{"title":"Postsecular History or Figural Messianism?","authors":"Travis Kroeker","doi":"10.1080/1462317X.2022.2152611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anyone who reads Postsecular History: Political Theology and the Politics of Time will know that Maxwell Kennel is an exciting scholar to think with! I’m grateful to have been able to spend five years with him at McMaster University. The intellectual liveliness, curiosity, careful close reading, and collegial affection that he brought was a delight, and this book puts all of these gifts on display. There’s obviously far too much to respond to, and given that he first drafted a couple of his chapters as essays in graduate seminars (on Nietzsche and Augustine, and on Melville), I’m going to continue the conversation here by returning to what he rightly identifies as a primary interest of mine: namely,messianic political theology from an apocalyptic, figural perspective. I think Kennel and I agree that a messianic political theology and a postsecular one differ significantly, though both of us aim to trouble periodization when it comes to religion, secularity, and politics. As he suggests in Postsecular History, the prefix “‘post’ better serves to name mediations, entanglements, and figural reconfigurations of the tensions and terms it purports to move beyond.” These latter terms consistently frame his narration of the historiographical project between conflicting normative orders, especially those rooted in narrow identitarian agendas that seek to “possess, instrumentalize and manage’ these terms. Such agendas include the enforcement of binaries between religion and the secular in exclusivist and increasingly violent directions. I worry, however, that these framing considerations—despite all the engaged close readings of a remarkable range of sources—remain overly abstract. “Postsecular,” like “posthistorical,” in the literal Augustinian sense, would suggest that we’d be “out of time,” just as “posthuman” or even worse “transhuman” might suggest that we’re “out of nature” too! Perhaps this is also found in the figurative sense intended in Francis Fukuyama’s provocative The End of History, paired nicely in his title with Nietzsche’s nightmare of the Last Man. This might help prove just how prophetic Fredric Jameson was when he said that “someone said” it’s easier for us now to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. We should rightly be nervous about all this “post” language! It seems we","PeriodicalId":43759,"journal":{"name":"Political Theology","volume":"24 1","pages":"342 - 346"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1462317X.2022.2152611","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Anyone who reads Postsecular History: Political Theology and the Politics of Time will know that Maxwell Kennel is an exciting scholar to think with! I’m grateful to have been able to spend five years with him at McMaster University. The intellectual liveliness, curiosity, careful close reading, and collegial affection that he brought was a delight, and this book puts all of these gifts on display. There’s obviously far too much to respond to, and given that he first drafted a couple of his chapters as essays in graduate seminars (on Nietzsche and Augustine, and on Melville), I’m going to continue the conversation here by returning to what he rightly identifies as a primary interest of mine: namely,messianic political theology from an apocalyptic, figural perspective. I think Kennel and I agree that a messianic political theology and a postsecular one differ significantly, though both of us aim to trouble periodization when it comes to religion, secularity, and politics. As he suggests in Postsecular History, the prefix “‘post’ better serves to name mediations, entanglements, and figural reconfigurations of the tensions and terms it purports to move beyond.” These latter terms consistently frame his narration of the historiographical project between conflicting normative orders, especially those rooted in narrow identitarian agendas that seek to “possess, instrumentalize and manage’ these terms. Such agendas include the enforcement of binaries between religion and the secular in exclusivist and increasingly violent directions. I worry, however, that these framing considerations—despite all the engaged close readings of a remarkable range of sources—remain overly abstract. “Postsecular,” like “posthistorical,” in the literal Augustinian sense, would suggest that we’d be “out of time,” just as “posthuman” or even worse “transhuman” might suggest that we’re “out of nature” too! Perhaps this is also found in the figurative sense intended in Francis Fukuyama’s provocative The End of History, paired nicely in his title with Nietzsche’s nightmare of the Last Man. This might help prove just how prophetic Fredric Jameson was when he said that “someone said” it’s easier for us now to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. We should rightly be nervous about all this “post” language! It seems we
任何读过《后世俗史:政治神学与时间政治》的人都会知道,马克斯韦尔·肯尼尔是一位令人兴奋的学者!我很感激能够在麦克马斯特大学与他共度五年时光。他所带来的知识活力、好奇心、仔细的细读和学院式的感情是一种乐趣,这本书展示了所有这些天赋。显然有太多的东西需要回应,鉴于他最初在研究生研讨会上起草了几章作为论文(关于尼采和奥古斯丁,以及梅尔维尔),我将继续这里的对话,回到他正确地认定的我的主要兴趣:即从启示录的、形象的角度来看的弥赛亚政治神学。我认为肯尼尔和我都同意弥赛亚政治神学和后基督教政治神学有很大不同,尽管在宗教、世俗和政治方面,我们都想麻烦分期。正如他在《后世俗史》中所建议的那样,前缀“post”更好地用来命名调解、纠缠和对其声称要超越的紧张关系和术语的形象重构。”后一个术语一致地构成了他对冲突的规范秩序之间的史学项目的叙述,尤其是那些植根于狭隘的同一主义议程的人“拥有、工具化和管理”这些术语。这些议程包括在排他性和日益暴力的方向上强制执行宗教和世俗之间的二元对立。然而,我担心,尽管对大量来源进行了仔细解读,但这些框架考虑仍然过于抽象字面意义上的奥古斯丁意义,会暗示我们“不合时宜”,就像“后人类”或更糟的“超人类”可能暗示我们也“脱离自然”一样!也许这也体现在弗朗西斯·福山(Francis Fukuyama)挑衅性的《历史的终结》(the End of History。我们应该对所有这些“后”语言感到紧张!看来我们