I'll take mine with a side of teleology, thank you.
Yesterday, I was reading an essay for one of my classes that was dealing with the issue of time in historical sociology. The author was addressing three uses of temporality in sociological explanation, one of which was teleological temporality whereby causes are explained in light of some end goal or overarching "system" etc. Kind of hard for me to articulate exactly the way teleology is used in sociological explanation in any short manner in this post. So, onto the meat of the issue. This author was objecting to teleological explanations in historical sociology on the grounds that they are usually determinate and cannot account for the contingencies of human behavior and human society. Fair enough. I agree. But, where I struggle is with the outright rejection of teleology as a valid interpretive framework. I was reading this article and I kept asking myself "what's wrong with teleology?" Finally it dawned on me that the reason I can't outright reject a teleological orientation to the world is that, as a Christian, my worldview is fundamentally teleological. I live my life in the framework of a redemption narrative through which I organize and understand my experience in this world.
An example.
While in Uganda, we visited an IDP (internally displaced persons) camp that housed hundred of people who had been driven from their homes because of rebel violence. Some of these people lived in a camp for the majority of their lives, and most of the children we met had been born into the camp.
Call it the opiate of the masses, but I couldn't help but understand these sights and smells and horrors in any way other than signs of a broken and sinful world and I couldn't cope with this reality outside of the knowledge that someday Christ will come to redeem all of creation.
This is a teleology and it's the one through which I live my life. Because my life is so enmeshed in a narrative of sin, restoration, and redemption, I cannot reject teleology outright. I can get on board with the fact that sometimes teleological explanations are wrong, inappropriate or not useful. But, it occurred to me that my question - "what's wrong with teleology" - is rooted in the fact that the Christian life is inherently a teleological one. And, I think that personally, I'm okay with that. I'll avoid teleology as a sociologist, and I probably should. But, as a human being, living, breathing, engaging my world, I'll keep my redemption narrative. Otherwise, I can't deal with this:
Does that make me Marx's attestation?
4 comments:
Sure, Christianity provides a framework to understand things, but there are two reasons why you don't fix Marx's assessment:
1.) Christianity, practiced properly, is not "religion" in the sense he meant -- it is not JUST religion. It's more than an interpretive framework - it's an interpretive framework that's true, and is more than a drug to calm our anxieties. It's a framework, but we believe it's the one true framework, so there's no getting around that.
2.) Shoot, I don't remember the second reason.
I don't know that I have a great grasp on what "teleology" means. I know the definition, but I don't understand how it's applied, especially in sociology, so I can't say much more, but you seem to imply that a "teleological view" of the world implies a framework that makes sense of things - a "worldview", if we must use the term. To cite an off beaten dead horse, is it really possible to live without such a framework, and then is it really possible to live without a "teleology"?
It seems like there wouldn't be, for the framework that "there are no consistent frameworks" is in and of itself a framework.
I think it's pretty safe for us to say now that Marx, while not an idiot, was very wrong about a lot of things. So even if you are "Marx's attestation", that's not necessarily the bad thing he thought it was.
Teleology (telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature or human creations.
I still don't know what this means.
I wish someone would talk to me like I am a fifth grader.
So here is the deal with teleology as typically understood: it is generally flawed as an approach to the world because it assumes an end point (usually a chronological end point) and then interprets historical movement (or contemporary happenings) in light of that assumed end. Two perfect examples are Marxism and certain types of Christianity. A Marxist may observe the collapse of the steel industry in Britain and interpret it as a step towards and a proof of the eventual dictatorship of the proletariat. A Christian might observe pandemic bird flu and interpret it as part of and a sign of the unfolding of “the end times.”
The problem is that history is a really contingent thing and almost nothing necessarily leads to anything else. So to posit the end as definite and the path as – by definition – leading to that end makes for an improvable system. No evidence could be marshaled to the contrary and all evidence could be seen as in favor of an arbitrary, predetermined end. This in practice almost always leads to a certain “massaging” of facts to make current or historical events “fit.”
Now, I think a far more prudent teleology is what I would call a “weak teleology.” This would be something like the above definition, although it would allow for contingency. Not all – or even most – events in history have direct or meaningful implications for some end that we hold to be true. Nonetheless, the engine – those things that lie behind discrete happenings – may be taking us towards that end.
With regard to Christian theology, for instance, almost no event I can think of would indicate that “the end times” are upon us. Yet, as an orthodox Christian, I accept that history as I know it eventuates in the coming of Christ. And, in a general way, I see what lies behind particular events - the dynamic of sin as a condition of the world and the grace that militates against it – as leading us toward that end. But no event or series of events would indicate to me that they have some necessary connection to or bearing on that eventuality.
Treating discrete, particular happenings as evidence for or a sign of some preconceived end is bad philosophy, bad science, and bad faith. Recognizing the contingency of events is precisely what gives them meaning and gives the human actors involved in them significance. Yet, abandoning the view that what is behind those discrete, particular happenings is leading to some eventuation robs that very meaning and significance also. And that tension – between plotted course and futureless meandering – could be called “weak teleology.”
So, I guess to address what you wrote specifically Mair, I would argue that suffering, joy, redemption, struggle, etc. are futile human experiences if they aren't in some way leading somewhere. Or, rather, as I said above, what lies behind there is taking us somewhere.
I think the reason teleology has been rejected by and large is because proponents of it have been really irresponsible with it. Determine lines of thinking don't get us anywhere and don't help us understand anything very well.
I think what I suggested was an attempt to hold those things in tension, because, for me, without end and without contingency, we really don't have meaning and we really can't make meaning out of IDP camps and the like.
Post a Comment