scholarly journals Human rationality in Vito Mancuso’s liberal Catholic theology augmenting the notions of Van Huyssteen’s ‘postfoundational transversality’ and McGrath’s ‘rational consilience’

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Buitendag ◽  
Corneliu C. Simut

The cue for this article is human rationality being the cornerstone in Wentzel van Huyssteen’s thinking, and Alister McGrath’s scepsis about the feasibility of a postfoundational transversality in particular. This article does not intend to juxtapose Van Huyssteen’s postfoundational rationality to McGrath’s enterprise of a ‘rational consilience’ but contends that a transversal approach to rationality engages social ramifications as well. Subsequently, a liberal Catholic theologian’s take on rationality is presented here as such an offering from the social sciences contributes to a bricolage of unintegrated pieces of knowledge and discernments emerging from various disciplinary or social viewpoints on reality. Vito Mancuso continues to focus on human rationality which, in his view, provides humanity with the hope of eternal life or life from the perspective of eternity. Such a conviction is in line with his horizontal understanding of human rationality, in addition to the human being’s first challenge to understanding reality.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The reason d’être of this article is to call for a discussion partner to the notion of human rationality from the social sciences (indicated as one of the neglected fields in the theology and science discourse). Vito Mancuso, for one, brings the pragmatic and transformative (even revolutionary) dimension to the table. A transversal approach to rationality must integrate such social practices as well.

Author(s):  
Rubens Ramón Méndez

Cuando el Trabajo Social comenzó a sistematizarse y a organizarse a partir de Mary Richmond, se proponía como un programa de investigación distinto dentro de las Ciencias Sociales (Lakatos, 1999). Distinto porque toma los planteos teóricos dados en las Ciencias Sociales desde �las circunstancias históricamente determinadas y existencialmente posicionadas; creando nuevas perspectivas sobre esos planteos teóricos� (Méndez, 2006) y porque con su práctica profesional, evalúa y muestra el problema de las consecuencias efectivas y potenciales de la utilización de los conocimientos (Dewey, 1967) en la construcción de las prácticas sociales (discursivas o no discursivas).Presentar la emergencia de un discurso propio de las personas y documentar lo real de las prácticas sociales, mostrar cómo es que a algunos enunciados que no son en sí mismos ni verdaderos ni falsos, se les otorgan el �estatuto de verdad�; es lo que hace que el Trabajo Social deba ser vigilado y desarmado en sus efectos.Si el discurso no es el medio por lo que se establecen las luchas en esta sociedad de discursos; sino que es por el discurso, por lo que se lucha. Si el discurso es �aquel poder del que quiere uno adueñarse� (Foucault, 1983), las Ciencias Sociales no podían dejar al azar el discurso del Trabajo Social.When Social Work became systematized and organized after Mary Richmond, it was described as a different research program within the social sciences (Lakatos, 1999). It was different because it considered the theoretical propositions in the social sciences from �historically determined and existentially positioned circumstances, thereby creating new perspectives on those theoretical propositions� (Méndez, 2006) and because through professional practice Social Work assesses and highlights the problem of the real and potential consequences of the use of knowledge in the construction of social practices (Dewey, 1967), whether discursive or non-discursive.As Social Work presents the emergence of people�s own discourse and documents the reality of social practices while it also presents statements which are neither true nor false as necessary truths, Social Work should be watched and disarmed in its consequences.Discourse is not the means through which fights are established in our discourse society; it is discourse that is fought about. If discourse is �that power we wish to get hold of� (Foucault, 1983), then the social sciences should not ignore the discourse of Social Work.


Author(s):  
Jens Brockmeier

This chapter is concerned with changes in the understanding of remembering and forgetting. It pays particular attention to the emergence of alternative visions that challenge the traditional archival model of memory and offers new ways to conceive of mnemonic practices as cultural practices. Starting with a discussion of archival models in contemporary scientific memory research, it then examines new models of memory that aim to capture what archival models tend to ignore: the social, societal, and cultural dynamic of human remembering. In this way, the focus shifts to postarchival memory models that have emerged in clinical disciplines, the social sciences, and the humanities. The chapter concludes by discussing one approach to remembering and forgetting that conceives of them as inherently social practices—as practices that, it is suggested, should be understood after the model of conversation rather than the archival model of individual retrieval.


Author(s):  
Jan Hoogland

The concept of social practices has received growing attention in interpretative social sciences. This concept is based on a long tradition of hermeneutical, interpretative, action-theoretical, pragmatist, and phenomenological theories in the social sciences, starting with Weber's famous definition of social action. In this chapter, some crucial stepping stones of this tradition are highlighted. In the line of these theories, a new approach of normative practices will be introduced, partially based on core philosophical insights of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. Central features of this approach are 1) the multi-layered, intrinsically normative structure of social practices (constitutive side) and 2) the importance of regulative convictions, ideals, and attitudes leading the disclosure and development of those practices (regulative side).


Open Theology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 531-546
Author(s):  
Vivencio O. Ballano

AbstractApplying sociological imagination and theological perspectives and using some secondary literature that focus on the American pastoral experience, this article explains why sociology and the social sciences are underutilized in the pastoral ministry of Catholic priests despite the Catholic Church’s openness to human sciences’ contributions to evangelization after the Second Vatican Council. In particular, it examines how the (i) uneasy alliance between Catholic theology and sociology, (ii) overemphasis on the invisible and theological dimension of the Church in current ecclesiologies, (iii) highly philosophical and theological clerical education which sidelines the empirical sciences in clerical pastoral work, and (iv) dominance of the individualist approaches of clinical psychology in pastoral theology have greatly contributed to the neglect of sociological inquiries and perspectives in clerical formation and pastoral ministry. It also argues that a genuine pastoral care must be based on a holistic and empirical assessment of the pastoral needs of parishioners by priests using sociology and the social sciences before it prescribes a plan of action for pastoral care to accurately inculturate the Christian message in today’s technological culture.


1995 ◽  
Vol 43 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 45-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Urry

It is argued that how societies remember the past should be a key element of social theory. The social sciences should direct attention to time, tradition, and memory. Some implications of developing such notions for heritage are examined. In particular, it is suggested that the implications of heritage are ambiguous and contradictory, especially in the light of arguments about ‘travelling cultures’ and ‘detraditionalization.’ The social practices involved in ‘reminiscence’ are briefly elaborated.


2000 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reiner Grundmann ◽  
Nico Stehr

The elimination of nature from social science discourse is one of the most noteworthy features of the intellectual history of the social sciences of this century. Proposals to overcome the prohibition to (re-)introduce nature into the social sciences are on the increase, and practical and theoretical justifications are offered in support of them. In this article we critically examine several sociological approaches that have attempted to respond to the ecological crisis. In the end, these approaches remain overly tied to questions of epistemology and fail to offer a satisfactory alternative. On the basis of a discussion of theories and research in the sociology of science and work on decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, we propose to develop an alternative basis for “bringing nature” into social science discourse. We explore extreme climate events to illustrate how natural phenomena appear as real, yet at the same time constructed.


Author(s):  
Geir Afdal

Social space has received increased interest in the social sciences and in study of religion. Studies of religion frequently use theorists like Lefebvre, Harvey, Foucault, de Certeau and Massey. Schatzki’s theory of ‘timespace activity’ has received attention in the social sciences, less so in research on religion. This article gives an interpretation of timespace activity and discusses possible implications for the understanding of religion. Schatzki understands time and space as interwoven with social practices or activities. This means that social practices are not only the ‘doing-mode’ of society and religion, but a social ontology that understands the social as nexuses of social and material practices. Social practices are stretched out in time and space, and simultaneously, social practices do or produce time and space. Schatzki understands time and space not as separate and relating, but as intertwined. This interwoven character is expressed in the concept ‘timespace activity’. Furthermore, timespace activity has a teleoaffective structure. Practices and actors have drives towards something that is emotionally valuable. The paper argues that timespace activity can contribute to the understanding of religion, in the sense that religion is fundamentally everyday, impure practices, often in nexuses with numerous other practices. On this account religion is not practiced, religion is practice. Religion as practice produce timespaces and realities and affective drives which constitute the active positioning and negotiation of the participating actors.


Horizons ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-99
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Casey

AbstractAs theologians are increasingly employing the social sciences in their work, it is incumbent upon them to examine the way the term religion is employed in these disciplines. This paper explains the common types of definition employed (the substantive and functional varieties) and critiques each from the perspective of contemporary theology. Both are found deficient in ways highly significant for theologians. This paper argues that it is inappropriate to attempt to establish any single definition of religion as normative. While the posture adopted appears to lay to rest any attempt to generate “grand theory” about religion it is not inconsistent with the canons of science as understood in current philosophy of science discourse.


Author(s):  
Аsаlhаn O. Boronoev ◽  
◽  
Valeriy Kh. Thakahov ◽  

The article examines the concept of space of places — a theoretical framework in social sciences and the humanities for analyzing phenomenon of places and social practices used to produce and reproduce it. The purpose of the presented research consists of the following: 1) to reveal the main theoretical and methodological approaches to the construction of the concept of space of places; 2) present an interdisciplinary concept for describing and explaining the social foundations of the space of places; 3) describe the significant social practices of the reproduction of the space of places and socio-cultural integration. The article shows that key approaches to studying space of places are represented by quite different research perspectives such as neo-Marxism (H.Lefebvre, M.Castells), phenomenology (A. Schutz, G.Bachelard), P.Nora’s theory of places of memory and A.Assman’s theory of cultural memory and identity, M.Augé’s anthropology of non-places and humanist geography (Y.-F.Tuan, Ed. Relph, T.Cresswell, D. Seamon). The article discusses the social, intellectual, ontological and epistemological bases of the concept of space of places. In a narrow sense, the unifying thesis of the research strategies is centered around the assumption of the corpus of ideas built upon the assertion that place matters. Broadly defined, the space of places is one of the fundamental foundations of the living world of individuals and groups. Space of places includes the world of everyday life (the perceived) and the world of symbolic life (the experienced). These living worlds comprise spatial practice and spaces of representation (following Henri Lefebvre’s logic). Abstract space, a prevailing form of the era of neo-liberal capitalism, opposes them and imposes its own models and production / consumption logics. Hence, a value-based contradiction between two kinds of space arises. Space of places is a historically grounded way of organizing our common experience. It is a world of meanings and cultural codes united by history and identity (following the logic of Manuel Castells). The article analyzes in detail the phenomenological tradition of place; the relationship between place, memory and identity; the theoretical contribution of humanist geography to the concept of space of places.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document