Week 5: “Sheroes and Villains” -Mama (Castle)

In her discussion on the systemic victimization and subjugation of women in both the countries of the colonized and colonizer, Mama, brings up an interesting point on the nature of feminist critique within Western culture. Stating that much of the work of feminism has been done by militant feminists who have completely ignored the effects of race and its impact on patriarchy. This ignorance has resulted in a homogenized view of liberation in which all women look the same, with the same issues and struggles against a monolithic male aggressor, and has completely ignored the persistent effects of race on the struggle of minority women both in the West as well as the 2/3rds world. For feminism to continue to push the boundaries of both patriarchy and liberation a re-focusing of thought is necessary, and within this re-focusing a widening of lenses is necessary to avoid complete marginalization and a loss of voice on the part of militant feminists.

Week 5: “Afro-Pop and the Paradoxes of Imperialism” -Lazarus (Castle)

Lazarus’ nuanced and somewhat confusing discussion on the hybridity of “world” music and its subsequent effect on the minds of Western consumers was an interesting discussion. In my opinion the most interesting aspect of his discussion was on the critiques of “critical Afropop” by Western purists, citing the author Gehr as a key example stating that in his desire to see a “purist” form of Afropop/World music what Gehr is really advocating is a return to a simplier and more exoticized world music. Instead of allowing current hybridity, change, and fluidity among world music (and in this hybridity allow it to speak against dogmatic claims for pure forms) to speak against colonialism and imperialism through its inablitity to be pigeonholed into one particular genre.

Week 5: “African Identities” -Appiah (Castle)

In his article on the creation of Identity among Africans both continentally and diasporically, Appiah, brings up a strong critique on the use of “race” as a homogenizing force. Stating that something much stronger than race must serve as the key identifying concept in the creation of an “African Identity”, claiming that the use of race, whether or not it actually exists, as a identity is allowing the former colonizer to continue to control and confine by separating the voices that could unify to speak against current hegemony. This is an interesting point, because to define oneself as African-American, African, Black, American, is to segregate oneself from others, but to allow oneself to be more fluid in cultural identification is to, according to Appiah, allow for a common dissenting voice to emerge against the “status quo”.

Week 5: Monday

In today’s class we spent time discussing the nationalist identity, what discourses make up this identity, and how this identity shapes the thoughts and actions of individuals as well as an entire country. The most interesting aspedct of today’s class was the discussion of how Church can serve as cultural critic, but still remain rooted in the culture in which it is located. In my own opinion a Church must find a middle ground in critique, because to either become rooted in dominant culture and hegemony, or to become completely oppositional in its stance towards dominant culture marginalization of the Church occurrs. Because to completely allign itself with one mission, political ideal, or cultural stance the Church loses the ability to have a dissenting voice that can not only critique an oppositional voice, but that can critique its own voice. Accountability in social critique is the only grounding method available to us.

Week 5: “The Implications of the Text of Esther” -Mosala (Sugirtharajah)

In this piece on reading the Old Testament text of Esther in light of a “theology of liberation”, especially in the case of the black women’s liberation movement in South Africa, a common theme is apparent. One of taking current socio-cultural, socio-ideological ideals and motivaations to the canon and reading far too much into the text itself. In doing this the bible has not only been used to justify and abolish slavery, but has also been a key text for a number of movements, commonly arguing against one another with the same text. The question that is brought up in a reading of this piece is, what can’t we make the Bible say? Is there a “true” reading of the biblical text, or can its ambigious nature continue to be hijacked by anyone with an agenda? It is in my opinion, seeing as this is my blog, that when the text is pulled away from its original context and used as a proof text of sorts to support a plethora of current issues (most of which have not been around for over 100 years) its true meaning and character become lost…and in effect, its ability to have an identity. To capture the text, as well as to allow it to speak for us, is to become enmeshed not only in what it means to us here, today, but also what it meant to and for those for whom it was written. It is only in this understanding that we can have an anchor in a sea of ambiguousness and interpolation.

Week 5: “Desiring War” -Runions (Sugirtharajah)

In his piece on the motivations and apocalyptic overtones in the rhetoric and ideals of current American leadership and diplomacy, Runions, points out that the commodification and idealization of “freedom” is one of, if not the motivating factor, behind the triumphalist doctrine of American diplomacy. This idea is interesting when thinking about missional engagement by Western Christianity with the 2/3rds World. How are we as Church defining terms such as “relief”, “liberty”, “gospel”, and even “freedom”? Are these terms and actions motivated out of our love of and desire for an egalitarian humanity, or are they enmeshed with the greater desires of Empire and triumphalism? This critique by Runions has greater implications for the analyzation of our activities and actions outside the West. Are we presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ, or the gospel of democracy or free-market capitalism? Is our gospel presentation merely an economic exchange, or an authentic desire of the furtherance of Kingdom ideals? These are questions that must be grappled with by the Church of the future.

Week 5: “The Church in the context of the Kingdom” Fuellenbach

In his chapter on the interpretation of the church in light of the Kingdom of God, Fuellenbach presents two alternative views to the Church’s role within the context of Kingdom. The first of these roles is the Church AS the Kingdom of God, and the only sphere in which His Kingdom values are enacted, as well as the only avenue to experience THE Kingdom. The alternative to this view is the idea of the Church as A MAJOR ASPECT of Kingdom, and the avenue in which God reveals his purposes and plans most directly, but is not the ONLY avenue to experience Kingdom Values. The most clear and direct interpretation, in my opinion, was the one that the Catholic Church has eventually come to, in certain respects, and I think reflects the already/not quite language of Christ. It does so in the idea that the Church is a key aspect and representation of the Kingdom and to marginalize its position in God’s economy is contrary to the message of the New Testament, but to posit the Church as Kingdom creates a discourse almost entirely hegemonic and triumphalistic…a middle ground, of sorts, is needed in this debate.

Week 4: Comment on Terry Mak’s Blog

In his blog Terry comments that in Berquist’s piece on Postcolonialism and Imperial Motives for Canonization, the main reasoning behind Jewish support for imperial friendly canonized texts is their desire to make sense of and place their current situation within a larger framework of the movement of God. I would strongly agree with this idea, I think that Berquist’s ideas on the role of Canon as continued subjugation is probably reading far too much into the writers of Jewish canon. I think a stronger and more consistent reading of Ancient Near-Eastern texts within Jewish canon is to place them in the larger framework of their beliefs in God, his covenant with them, and their position in society. To assume that Jewish writers were influenced mostly by the current Empire they were under is ignoring the fact that as the chosen people of Yahweh there is going to be a necessity to make sense of their current position, outside the influence of Empire. It is of the utmost importance to place any rule with which the Jews find themselves as God-allowed (ordained is too strong of a word) because for them to believe that things can ocurr outside the sphere of God’s control is to contradict thousands of years of Jewish history.

Week 4: Wednesday

The most interesting aspect of today’s class was the discussion of hegemony and how it is able to retain a place of prominance within culture, but oftentimes unbeknowst even to those who are reaping the benefits of its presence. This is both a dangerous and necessary topic of discussion as we begin to analyze both the church’s workings in the West and outside the West. What ideas are latent within our thinking, protocol, actions, ideas? How are these hegemonic ideals shaping our interactions with the “other” both here and abroad? It is necessary to begin this discussion, but with an eye on future and present engagement, rather than academic self-aggrandizement. Which, I suppose, is a constant struggle.

Week 4: “Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” -Achebe (Castle)

In his clear and concise piece on the prevalance of racist overtones in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Achebe, brings up a sharp critique of Western racist ideologies that continue to propogated through a vaccum known authoritatively as “art”. In this critique Achebe, accurately I might add, brings up the avoidance of Conradian scholars to discuss the clear racist and divisive language throughout Heart of Darkness, dismissing it instead as a work on the deconstruction of the European mind, in which Africa is merely the setting. His most critical tone is saved for his discussion of how Heart of Darkness, as a clear racist diatribe, can still be today considered by most scholars as one of the greatest works of short literature. Achebe does not attack the eloquence or the ability of Conrad, but instead focuses his attack on what can be considered art, remarking that “one can not be a poet and a slave trader”. In doing so Achebe gets at the heart of what many scholars today overlook, the use of clearly backwards and racist literature as artistic canon, and because of the “context” or “time-frame” they continue to be upheld in academia and in society in general. The danger of this of course is that they also continue to mold, shape, and develop racist ideology in generations to come, rather than serving as authentic “art”, which according to Achebe, is a document or piece of freedom and liberation.