Cole Jeffrey
Book Review
Graham Hammill and Julia Reinhard Lupton, eds. Political Theology and Early Modernity. University of Chicago Press
(Chicago, 2012), 352pp. ISBN: 9780226314983. $29.00 (USD).
1> Political theology is not
the same as religion, and it’s not the same as politics. Graham Hammill and
Julia Reinhard Lupton want to make that clear in their introduction to Political Theology and Early Modernity.
According to them, political theology is not an “alliance” between religious
and secular institutions, but a “contest” that begins when the two become
entangled in the political sphere (2). The cause of this entanglement is the
mutual failure of sacred and secular narratives to meet society’s needs. When
religion ceases to be the dominant authority, secular government is its logical
replacement. If secular government struggles to replace religion, however, this
causes the two to become entangled. In this state, the sacred and the secular
continue to challenge one another, but each must also account for its own
failures and limitations. Hammill and Lupton refer to political theology as a
“knot” that binds conflicting “religious and secularizing impulses” together
(3), and they explain that this knot was first tied in Europe after the
Reformation. When the two were bound together, they argue, it produced a series
of conflicts that defined the early modern era as we know it.
2> Though it may seem that
politics and theology somehow disentangled themselves during the transition
from early modernity, Hammill and Lupton argue the knot still holds fast.
Modernity merely “redefines and rebinds politics and theology,” they write, “in
an attempt to manage its deepest tendencies towards chaos and dissolution” (3).
In this book, Hammill, Lupton, and
twelve other contributing scholars examine this rebinding in order to determine
if the knot should be untied and, if
so, how that work might be
accomplished. Readers hoping for consensus on this issue will have to look
elsewhere: while some voices in Political
Theology and Early Modernity call for a renewed effort to secularize
politics, others find salutary elements in theology that complement the
political process. Developing a single argument, Hammill and Lupton explain, is
not the goal of this book. Its goal is simply to “think through the problems
and promises associated with political theology” (9).
3> The primary problem that
dominates this book is sovereignty. If God’s relationship to his creation or
the Pope’s relationship to the Church are models of the sovereign’s
relationship to the state, as the German philosopher Carl Schmitt argued, then
the sovereign is exempt from the law; he or she can transgress or suspend the
law at will. In the first section of Political
Theology and Early Modernity (“Modern Destinations”), Victoria Kahn, Adam
Sitze, Carlo Galli, Jennifer Rust, Kathleen Biddick, Paul A. Kottman, and Jane
A. Newman join Hammill in challenging Schmitt’s notion that despotism is
justified by theological concepts implicit in political theory. Though they approach
this task from a variety of perspectives, they each hope to “recapture the
democratic process” envisioned by early modern and Enlightenment-era thinkers
(3).
4> In the inaugural essay,
“Political Theology and Liberal Culture,”
Victoria Kahn argues that critiques of Schmitt’s politics often make the
Enlightenment view of culture untenable because they elevate philosophy over
culture. Through Benedict Spinoza, Kahn attempts to demonstrate that culture is
not a byproduct of politico-theological debate; culture actually produces
politics and religion. By foregrounding culture in our critiques of political
theology, she claims, we can reaffirm the Enlightenment’s investment in
liberalism and culture.
5> Andrew Sitze and Carlo
Galli follow Kahn’s essay. Each scholar analyzes Schmitt’s Hamlet or Hecuba, the philosopher’s foray into literary criticism.
While some view Hamlet as one of
Schmitt’s minor works, both Sitze and Galli link it to his most important
political work, Nomos of the Earth.
While Schmitt argues in Nomos that
modern politics needs to borrow concepts from theology in order to function, in
Hamlet, Sitze and Galli argue, he
confronts how those concepts also create chaos and anxiety in the political
system.
6> In his own essay,
“Blumenberg and Schmitt on the Rhetoric of Political Theology,” Hammill
compares Schmitt and Hans Blumenberg’s conflicting interpretations of Thomas
Hobbes. While Schmitt invokes Hobbes’ theory of “confession” to demonstrate how
theological concepts are first secularized and then transferred to politics,
Blumenberg views those concepts as metaphors that can be invented and discarded
at will. Blumenberg’s rhetorical approach to politics, Hammill suggests, allows
us to escape Schmitt’s notion that politics depends on a vocabulary established
by religion.
7> In “Political Theologies of
the Corpus Mysticum,” Jennifer Rust
evaluates Ernest Kantorowicz’s appropriation of Henri de Lubac’s work on the
Eucharist. She explains that while Schmitt emphasized the vertical relationship
in the Eucharist to elevate an individual authority over a community,
Kantorowicz emphasizes horizontal relationships to establish collective
authority. Though she disagrees with Schmitt’s authoritarianism, she criticizes
Kantorowicz for treating the mystical as nothing more than fiction. By doing
so, she argues, he perpetuates a modern dualism that de Lubac intended to
challenge.
8> Kathleen Biddick’s essay
“Dead Neighbor Archives” argues the current relationship between politics and
theology promotes violence and intolerance. She attributes this to anti-Semitic
and anti-Muslim typologies that became embedded in Christianity after Peter the
Venerable’s campaign against Jews and Muslims in the twelfth century. She
traces how this typology found its way into the material culture of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and argues that it still exerts an
influence on us today.
9> In his essay “Novus Ordo
Saeclorum,” Paul A. Kottman explores Hannah Arendt’s meditation on
revolutionary spirit. Like Arendt, Kottman is interested in how Enlightenment
thinkers remembered early modernity. He argues that the revolutionary spirit
that guided those thinkers did not reflect a desire to break with the old, but
rather a desire to remember a previous vision of freedom.
10> Jane A. Newman’s “Force
and Justice,” the final essay in this section, explores how Blaise Pascal
inspired Erich Auerbach’s view of the intellectual as a political activist.
Newman argues that Auerbach was not just interested in how secular forces
inspire the intellectual to social activism and political resistance; his study
of Pascal caused him to accept religious influences on the intellectual as
well.
11> In “Scenes of Early
Modernity,” the second section of this book, Lupton, Jacques Lezra, Drew
Daniel, Gregory Kneidel, and Jonathan Goldberg shift the focus from political
theorists to dramatists, poets, and artists. In his essay “The Instance of the
Sovereign in the Unconscious,” Jacques Lezra approaches Friedrich Schiller’s
play Don Carlos from a psychoanalytic
perspective to demonstrate how the play reveals the Enlightenment’s failed
effort to secularize its early modern influences.
12> In “Staging the Sovereign
Softscape,” Lupton argues that approaches to political theology should be
multidimensional: they should not limit themselves to analyzing the sovereign.
Lupton’s own approach focuses on courtly decorations. She analyzes several
religious tapestries by Raphael that were displayed in various courts during
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The content and reception of these
tapestries, she argues, reveals a complex attempt to resolve the relationship
between the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter in an age when they were
regarded as symbols of mutually exclusive religious and political institutions.
13> Moving from tapestries to
marriage, Drew Daniel’s essay “Striking the French Match” begins with the
historical irony that the French philosopher Jean Bodin, who argued no
sovereign could marry without diminishing his or her power, was commissioned to
facilitate a marriage between Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Alençon. When
Elizabeth publicly rejected her French suitor, Daniel argues, she conformed to
Bodin’s theory of sovereignty, a theory that would influence Schmitt centuries
later. However, as Daniel observes, her private writings provide us with a
nuanced view of the personal cost of being a Schmittian sovereign.
14> In “Giving Up the Ghost,”
Gregory Kneidel considers the significance of viewing the Bible’s two divisions
as “testaments” instead of “covenants.” Kneidel argues that by viewing the
Bible as two testaments, early modern interpreters associated it with Roman
testate law. This association rendered the Bible as a legal document, and it
raised the difficult question of which testament or “will” should be preferred.
This issue permeates early modern discourse, as Kneidel tries to demonstrate by
examining the poetry of John Donne.
15> In his essay “Samson
Uncircumcised,” Jonathan Goldberg analyzes the symbol of circumcision in John
Milton’s Samson Agonistes to show how
violence and eroticism are conflated in religious imagery. Goldberg
demonstrates there is an erotic dimension to political theology that must be
considered if we wish to account for terroristic violence. Studying Milton’s
radical politics, he suggests, will allow us to understand how erotic fantasies
function in political theology.
16> The section concludes with
“The Idea of ‘New Enlightenment’ [Nouvelles
Lumières] and the Contradictions of Universalism,” a postscript by Étienne
Balibar. He argues the Enlightenment should not be treated as a historical
tradition, but as a current problem still being resolved. Balibar notes that
though the Enlightenment vision of universal freedom, tolerance, and progress
has not been fulfilled, neither has it been thoroughly suppressed by rival
visions. These visions continue to conflict with one another. As a result,
Balibar argues, the Enlightenment vision must reform itself to address its
current situation.
17> The diversity of scholarly
approaches to political theology in this book is its greatest strength. Political Theology and Early Modernity
explores not only the major writings of political theorists and philosophers
but sources as eclectic as Hamlet,
holy sonnets, chess automatons, circumcision, and tapestries. Readers will thus
find a variety of vantage points from which to reflect on political
theology—historical, judicial, rhetorical, mystical, literary, artisanal, etc.
18> The weakness of this book,
however, is that as diverse as these approaches are, most of them are
preoccupied with refuting Schmitt’s political theology. Hammill and Lupton
state that political theology involves the use of sacred material to
“establish, legitimate, and reflect upon the sovereignty of monarchs,
corporations, and parliaments” (1). The book is heavy on monarchism, though,
and light on corporations and parliaments. The contributing scholars stress the
current nature of the
political-theological entanglement, but most of them do not address what seem
to me to be the most contemporary manifestations of that problem (for Americans
readers, at least). The War on Terror, fundamentalism in politics, same-sex
unions, creationism in the classroom, religious appeals during election
year—none of these issues are glossed by the authors of Political Theology and Early Modernity. The Schmittian view of
sovereignty is undoubtedly a central issue in political theology, but the
authors’ approach makes the book decidedly Eurocentric in its focus on the monarchical
institution. Readers looking for a more in-depth study of contemporary
political theology might begin with Philosophy
and Social Hope by Richard Rorty or The
Fragile Absolute by Slavoj Zizek. While Rorty argued that contemporary
society must complete the Enlightenment goal of freeing humanity from its
dependence on theological explanations of reality, Zizek tries to reconcile
Marxism and Christianity to further the cause of social liberation. These
scholars approach the conflict between the sacred and the secular from
radically different perspectives, but they both address current problems in the
political sphere that are ignored or barely examined by the contributing
scholars in Political Theology.
_____
Cole Jeffrey is a
doctoral student at the University of North Texas, where he studies early
modern English literature. Cole’s interests include aesthetics, literary
criticism, theology, and film. He is currently researching how Calvinism
influenced early modern aesthetics.
_____
APPOSITIONS:
Studies in Renaissance / Early Modern Literature and Culture, http://appositions.blogspot.com/, ISSN: 1946-1992, Volume Six (2013): Editions & Editing
No comments:
Post a Comment