Competing Accounts of Progress: The Redemptive Purpose of Memory in J.B. Metz and Theodor Adorno

Travis LaCouter
{"title":"Competing Accounts of Progress: The Redemptive Purpose of Memory in J.B. Metz and Theodor Adorno","authors":"Travis LaCouter","doi":"10.1111/HEYJ.12607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What unifies the accounts of history and progress presented by Adorno's Critical Theory and Metz's political theology? I show: (i) that both resist the ‘magic spell’ of an Enlightenment totality on whose strength the violent excesses of modernity have been built; (ii) that both accomplish this resistance by memory of victims or the ‘losers of history’; and (iii) that both hold out hope for the possibility of progress in time. However, the two accounts differ in important ways. These differences stem from: (i) the transference of historical subjectivity from homo emancipator to the God of Jesus’ passion; (ii) the role of the ‘eschatological proviso’ in guaranteeing theological futuricity; and (iii) the fullness of Metz's eschatological justice as compared to Adorno's conception of progress as the mere ‘avoidance of catastrophe’. This project brings the work of one of the most influential social critics of the twentieth century into dialogue with that of a politically engaged theologian of the same historical-cultural context. In doing so, I hope to suggest the theological richness of Metz's approach but also the significant contributions of dialectical criticism to the practice of theology in the modern era.","PeriodicalId":385481,"journal":{"name":"The Heythrop Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Heythrop Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/HEYJ.12607","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What unifies the accounts of history and progress presented by Adorno's Critical Theory and Metz's political theology? I show: (i) that both resist the ‘magic spell’ of an Enlightenment totality on whose strength the violent excesses of modernity have been built; (ii) that both accomplish this resistance by memory of victims or the ‘losers of history’; and (iii) that both hold out hope for the possibility of progress in time. However, the two accounts differ in important ways. These differences stem from: (i) the transference of historical subjectivity from homo emancipator to the God of Jesus’ passion; (ii) the role of the ‘eschatological proviso’ in guaranteeing theological futuricity; and (iii) the fullness of Metz's eschatological justice as compared to Adorno's conception of progress as the mere ‘avoidance of catastrophe’. This project brings the work of one of the most influential social critics of the twentieth century into dialogue with that of a politically engaged theologian of the same historical-cultural context. In doing so, I hope to suggest the theological richness of Metz's approach but also the significant contributions of dialectical criticism to the practice of theology in the modern era.
进步的竞争叙述:梅斯和阿多诺的记忆的救赎目的
是什么统一了阿多诺的批判理论和梅斯的政治神学对历史和进步的描述?我表明:(I)两者都抵制启蒙运动总体的“魔咒”,现代性的暴力过度正是建立在启蒙运动总体的力量之上;(ii)两者都通过对受害者或“历史失败者”的记忆来实现这种抵抗;(三)两者都对及时取得进展的可能性抱有希望。然而,这两种说法在许多重要方面存在差异。这些差异源于:(1)历史主体性从“解放者”转移到耶稣受难的上帝;(ii)“末世论但书”在保证神学未来性中的作用;(iii)与阿多诺的进步概念相比,梅斯的末世论正义的完满性仅仅是“避免灾难”。这个项目将20世纪最具影响力的社会评论家之一的作品与同一历史文化背景下的政治参与神学家的作品进行了对话。在此过程中,我希望提出梅斯方法的神学丰富性,以及辩证批评对现代神学实践的重大贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信