John Milbank, Graham Ward, and Catherine Pickstock, has, since its inception, crusaded against what it sees as the plagues and nuisances of secularism and postmodernism. Its fundamental aspiration, we are told, is to ‘‘reclaim the world by situating its concerns and activities within a theological framework,’’ one which is much more than a ‘‘leisure-time activity of private commitment.’’1 The theology of radical orthodoxy, so its mission statement reveals, is predicated upon the firmly held principle that ‘‘the self-conscious superficiality of today’s secularism’’ has led to a regrettable state of nihilistic despair. The objective, thus, is to still the ‘‘impersonal chaos’’ which lies at the heart of the postmodern predicament by reconfiguring ‘‘theological truth.’’ They do so by reaffirming their commitment ‘‘to credal Christianity and the exemplarity of its patristic matrix,’’ thus ‘‘recovering and extending a fully Christianized ontology and practical philosophy consonant with authentic Christian doctrine.’’2 What this amounts to is an attempt to have everything ‘‘participate’’ in God, for if such participation does not obtain, then eternal stability gives way to ‘‘a purely immanent security,’’ to a void or a nothingness Mark Dooley 130 which makes all questions of ultimate meaning meaningless. If Derrida and his defenders opt for the void (a void which they try to conceal through appeals to the saving power of différance), the high priests of radical orthodoxy insist that behind the phenomena lies an ‘‘eternal source,’’ one which gives to ‘‘bodies, their art, language, sexual and political union’’ a more profound and permanent density. The choice then is clear: either participation in the eternal source or nihilism, either permanence and stability or an anonymous vortex devoid of rhyme or reason. Postmodernism can only offer, in good Nietzschean style, an anonymous rumbling, while radical orthodoxy makes sense of our world by affirming its participation in a divine order, one which is given expression through language, culture, sexuality, religious practice, and politics. It may seem somewhat strange, therefore, that the principal harbinger of the good news of radical orthodoxy, John Milbank, contributed an essay to a book edited by his fellow traveler, Graham Ward, entitled The Postmodern God.3 However, Milbank, Ward, Pickstock, and Philip Blond consider themselves to be ‘‘postmodern’’ in the sense that they see the dawn of modernity as having heralded the demise of true and genuine theological discourse. With the collapse of modernity this ‘‘modern predicament of theology’’ has been overcome, for now ‘‘it no longer has to measure up to accepted secular standards of scientific truth or normative rationality.’’4 As such, it can reclaim its premodern roots as an alternative means of making sense of reality, one which assiduously avoids the confusion and lack of cohesion which postmodernism of the Parisian variety generates. So when Milbank uses the term ‘‘postmodern theology,’’ he is not referring to the work of Mark C. Taylor, John D. Caputo, Edith Wyschogrod, Kevin Hart, or Charles Winquist—each of whom has been influenced by Derrida in one way or another, but rather he is adverting both to himself and to the radical orthodoxy set writ large. The former, on Milbank’s reading, ought to be categorized as postmodern nihilists who ‘‘embrace contingency and arbitrariness as the real natural good.’’5 Having given up on the eternal source, having called into question the divine origin, and having disregarded all talk of ontological foundations, such thinkers appear to have surrendered themselves to a formless flux in which nothingness prevails. As such, they should not be considered theologians stricto sensu, but preachers of the abyss, prophets of the dark night into which we are all aimlessly and hopelessly wandering. Milbank’s response to the efforts of postmodernists such as Caputo and Taylor and others is thus to advance a ‘‘postmodern’’ theology of his own, one which is founded on the most sacred tenets of radical orthodoxy. Such a theology, he argues, ‘‘can only proceed by explicating Christian practice.’’ For Milbank, Christianity ought not to be thought of as simply one discourse competing with others. Rather, we should think of it as more ‘‘internally’’ postmodern than competing religions because of its celebration of difference. ‘‘Christianity,’’ he continues, ‘‘pursued from the outset a universalism which [54.224.52.210] Project MUSE (2024-03-30 01:41 GMT) The Catastrophe...