3 thoughts on ““A Theology of Failure” on the Magnificast

  1. if “Christianity” is something like a name for what Christians have done (and I think that’s right) than it isn’t A thing (or a totality or field) nothing holds all these discrete and heterogeneous actions together other than acts of misplaced concreteness (reification).

  2. I broadly agree, but I also think that reification does tend to reify things i.e. to make them real: “Christianity” does things in the world precisely because people believe in a thing called Christianity, and orient themselves in relation to it.

  3. hi MR, that’s ok as far as it goes (along the lines of speech acts like declarations i t the name of marriage) but “it” has no coherence (or clearly/consistently determinative factors) for even individuals let alone for groups of people who will all be making different uses of their own assemblages, so not a common object/subject nor anything along the lines of a law like principle, there’s an excellent nugget in the wiki for St. Parker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Park_Turner) ” In The Social Theory of Practices as well as in other writings Turner argues against collective concepts like culture: what we call culture (and similar concepts), he argues, needs to be understood in terms of the means of its transmission. There is no collective server by which it is simply downloaded and “shared”. What we take as “collective” is really produced through experiences of interaction which are different and produce different results for different individuals but which also produce a rough uniformity through mechanisms of feedback rather than “sharing”. so barring an actual holy geist of pentacostal communion we are left with heterogeneities and localized assemblages.

Comments are closed.