Speculative Realism and Public Theology - John Reader

7/24/2019 Speculative Realism and Public Theology - John Reader

1/12

[PT13.2 (2012) 156-166] Political Theology(print) ISSN 1462-317Xdoi:10.1558/poth.vl3i2.156 Political Theology (online) ISSN 1473-1719

S p e c u la t iv e R e a lism a n d P u b lic T h e o lo g y : E x p lo r a t io n s

John Reader1

Department of Theology and Religious Studies

University o f Chester, Parkgate Road

Chester CHI 4BJ, UK

[email protected]

A b s t r a c t

The paper argues that ideas emanating from the speculative realists can

inform a new approach to public theology, one that is broadly consistent

with Christian realism and opposed to that o f radical orthodoxy. Linking the

two disciplines through an exploration of the ethical consequences of spec-

ulative realism, it takes in particular the work of Latour, his concept o f the

gathering, his distinction between matters of fact and matters of concern,and his questioning of the fact-value distinction, and through a lived exam-

pie shows how the language of human and non-human offers a critique of

reductionist approaches to the political.

Keywords: Christian realism; Latour; public theology; radical orthodoxy;

speculative realism.

Things have to be gathered again (Latour)

Introduction

Can the world exist without us (or without our knowledge of it)? Can we

exist without the world? Two brutal questions, the answers to which will

shape our understanding o f the relatednessor gatheringof hum an and

non-hum an life and indeed our ethical (and religious) responses to the

practical issues that we face. For instance, when notions such as the effi-

cient markets hypothesis and homo economicus as a rational utility max-

imizing individual, shape economic and political responses to the global
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

157Reader Speculative Realism and Public Theology

financial crisis, some of us would want to argue that these are inadequate

and reductionist interpretations of the gatherings of human and non-

human and that what is needed is a new language to better describe theway things are. My instinct is that some of the new language flowing

from the work o f speculative realists and their allies might just provide a

more adequate gathering of those things.

So where does public theology currently stand in this debate?

One could argue that UK public theology has followed five main

routes over the last 25 years: that influenced by liberation theology until

it fell out of fashion; the Roman Catholic natural law and common good

tradition; Christian realism as represented by the Manchester tradition of

Ronald Preston, John Atherton, and recently Chris Baker, Elaine Grahamand John Reader; the radical orthodoxy of John Milbank, Graham Ward

and other offshoots, sometimes related to the Christian communitarian-

ism of Stanley Hauerwas, Luke Bretherton and Sam Wells; a more consis-

tent postmodern approach taking on board the linguistic turn drawing on

philosophers such as Richard Rorty.

Is there now though the possibility of a further approach building upon

the writings of speculative realism, identified with the works of Quen-

tin Meillasoux, Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton-Grant and Graham Harman,each in their different ways rejecting the correlationism between the

human and non-human which has dominated Continental philosophy

and which has lent itself to theological appropriations (see Bryant, Srnicek

and Harman 2011, downloadable as an open access text, notably chapter 1

which introduces the development and key ideas).

Possible areas to be explored are:

W hether a realist philosophy coheres with the realism o f public theol-

8y-How a greater respect for the autonomy of non-theological disciplines

contributes to a more effective public engagement with political and eco-

nomic issues.

Whether the thinkers now emerging, such as Manuel DeLanda and

Bruno Latour, provide helpful tools for social analysis.

What can be learnt from speculative realism and its engagement with

philosophy o f religion about the nature of the postsecular.

Ethical Implications o f Speculative Realism

My suggestion is that trying to work out the ethical implications of specu-


3/12

Political Theology158

Draw ing then on H arm ans wo rk on an object-oriented philoso-

phy in Towards Speculative Realism(2010), one can further establish the

argument for an independent external reality unrelated in any intrin-sic way to human consciousness and take the position that there is no

relationship and no encounter between humans or between humans

and the non-hum an. Hence the independent reality of both objects,

other humans, and indeed other (non-theological) disciplines has to

be respected. This would be in opposition to the arguments of radical

orthodoxy which insists on subsuming everything under a theological

banner.

Taking this further and using Harmans work on Latour which argues

that Latour is one o f the most important realists, one can develop this

argument for the autonomy of the non-human and for other disciplines

and examine Harmans own categorization of different philosophies as

either radical, conservative or in polarity, the latter being his ver-

sion of speculative realism, in which absolute gaps/dualities are respected

but also described according to human relationshipsanother type of

blurred encounter or gathering.

Hence what is required is an ethics based on realism rather than non-

realism in its various forms and that eschews the forms of com muni-tarianism (Christian and otherwise) that posit a final purpose or grand

narrative o f human community or development characteristic of radical

orthodoxy. Public theology, basing itself upon such an ethical approach,

must be of the realist variety, respect the autonomy of other groups and

disciplines while drawing upon them when appropriate, avoid setting up

arbitrary vision and goals, and acknowledge its limitations using reason in

the deployment o f what is best from its own traditions.

Some Gatherings Suggested by Bruno Latour

According to speculative realist philosopher Graham Harman (Prince of

Networks: Latour and Metaphysics, 2009), Latour is the closest figure to what

he calls an object-oriented hero (2009: 156). By this he means that

Latour is a believer in the reality and the independent existence o f the plu-

rality o f concrete objects. Given that the central problem of metaphysics

(according to Harman) is the interplay of objects and relations (p. 159),

then Latour sheds more light on both o f these than any other contempo-rary thinker. This, in itself, is justification for taking Latours work as a

i l f f f li hil h d hi h i


4/12


Latour on Matters o f Fact and Matters o f Concern

In a paper published at the end o f 2004, Latour sets out his own particu-

lar understanding o f critical inquiry. His basic argument is that the natureof critique itself has become divorced from its original path and intention

and that we are now being encouraged to fight the wrong enemies. The

problem is that we try to get away from facts whereas the real aim should

be to get closer to them.

What I am going to argue is that the critical mind, if it is to renew itself

and be relevant again, is to be found in the cultivation of a stubbornly real-

ist attitudeto speak like William Jamesbut a realism dealing with what

I will call matters o f concern, not matters o f fact (Latour 2004a: 231).What critique has been doing is to move away from matters of fact in

order to identify the conditions that made them possible, and the best way

to correct this is to focus instead on matters of concern. Matters of fact

are only partial and often very political renderings of matters of concern,

and only a subset o f what Latour terms states o f affairs. This requires,

amongst other things, a change in terminology. Rather than talking about

facts, Latour suggests that we adopt the word THING, in the sense of a

thing being a gathering, and thus able to represent more fully the complex

matters o f concern that should now demand our attention. This buildsupon but also extends the usage of this term by Heidegger who talked

about it as the fourfold (Heidegger 1971:173); however Latour will not

limit the meaning in this mathematical way, but wants to use it to refer to

all the various factors and components that go to construct any particular

state o f affairs. Thus, for instance, the discussions surrounding the deci-

sion to go to war against Iraq in 2003was this gathering a tribunal, a

parliament, a command-and-control war room, a rich mans club, a sci-

entific congress or a TV stage? At times it felt as though all o f these played

a part in that decision. And that is the way it so often isan investigation

that tried to coalesce, in one unifying, unanimous, solid, mastered object,

masses of people, opinions and might (Latour 2004a: 235). There are

invariably multiple components in any such situation and it is a challenge

to identify them all let alone know how they fit together.

Using the examples of both the Second G ulf War and indeed 9/11,

Latour shows how current approaches to critique descend into views that

these events did not really happen but were just staged for the TV,or per-

haps that they were part of some conspiracy perpetrated by the CIA andthe US government. We are now trained to be so suspicious of every event

d h i b hi d i h l i h f h l d i


5/12


we have to be aware of this before we can begin to set facts apart and start

to analyse. So critique has to involve construction before one can think

about deconstruction.

One of the difficulties we all face in this, though, is our own lack of

consistency when it comes to interpreting different aspects o f our lives. As

Latour says: we explain the objects we dont approve o f by treating them

as fetishes; we account for behaviours we dont like by disciplines whose

make-up we dont examine; and we concentrate our passionate interest on

only those things that are for us worthwhile matters o f concern (2004a:

241). So we are realists when it suits us and non-realists when it doesnt

suit. I think this is a major problem for any form o f critical inquiry.

In order to counter this, Latour proposes that we revive a realist ap-proach, somewhat along the lines ofWhitehead (a link to process thought

and process theology therefore), who argued that we need to get closer

to facts and treat them with a respectful realist attitude. We tend to reduce

facts to what is immediately given in experience whereas what we should

do is to realize that matters of fact are totally implausible, unrealistic, un-

justified definitions of what it is to deal with things (2004a: 244).

Latour also introduces into the discussion two further terms: associ-

ation by which he means all the objects of science and technology, and

Pickerings mangle o f practice, both of which point towards the required

multi-disciplinary inquiries that are required to detect how many partici-

pants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and to maintain its existence.

So objects are simply a gathering that has faileda fact that has not been

assembled according to due process.

Once again, Latour makes it clear that the critic is not one who de-

bunks, but one who assembles. All participants, all voices both human

and non-human, must be taken into account when considering matters of

concern. It seems to me that this is not simply an empirical requirementbut also a moral one, and could be linked to the ethical approach of some-

one like Habermas and his notion o f discourse ethics, which requires that

all those affected by a particular issue should have the chance to participate

in the ensuing debate and decision. Latour does refer to Habermas in this

context (Latour 2004b: 171).

The final implication o f this that needs to be noted is that we will always

be dealing with more rather than less. Instead o f reducing facts, subtract-

ing from them in order to simplify and analyse, we are more likely to be

adding to them , acknowledging that it is very difficult to know where to

stop and draw the line when it comes to encountering matters o f concern


6/12


process o f creation and technical innovation than we, as humans, have put

in. Once again, one might argue, this is a very realistic statement, and

one with moral implications. In order to cope with this multiplication ofpossibilities, Latour argues that what is needed is an experimental meta-

physics, one that continues to allow for the unforeseen, unexpected, and

which goes beyond what we think we know and understand.

Latour on the Fact-Value Distinction

One of the major divisions of labour that dominates the relationship be-

tween ethical and practical concerns is that between fact and value.

Part of Latours attempt to critique existing practice and to show thatother possibilities need to be taken into account is his questioning and

reconfiguring of this relationship. As is consistent with the rest of his

work, Latour is attempting to show that the reality of dealing with mat-

ters of concern is that separating out apparently different concerns and

approaches to them is artificial and misleading: they are all part and

parcel of the human and non-human enterprise of working out how to

respond to circumstances and to move matters forward.

The tidy way in which we have become accustomed to doing this is by

drawing a firm distinction between matters o f fact and matters of value.We have already seen that Latour recommends abandoning the notion of

matters o f fact and replacing them with matters o f concern, so it is to be

expected that this will have implications for the old notion that facts are

the realm of scientists or researchers, and that values are to be left to the

politicians or moralists. Latour argues that establishing the facts of a case

is only the final stage in a long process of argument, research and discov-

ery, and that many different people and indeed things are involved in the

earlier stages.Apart from the recognized matters o f fact, we now know how to iden-

tify a whole gamut o f stages where facts are uncertain, warm, cold, heavy,

light, hard, supple; matters of concern that are defined precisely because

they do not conceal the researchers who are in the process o f fabricating

them, the laboratories necessary for their production, the instruments that

ensure their validation, the sometime heated polemics to which they give

risein short, everything that makes it possible to articulate propositions

(2004b: 96).

As a result of this, to use the word fact without making it clear exactlywhere the boundaries between fact and value might be in a particular stage


7/12


Parallel difficulties arise in the way that we normally refer to values in

this equation. Values always come too late into the process. If, in order to

bring about what ought to be, values require rejecting what is, the retortwill be that the stubbornness of the established matters of fact no longer

allows anything to be modified (2004b: 97). How familiar and how frus-

trating is that to those of us who do wish to question and challenge and

indeed to suggest that there are real alternatives? In the wake o f the global

financial crisis, for instance, how often is genuine debate quashed by the

response that we have no choice but to make cuts and thus this is taken

as the accepted presupposition of all subsequent action? Latour is surely

correct that, once the facts of the case are supposedly established, then

proposed values can only intervene in a very limited and predetermineddirection. If it is the case that the harsh reality of market forces is set

in stone before one even begins, then no values are likely to have much

impact upon the decisions to be made!

Latours New Models o f Change and Action

Instead o f making a distinction between subjects and objects, Latour says

that we should speak of associations between humans and non-humans.

This term would then cover both the old natural sciences and the old

social sciences. Em bedded in this are a number o f redefinitions central to

Latours argument, most notably the replacement of subject and object

by human and non-human. The realist position, as it has normally been

presented, is based on the distinction between human beings (as subjects)

and everything else (as objects). The one thing that the speculative real-

ists have in common is that they object to what they call post-Kantian

philosophy in its various forms, that assumes any external reality can only

be mediated through some version of hum an consciousness. Thus if theidea of a world-in-itself, of a realm of phenomena subsisting indepen-

dently o f our relation to it, is intelligible at all, it can only be intelligible as

something in-itself or independent for-us (Brassier 2007: 50).

What Latour attempts to do, by changing the language of subject

object to hum an-non-hum an , is to get beyond this particular distinction

which has hampered philosophical progress for too long, and enable us

to talk about different forms of relatedness. This discussion takes us deep

into the realms o f metaphysics and the newly emerging speculative real-

ism. Religious beliefs and practice can then be acknowledged as a part of

this gathering, not though in the imperialistic mode of radical orthodoxy,


8/12

Reader Speculative Realism and Public Theology 163

A Lived Example o f Latours Gatherings

Three days after I delivered this paper at the Chester conference I found

myself in the neo-natal department o f a major hospital in the North West,nursing our younger sons 24-hour-old daughter. The baby was only five

pounds in weight and was diagnosed with a serious genetic disorder which

meant that she had a series of serious physical conditions which made her

survival unlikely. She lived for a week. I was aware, through and beyond

our shared grief as a family, that this was a gathering of a whole range of

different components, both human and non-human.

We were surrounded by the most complex and sophisticated technical

equipment, tubes, computers and monitors which constantly recorded

her every response, all in a sanitized environment to protect the babies

in the unit against infection. This felt like an amazing trium ph of hum an

ingenuity through machines which would enable some o f these vulner-

able human beings to survive. I have no idea of the financial value of

all this, but it has to be significant. At the same time, just as important,

were the staff on duty and their care for and sensitivity towards the par-

ents present and their families. Just to be in that one nursery on the unit

was to be part of a gathering of humans and non-humans (in this case

the machines) in a remarkable combination. (The unit has subsequentlyfeatured in a TV documentary, adding another layer of gathering I

suggest.)

I am also aware now that I used new technologies in a very particular

way. To keep people informed of what was happening I sent email mes-

sages to both friends, work colleagues and parishioners. I also used text in

some cases. But this was also a means o f keeping them all at arms length as

it meant I could avoid direct contact. By doing this one could both mobi-

lize support and solidarity but also delay the painful process of having to

explain to people what was happening and its immediate consequences.

Once again, the technology now available had changed the way in which

the situation was dealt with.

Then there are the background issues of welfare resources and how

these are allocated. Clearly, the major hospital with state-of-the-art dedi-

cated equipment and staff contrasted with the local hospital in which the

birth actually took place and which was simply not geared to handling this

sort of emergency. Although the local hospital had done the right thing in

arranging a transfer to the specialized unit, we did have specific questionsabout the standard of care and treatment the family had received. Notably,

h h i d h d f il d id if f h b i


9/12


there be future pregnancies, they will receive constant monitoring and

care from the major hospital.

Without going into the specifics of this it is clear that issues of how

resources are allocated is central to the standards of care availablea post-

code lottery as it is sometimes described. This is about political and eco-

nomic decisions made in a particular way and according to specific criteria,

therefore another very different dimension of the gathering focused on a

51b matter o f concern. With questions now raging about reorganization of

the NHS it is impossible to ignore the political angle o f what are very per-

sonai tragedies.

There was also a very powerful ethical dimension to this situation.

If the symptoms of the baby had been picked up by the scans and sub-sequent examinations and a termination been offered as a result, what

decision would my son and daughter-in-law have taken? As with simi-

lar conditions such as Downs syndromethis particular one is worse

and less commona termination is sometimes made available. The loss

is probably no less, but at least there is prior warning o f a problem and the

possibility of taking pre-emptive action. Is that what we would all have

wanted rather than the agony of going through birth, meeting this baby, if

only for a few hours, but at least having encountered her and been able to

acknowledge her as part of both families? I dont think we have a straight-

forward answer to this, bu t it does relate to a whole series of issues around

the subject of genetic engineering and, once again, the use o f the technol-

ogy now available.

The fact remains that we did encounter this fragile life who had done

remarkably well even to be born alive, let alone to survive for seven days.

During that time there was opportunity for her parents to bond with her,

to focus their love and attention upon her, and for other family members

to do the same in their own ways. It was also the occasion for a consid-erable amount of external support and solidarity, which includes others

sharing very personal stories o f their own grief through similar losses.

As such this has been a very powerful human experience which raises

the question of what is really important in our livesour relatedness and

shared humanity. However painful, it feels as though her determination

to come to be with us has offered us some deep insights into matters we

take for granted. A termination could not have had that impact.

Then the really speculative dimension to this. It has struck me that

those of us who make it through to existence are a small proportion of

those who might have been or could besomething here about the dif-


10/12

Reader Speculative Realism and Public Theology 165

is the most remarkable thinga miracle even. I find this hard to articu-

late, but when people such as Latour, Harman and others talk about the

weirdness of existence, maybe this is something o f what they are strug-

gling to put into words. Whether it is humans or non-humans, the fact

that we are here is itself the most inexplicable and strange phenomena,

because it could so easily be that none of us come into existence. I f one

could grasp this, then it would be possible to view what is in a very differ-

ent light. Coming into beingin the case of humans and other animals

through birthis incredible. That we cease to be, whether it is after 7

days or 70 years, is perhaps less important. Why should our value or sig-

nificance depend upon how long we happen to exist let alone on what we

happen to achieve (in human or cultural terms) during whatever timespan is available to us? Call this religious, metaphysical or plainly obscure,

this small and limited life has opened a window onto other ways of think-

ing about our world and hum an being within it.

Can that world exist without us or we without it? That anything exists

at all is perhaps the more remarkable thing.

Conclusion

I would argue that the work o f Latour as described above provides strongevidence to support the view that speculative realism does indeed offer

resources for public theology. It does so by suggesting a new terminol-

ogy to articulate the relationship between humans and non-humans thus

subverting the unhelpful distinction between subjects and objects, as

well as pointing to matters o f concern as being more appropriate than

matters of fact when it comes to approaching ethical issues. The values

which form part o f every political, economic and ethical decision are

always already embedded in the discussions in the manner o f the gath-erings which Latour describes. So this is a form of realism which takes

the non-hum an seriously as having an independent bu t related existence.

This then leads into an understanding which requires that religious views

need to respect the autonomy of other disciplines rather than subsum-

ing them under an imperialistic theological banner. It also questions any

interpretation o f Christianity as proposing a definitive model o f com mu-

nity which can then be used as a criterion for evaluating other forms of

life. The weirdness and extraordinary nature of existence will preclude

any such predetermined outcome of the human journey. When it comesto facing the complexity of decisions and understandings o f the situations


11/12


views o f what it is to be human and to exist in our gatherings with the

non-human. Com ing into being at all is what should be the starting point

for our self-understanding.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Brassier, Ray.Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction.Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Mac-

millan, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230590823

Bryant, Levi, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman, eds. 2011. The Speculative Turn: Continen-

tal Material and Realism.Melbourne: re-press, http://re-press.org/books/the-speculativ

e-turn-continental-materialism-and-realism

Harman, Graham. 2009. Prince ofNetworks: Latour and Metaphysics.Melbourne: re-press.

2010. Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures.Ropley, Hants: Zero Books.Heidegger, Martin. 1971. Poetry,Language, Thought.New York: Harper & Row.

Latour, Bruno. 2004a. Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to

Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry30 (Winter 2004): 225-48. http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10

86/421123

2004b. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy.Cambridge, MA and

London: Harvard University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230590823http://re-press.org/books/the-speculativhttp://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.10http://re-press.org/books/the-speculativhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230590823


12/12

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Date post:	21-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brett-gustafson
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Speculative Realism and Public Theology - John Reader

Documents