Much to be dissected in this well written piece! One thread woven into this is the notion of "intellectual appropriation" - the assimilation (or attempted assimilation) of a thought, idea, or even system of thoughts and ideas, into one's existing intellectual framework. The article mentions the appropriation of "post-modern" notions by those who failed to read, challenge, and deeply understand them. True. I was in seminary at the time when this language was heatedly reshaping the process and language of theology. And while I could attempt to grasp that intellectual framework, I too often depended on derivative interpretations of it in grafting any of the components to my own way of thinking. But USING the phrase "post-modern" seemed to immediately lend some air of intellectual credibility to the speaker (or writer), regardless of whether or not said speaker (or writer) really understood the concept.
A similar, parallel trend happened with the tenets of liberation theologies as they were being formed in other parts of the world (Latin America, of note). Those of us who were already emotionally and intellectually predisposed to "social justice" latched onto the writings of Gutierrez, Freire, et. al., as if we understood the cultural and contextual milieux out of which they arose. We didn't. But it didn't stop us from speaking and writing as if we did. And this also led to an infusion of "liberation theology" (as if it were a monolithic thing) into our practical notions of "social justice".
It's not that appropriation isn't necessary - indeed, it's quite relevant and adds powerfully to any authentic expression of "social justice". However, when one is merely consuming the derivative thoughts of those who are often themselves not doing the intellectual heavy lifting truly required to understand, then there is a bastardization of the ideas that renders them easy weapons against "opponents".
Much to be dissected in this well written piece! One thread woven into this is the notion of "intellectual appropriation" - the assimilation (or attempted assimilation) of a thought, idea, or even system of thoughts and ideas, into one's existing intellectual framework. The article mentions the appropriation of "post-modern" notions by those who failed to read, challenge, and deeply understand them. True. I was in seminary at the time when this language was heatedly reshaping the process and language of theology. And while I could attempt to grasp that intellectual framework, I too often depended on derivative interpretations of it in grafting any of the components to my own way of thinking. But USING the phrase "post-modern" seemed to immediately lend some air of intellectual credibility to the speaker (or writer), regardless of whether or not said speaker (or writer) really understood the concept.
A similar, parallel trend happened with the tenets of liberation theologies as they were being formed in other parts of the world (Latin America, of note). Those of us who were already emotionally and intellectually predisposed to "social justice" latched onto the writings of Gutierrez, Freire, et. al., as if we understood the cultural and contextual milieux out of which they arose. We didn't. But it didn't stop us from speaking and writing as if we did. And this also led to an infusion of "liberation theology" (as if it were a monolithic thing) into our practical notions of "social justice".
It's not that appropriation isn't necessary - indeed, it's quite relevant and adds powerfully to any authentic expression of "social justice". However, when one is merely consuming the derivative thoughts of those who are often themselves not doing the intellectual heavy lifting truly required to understand, then there is a bastardization of the ideas that renders them easy weapons against "opponents".