Naomi Klein against Apocalypticism? Part I

I have begun reading "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. As part of my reflection of Graham Ward's notions of the Body politic, particularly in "The Politics of Discipleship" and his reflection on constitutional monarchy, Francis Fukuyama's misguided liberal-democratic interpretation of Hegel and the necessity of some sort of monarchy I have often, in jest, suggested that the Lewis', the Canadian political family should be the Royal family replacing the current British one.

Naomi Klein, who's husband is Avi Lewis the son of Stephen Lewis, writes the following at the end of her introductory chapter:

"This desire for godlike powers of total creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions.. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments..that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world." (page 24)

These concluding remarks finish her discursive activity in the introduction; with frequent reference to neoliberal economists and policy-makers as 'fundamentalists', a quotation from Milton Friedman when he describes himself as "an old-fashioned preacher delivering a Sunday sermon", a quotation from a Republican congressman from Lousianna where in passing reference suggests that the events of Hurricane Katrina somehow was God-ordained in order to reform the education system in favour of the free-market and of course the quotation from Genesis 9 (the narrative of the global deluge) that begins the chapter. Even the title of the book suggests some sort of religious reference.

Klein, again "Rooted in Biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." (pg 23)

In her introduction Klein distances her position from a kind of 'unattainable purity' position of 'dangerous ideologies', such as but not exclusive to neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics. She gives a brief glimpse into her own political location, favouring among other things the disbelief that Markets are inherently violent (because she suggests that it is possible to have a market economy demands 'no such ideological purity') and supporting a somewhat Keynesian position of a mixed market, quasi-socialist state.

I would like the file a grievance of some-sort, but I will do it by telling a story that Klein narrates at the beginning of her introduction. Speaking about how these "Shock" capitalists were using the tragedy of Katrina in New Orleans one of the characters in Klein's story asks "Are they blind?". As in blind to the immense suffering of the impoverished citizens of New Orleans who have lost so much because of poor planning and terrible natural events.

"'A mother with two kids chimed in. 'No they're not blind, they're evil. They see just fine.' " (page 4)

That mother had the courage to label what it was that these people were doing. Evil. Now although I appreciate Klein's insistence that this ideology leads to violence I feel that universalizing the tendency that all notions of 'purity', essentialism or the absolute leads to violence is false. Not neccesarily more dangerous, although perhaps it is, but false.

With her journalistic efforts and crusades I am sure Klein would find herself agreeing that we have to be rational and not ideologues in our search for justice. But may I continue by adding in the words of Alasdair Macintyre "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"

With her support of diversity and her suggestion that perhaps some sort of 'free' market could exist she seeks co-existence with other communities with different belief systems. In evoking the communitarian discourse of Macintyre I am really asking if this contempt of things that are "contemptuos of pluralism" (page 23) really understands the meaning of difference, especially of different communties.

To take another angle her suggestion that 'purity' of ideology, belief or vision leads to violence seems to suggest she holds on to an 'ontology of violence' (Milbank). Such an ontology, as Milbank points out in "Theology and Social Theory", a book greatly influenced by Macintyre,is at the heart of classical liberalism, pragmatism, a little bit in Hegel and Marx, and certainly nihilism.

Now I believe co-existence is neccesary but "What existence? Which communities?" (Macintyre again), for the co-existence of Reformed and Anabaptist church in the Netherlands had very different views of what co-existence looks like, as the mainline Church-state relationship though in their refusal to be part of the state church as so non-conformist as to be dangerous to the state. Certain Islamic groups would have a view of co-existence, for example in the Ottoman empire Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to exist but with less privileges that the dominant cultural group. In Canada following the seven year's war a more positive situation arose where the french Catholics of New France and the british settlers and Loyalists were able to co-exist, with the establishment of the Quebec Act which guaranteed french cultural (read economic, legal, linguistic and religious) rights. But one must remember that at that time the Quebec act was so offensive to some of the Enlgish that it became part of the Intolerable Acts leading to the revolutionary war.

I think Klein must be clear that she is coming from a Non-Marxist Keynesian socialism which is a tradition in itself. It is not a universal view which hopes for peace in putting communities beside each other in co-existent pluralism but a particular view that may want to establish a happy faced hegemony over various traditions watering them down and making them the same. Sure there maybe Islam, or Christianity, or what have you, but they are really not Islam, Christianity or what have you in the traditional sense but simply historically cultured enclaves that have delayed degeneration as an imminent liberalism conquers all. Is this the End of History? Perhaps Klein is philosophically similair to her neoconservative (classically liberal) enemies in her refusing 'purity', or more outrightly particularity, she sets up a situation where her Keynesian politics 'consumes' other political and religious traditions.

If only she would come clearly out of the closet and like that mother label these other traditions as 'evil', or at least imperialistic.

Which brings me to the most important question for me: is it possible to have a tradition that is not imperialist? Outside of classical liberalism which paradoxically denies tradition yet produces similar 'Empire' can we have a tradition that is anti-imperial intrinsically? I will be honest I appeal the crucified God as the only honest way out of empire.

Part II of this post will deal with the biblical Apocalyptic as inherently anti-imperial, despite the distaste for it Klein displays in her introduction.

Also forgive the untideness of this post, I think I had go ideas but they did not really arrive on screen very well.

A facebook response

The following was a response on facebook to suggest that the theology beyond creating a department of peace in Canada was actually idolatry. The response made me quite angry, and here was my first response. I say first, because likely there will be more.

Idolatrous notions? You mean believing that trying to do good and find peace is somehow idolatrous?

And in the apocalyptic literature God is warrior, or more specifically victor. He is a victor through his dead on the cross, and Chirstians are called to likewise surrender and to trust God who raises the dead, as he did Christ.

The true Idolatry is making the prince of peace into a God of war. We worship the God revealed in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth, not the Empire building Ceaser.

As for there is no peace for the wicked, I would like to briefly quote Romans "While we were still sinners; Christ died for the ungodly". Now if you say this verse refers Christians and that other enemies should not have peace that I am reminded off the response of the Older Son in the parable of the prodigal son who chastises his father for his grace towards the other rebellious son who became the enemy. Saying there is no peace for the wicked might have some biblical background but quite clearly Jesus commands us to Love Our Enemies, and if we love those who love us we are no better than pagans.

But besides the theological notions the department of peace seems to me to be moving in the right direction. I am not sure whether or not it will pass, but for any body of people, any organization, especially the organization of nation-state with it's resources, is willing to put the resources into finding alternatives for war and in peace-building.

Saying that war and conflict is grounded in human nature is both true and a cop out. Let me explain. You can not avoid the responsibility one has by wiping one's hands and saying "It was just nature". Yes creating this conflict is part of human nature but it is not an excuse, it does not make us innocent, if we cause it.

Most conflict in the world today stems from human nature to be sure, but in not so clear ways. It seems to happen mainly out of injustices and divisions that are deeply rooted in history. Sin does not just appear, it does not happen in a vacuum.

For instance the genocide in Rwanda has a history in the colonialism of the Belgians (who, as I may point out, were considered 'Christians') who through their legal structures perpetuated the differences between Hutu and Tutsi.

To pick on the Belgians a lit bit more, look at the Congo. In the last two decades many people have died from a civil war in that country, second only in history to the second world war. Terrible! Yet you look at the Countries history with the terrible attrocities the tyrant Leopold II of Belgium enacted on that country in search of personal wealth, killing according to the New York Times millions (although it might have been sensationalistic, less than that number likely died but still A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE MURDERED), following after the 1960s by a dictator established by US government for their interests (whether they were good or bad is up to debate, nevertheless a dictator was established), which further destablized the nation. Then the real conflict began as the conflict in Rwanda spilled it's borders.

These are only two examples, not to mention the countless examples of the International Monetary Fund, in their apparent rationalist wisdom, charging unpayable Usury (which the Bible and Christianity in general has serious doubts about, including denouncing as absolutely unethical) to many of the former European colonies, trapping them in cycles of abject poverty as their governments have no money to invest or build the country. The poverty leads to starvation, which leads to desperation which helps create the scenario for violent conflict and war.

It is the root causes, these injustices and others like them, that such a department of peace would address. I see that as a good thing, and do not comprehend whatsoever how this desire is arrogant or overly ambitious. Surely it will not solve all problems, or even a majority of them, but if it can stop some it is far better that not.

Food Freedom

I just added this blog to my RSS feed.

Check it out. The latest post on American agro-business in India is particularly enlightening.

The Event, Badiou and Yoder - or Jesus for or against revolution ?

I remember reading about Alain Badiou's 'ontology of the event' where he grounds the discovery of such ontology in the unique event of the resurrection of Christ. Badiou, who is not a Christian, recognizes somethings radically new in this story, a new ontology. An ontology of 'the event', something unprecedented in history. He theorizes that it is only with this ontology of the event, grounded in it's own unique and bizarre way to the Christian story, that a real revolution can happen.

Today I was reading from "Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution" where Yoder after a brief historical analysis. He narrates the events of history, events as diverse as the Boer War, the French revolution, the decolonization of Latin America, as mainly originating out of aristocracies on the revolutionary side who were able to use the revolutions to set up Apartheid, make way for Napolean and exploit the poor respectively.

I thought it was interesting to compare the two; both trying to do scholarly work but one in support of what might be called the Modern Revolutionary Tradition and the other Christianity (or 'the resurrection tradition' to put it tongue-and-cheek). Both use history and scholarship to support their views, but are both coming from specific traditions.

I wish to throw a bit of Gadamer in here as well: can there be a fusion of horizons here?

re-thinking Christendom

A lot of the intellectual issues I try to deal with our fundamentally about the relationship between the Church, it's theologies and political practice. Recently I have decided to try and work through something that John Milbank poses in an interviewover at the The Other Journal:

"And that means of course, re-think Christendom. But now in more festive, pro-body, yet more interpersonal, less fearing terms and ones celebrating much more excellence and virtue in every realm including those of craft, farming and trade. And having a greater will to the democratization of excellence."

Considering the anti-Christendom strain in my thinking and the traditions I have been apart of (Anabaptist,evangelical,anarchist and missional) this quotation is directly challenging. The political thinking intrinsic to Milbank is that theology has a place in the economic, social and political world beyond the position of prophetic utterance or face-to-face relationship. Examining my thought it seems that the ecclesiology I pertain to puts a monopoly first on the personalist 'face-to-face' and the Anabaptist/liberationist 'prophetic utterance'. For me Milbank has effectively de-stabalized these two monopolies in my mind.

In Missional Church, a book I have mentioned before, Darrell Guder describes the relationship of the church, the people of God, to the reign of God as "the sign,foretaste,instrument and agent of God's rule in Christ" (pg 221). The church is not identical to the reign of God, but is certainly related and the relationship is not easily severed. I will call 'Christendom' a social arrangement which is not identical to the reign of God and neither identical to the Church.

Milbank seems to mention some of the harsher criticisms of the Christendom arrangement including the less festive,anti-body,impersonal,fear-mongering,lack of virtue and lack of respect for the common person as citizen and worker. He is open about the reality that historic Christendom has major flaws but does not abandon the project altogether after the failure of both socialism and liberalism in avoiding both wide-scale genocide,economic injustice and nihilism.

As a member of those various traditions above I would argue about, or more precisely add to, his constructive politics of a re-thought Christendom is a heavy suspicion of power, a rejection of violence, a need to reconcile localism with global technocracy and a recognition of cultural diversities. I would also caution that european imperialism has been an experienced reality of the last five centuries partially out of the failures of the old Christendom.

Re-thinking Chistendom means for me thinking through my cautions and additions to what Milbank is saying. Much of what seems to me to be 'post-Christendom' political theology seems to bubble out of a dialect between an ethical aim (to respond to the other, to have justice) with political suspicion (which comes out of a lived reality of imperialism - such as the Anabaptist persecutions by the state churches in Europe). Yet at the same time in quite clear terms Post-Christendom theology must come to the realization that it is not politically neutral and that even the concept of 'Christendom' is the recognition that our theology will inevitably, if taken to their the logical conclusions, will produce or support some sort of social arrangement which although neither the reign of God nor the Church is something related to the two.

First of all, following Macintyre and also Milbank and 'Theology and Social Theory', we must recover a robust understanding of virtue. But I would caution that this must be 'textured' by the Scriptures and should be more from the Spirit than Aristotle. This means both practice and understanding arising out of the New Testament, especially Paul's epistles. Perhaps love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" can be the virtues of this new order.

Secondly the suspicion of power and rejection of violence must be taken into account, especially as informed by the New Testament. This means both the development of virtues and communities of nonviolence and a communal respect and distrust of power. There are practical ways of exploring this including favouring the local and de-centralized institutions, including economic and politics ones.

Thirdly - learn from De Certeau and Ellul about technology and it's use. Technology is not a bad thing intrinsically but has the potential, as is shown in actual history, to be very alienating. There are ways to use technology to build community, strengthen the local economy and build towards what Illich call 'conviviality'.

Two things in those whole Christendom discussion:

First - it is secondary or ever tertiary. Not in the sense that it does not matter but in the sense that ethics come before politics. What matters primarily is not the setting up of an order but the spiritual flourishing of individuals and the church in the willingness to suffer and love the last,the lost, the least,the widows, the orphans and the enemies.

Secondly we must head Illich's warning "Responsibility is the soft under-belly of power".

Moltmann quotation.

"We however need another theology of liberation for people incapable of living - for melancholic and apathetic and in this sense godforsaken people in the First World" - Jurgen Moltmann

That sums up what I've been trying to say, to write, to express.

The Body, the Eucharist, Sacraments and Symbols

I've mentioned that a lot of what I do read is the movement known as Radical Orthodoxy. What I do severely enjoy about it's corpus of writtings is how they engage with contemporary philosophical,political and cultural issues ranging from the destructive habits of late capitalism to a theology of the body.

It is the theology of the body which challenges me the most. Mainly because their theological account of gender,marriage and sexuality is centred around the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Having listened to their arguments and been somewhat of an observer of the discourse I can say that I do really desire to have the same understanding of the Eucharist as they do simply because from the point they are able to narrate a different world, a 'city of God' so to speak. From that point they are able to talk about Bodies in a meaningful way because they hold a sacramental view of the Eucharist.

So now I'm stuck. I want to engage with a discourse and theology on bodies but now have been forced to really think and pray about what the Eucharist really means.