Fleshing Out the Strength of Weakness: Intercorporeality in the Theological Discourse on Disability

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1017/s0017816024000063
Alexander Massmann
{"title":"Fleshing Out the Strength of Weakness: Intercorporeality in the Theological Discourse on Disability","authors":"Alexander Massmann","doi":"10.1017/s0017816024000063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of theological interpretations of disabilities, I am arguing for the concept of “strength in weakness.” So far, a “theology of weakness,” which portrays people with disabilities as pointedly illustrating universal human weakness, has played a very prominent role in the field. I argue that this theological interpretation of disabilities should not be the dominant one. I trace the alternative model of “strength in weakness” in discussing writings by the apostle Paul and describe how it is supported by the anthropological concept of intercorporeality. Yet first, the article discusses Stanley Hauerwas’s theology of disability, which is not only a very pointed theology of weakness but also repeatedly associates disabilities with suffering. Since at least the latter aspect is in contrast with widespread self-perceptions among people with disabilities, a theology of weakness amounts to a “narrative prosthesis” (David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder). By contrast, Paul suggests that weakness can allow for distinct strengths. To flesh out distinctive competences of people with intellectual disabilities, I then discuss Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concept of intercorporeality. Intercorporeality denotes a human competence more generally, but I suggest that it is often partly eclipsed by social norms. However, people with intellectual disabilities often pay less attention to social norms, which helps explain a distinctive intercorporeal competence among people with intellectual disabilities. Reduced attention to social norms can imply a distinctive strength.","PeriodicalId":46365,"journal":{"name":"HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0017816024000063","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of theological interpretations of disabilities, I am arguing for the concept of “strength in weakness.” So far, a “theology of weakness,” which portrays people with disabilities as pointedly illustrating universal human weakness, has played a very prominent role in the field. I argue that this theological interpretation of disabilities should not be the dominant one. I trace the alternative model of “strength in weakness” in discussing writings by the apostle Paul and describe how it is supported by the anthropological concept of intercorporeality. Yet first, the article discusses Stanley Hauerwas’s theology of disability, which is not only a very pointed theology of weakness but also repeatedly associates disabilities with suffering. Since at least the latter aspect is in contrast with widespread self-perceptions among people with disabilities, a theology of weakness amounts to a “narrative prosthesis” (David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder). By contrast, Paul suggests that weakness can allow for distinct strengths. To flesh out distinctive competences of people with intellectual disabilities, I then discuss Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s concept of intercorporeality. Intercorporeality denotes a human competence more generally, but I suggest that it is often partly eclipsed by social norms. However, people with intellectual disabilities often pay less attention to social norms, which helps explain a distinctive intercorporeal competence among people with intellectual disabilities. Reduced attention to social norms can imply a distinctive strength.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
充实弱者的力量:残疾神学论述中的互体性
在对残疾的神学诠释方面,我主张 "软弱中的力量 "这一概念。迄今为止,"软弱神学 "在该领域发挥了非常突出的作用,它将残疾人描绘成人类普遍软弱的典型代表。我认为,这种对残疾的神学解释不应成为主流。在讨论使徒保罗的著作时,我追溯了 "软弱中的力量 "的另一种模式,并描述了它是如何得到体间性这一人类学概念的支持的。然而,文章首先讨论了斯坦利-豪尔瓦斯(Stanley Hauerwas)的残疾神学,这不仅是一种非常尖锐的软弱神学,而且一再将残疾与苦难联系在一起。至少后者与残疾人普遍的自我认知形成了反差,因此,软弱神学相当于一种 "叙事假体"(大卫-米切尔和莎伦-斯奈德)。与此相反,保罗认为,软弱可以带来与众不同的力量。为了充实智障人士的独特能力,我接着讨论了莫里斯-梅洛-庞蒂(Maurice Merleau-Ponty)的 "实体间性"(intercorporeality)概念。肉体间性更广泛地指代了人类的一种能力,但我认为这种能力往往在一定程度上被社会规范所掩盖。然而,智障人士对社会规范的关注往往较少,这有助于解释智障人士与众不同的体际能力。减少对社会规范的关注可能意味着一种与众不同的力量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Harvard Theological Review has been a central forum for scholars of religion since its founding in 1908. It continues to publish compelling original research that contributes to the development of scholarly understanding and interpretation in the history and philosophy of religious thought in all traditions and periods - including the areas of Judaic studies, Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Christianity, archaeology, comparative religious studies, theology and ethics.
期刊最新文献
The Clinical Gaze of Lurianic Kabbalah Judeopessimism: Antisemitism, History, and Critical Race Theory A Joban Theology of Consolation Images Above All: Richard Kroner and the Religious Imagination A Representation of the Inauguration Ceremony of the Restored Temple? A (Tentative) Reinterpretation of the Bar Kokhba Tetradrachm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1