It’s the End of the World as We Know it… and I Feel Fine
As an undergrad anthropology student many moons ago, I was introduced to Durkheim, Weber, and Marx. And while scholars such as Durkheim and Levi-Strauss straddle the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, I find more affinity with the anthropology field. Whereas anthropology seeks to understand and describe contexts, social theory inclines more towards projecting, predicting, and ultimately, controlling society. Is that a fair statement? Anthony Elliot bluntly states it is not[1], but remarks throughout the text suggest otherwise.
For instance
It is one thing to write opinion articles, and yet another to actually influence the shape of contemporary politics. But it is just that which Giddens has done. 370
And
…the bulk of luminary social theorists reviewed in the course of this book have not only contributed to the public sphere and politics, but have found ways of extending and enriching it. 371
Finally, and perhaps most jarring,
…so serious is the damage done to human life today that much social theory insists it is only by confronting the worst and most painful aspects of current global realities that we might hope to develop plausible alternative social and institutional possibilities. 368
But in a larger sense, I am concerned with the very foundation upon which social theory is built, namely, the principle that societies (or the global society) is on the verge of collapsing, a sense of an impending Doomsday:
The review of contemporary developments in social theory provided in the course of this book suggests that the prevailing violence, risks and dangers facing the planet are coming closer and closer to crashing the established social structures of modern life. This is perhaps but another way of saying we may be facing the end of the world as we know it. 371
A common thread throughout Elliot’s introduction of social theorists is that our world is filled with violence, inequality, and destruction, to the point that we are approaching annihilation and falling apart:
- Freud posits “the idea that violent and self-destructive aggression lies at the core of civilization” (37).
- Giddens, “set out a powerful account of the tensions and contradictions of contemporary societies—ranging from current anxieties affecting identity and intimacy to high-intensity global risks, such as nuclear war” (153).
- “In postmodern social theory, there is a marked focus on the deconstruction and fragmentation of the human subject” (286).
- And most especially: “Social theory, we have seen, is vitally engaged with the repression, oppression and indignity of unequal social relations; it is a deeply political, sometimes melancholic, but profoundly humane critique of the structural forces which underlay the self-destructive pathologies of contemporary societies.” (368)
During our chat Monday, Jason challenged us to look for the plausibility structures[2] within our texts. As I read this week, I wondered what contributed to the assumption that our society(ies) are on the verge of collapse and why that appears to dominate the conversations. Perhaps these social theorists live with an assumption that humanity got into this mess on our own, and are, thus, the only ones able to save ourselves; we have to crawl out of this muck on our own, or destroy ourselves. Social theorists work with the assumption that we are out to destroy ourselves, that humanity is, in essence, evil.[3] Can that be considered a plausibility structure?
I do see chaos and turmoil occurring throughout history; when looking at our world today, I see peoples displaced, hidden genocide, discrimination. My assumption, based on the past and present, is that the future will continue to contain horrible acts and institutional turpitude. I am not one who hides her face in the sand, who ignores climate change or the structural racism still embedded in our own context, or who spiritualizes rather than embodies my faith.
However, my plausibility structure (which is often unspoken but influences my understanding of reality) suggests that humans are not, in essence, evil, but created good, in the image of God. I’d like to propose an alternative to the predictiveness of social theories as a means of salvation, namely, the reality of the Kingdom of God. If we believe the Kingdom of God is here (Lk 17.21, etc), then we actively live out our Kingdom status here and now. We don’t ignore evil, but seek out opportunities and stories of alternatives to it. Perhaps this is the invisible thread running throughout history: hope that Someone Else will save us from ourselves, and from our potentially imploding society. This is not to deny our own participation in that Kingdom, but to recognize the meta-story of hope in the Kingdom of God superimposed over the apparent reality of turmoil. This recognizes stories of hope, of grace and forgiveness, of justice and mercy, of wholeness (shalom), which occur in the midst of the turbulence.
[1] “…social theory is not really in the business of seeking to predict the future” (371).
[2] Introduced by Peter Berger (1966), The Sacred Canopy. “There is a further aspect of this [dialectic between religious activity and religious ideation] that is extremely important for the reality-maintaining task of religion. This aspect refers to the social-structural prerequisites of any religious (or, for that matter, any other) reality-maintaining process. This may be formulated as follows: Worlds are socially constructed and socially maintained. Their continuing reality, both objective (as common, taken-for-granted facticity) and subjective (as facticity imposing itself on individual consciousness), depends upon specific social processes, namely those processes that ongoingly reconstruct and maintain the particular worlds in question. Conversely, the interruption of these social processes threatens the (objective and subjective) reality of the worlds in question. Thus each world requires a social “base” for its continuing existence as a world that is real to actual human beings. This “base may be called its plausibility structure.” 45. I share this long quote to argue that plausibility structure can refer, not only to religious belief, but to any “reality-maintaining process.”
[3] This is all understandable, given that contemporary social theory emerged out of an attempt to understand the Holocaust and what contributed to it (372).
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.10 responses to “It’s the End of the World as We Know it… and I Feel Fine”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Insightful post, Katy. “A common thread throughout Elliot’s introduction of social theorists is that our world is filled with violence, inequality, and destruction, ..” and might I add a keen fascination in sex. It’s always surprising how many of the behavioral theorists and the social theorists reference sex as a driving force in human behavior and social development.
True, Jennifer! I imagine the fascination may be connected to some Freudian roots.
Nice. I think you will also find a bit of this tension in the anthropological “essentialist v. anti-essentialist” debates regarding whether aspects of culture are essential identities of people (of which I find myself in the non-dualistic anti-anti-essentialist group thanks to Geertz).
Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” theory is definitely a recent example of what you have decried here in the social sciences. Fear sells. Kingdom folks have a higher calling. Your last paragraph hits that nail squarely on the head!
Katy, I think we all noticed the depressing aspects of the various theories of sociology. How can they not? Not a one of them has Christ. Not a one of them knows the blessedness of peace and love from the real source of goodness.
As Christians, we have the only answer of hope at least for some happiness and joy in this world of sorrows.
Are we going to end wars? Are we going to end all genocides? You mentioned the Holocaust, but the Hutus have tried to murder off the Tutsi’s at least on four occasions since the middle of the last century (the latest being 1994). The United Nations didn’t help. Humanistic men have failed.
12 followers of Jesus started something that has changed the world wherever Christians have gone. Perfect? No. Does it seems sometimes like things have gone backwards? Yes. But we can’t give up. We can only keep telling of real love – of the One Who has the greatest love – He laid down His life for us.
I’m not sure I’m ready to suggest all social theorists (or even just the ones introduced in this book) don’t “have Christ.” Deciding that seems above of my pay grade (ie., God’s job). What I will suggest is that their writings don’t correlate with a hope-full future. I always hesitate to create an “us vs. them” model, where “we” are the good guys who have the answers.
Great post – and a great question to ask ourselves and our congregations (whatever those look like): what is our plausibility structure? Or what is it built on.
As kingdom people we do have (thankfully) a belief that even if we got ourselves into this mess, we don’t have to get ourselves out of it – at least not by ourselves.
Of course, the reality is that far to many of us ‘Kingdom people’ don’t act and live as if we believe that and are instead motivated by fear (look no further than ‘Christian’ leaders response to immigrants and Muslims in this country)
I tend to have a much more positive view of social theory (but then again, I am a sociologist at heart), but you are very right to point out that we operate with a different assumption at a fundamental level as the people of God.
Thanks Chip!
The reality is that there is much I actually resonated with in this book, and I’m certainly not ready to throw all social theory out with the bath water. But a 1000-word post keeps one focused on single (or few) thoughts.
“This is not to deny our own participation in that Kingdom, but to recognize the meta-story of hope in the Kingdom of God superimposed over the apparent reality of turmoil. This recognizes stories of hope, of grace and forgiveness, of justice and mercy, of wholeness (shalom), which occur in the midst of the turbulence.”
Yes I could not agree more with this statement. Most social theories are based on a Godless world run solely by fallible humans. They are rooted in humanistic ideals. Unfortunately that is why they usually all assert the doomsday or apocalyptic theme as the result of their posed theory.
Actually reading these theories reminds me of how great it is to indeed live in the Kingdom of God where we do have this other meta-story that supersedes our humanistic ideals of the world. If only we could undo the negative influence and social constructs that have resulted in our societies adoptions of these theories. I have seen evidence of these theories even within the way we interact with the world as a Church. It is sad to see how much influence these theories have had on how we live our lives. Oh but the good news is that there is always hope! So despite the current state of affairs I choose to be optimistic about our future. Seeing it as a redemptive narrative that is here and yet to come and not an apocalyptic one.
Yes, redemptive rather than apocalyptic!
Although it’s rather a long read (good for an airplane ride), Stanley Hauerwas’ article, “Is Democracy Capable of Cultivating a Good Life? What Liberals Should Learn from Shepherds” is worth checking out:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/11/02/4567512.htm
Among many other concepts to consider, Hauerwas suggests, “If any people should know what it means to have a good life, surely Christians ought to have something to say. Yet I do not think Christians have emphasized sufficiently why we think it so important to have a life well lived and, perhaps, even more significantly, what living well looks like.”
Katy your statement “My assumption, based on the past and present, is that the future will continue to contain horrible acts and institutional turpitude.”
It is sad to say that your statement is true. Spiritual Warfare is real. Some Christians have trouble believing this but it exists. What happens to us, is not always because we sinned against God, but a point is being made. “Job” Satan is real but our God has a great and mighty plan for him. As long as we willing fall for his tactics, trouble will always around us. Sadly, many don’t know how to or are willing to ignore satan, so trouble will always be here but those of us in Christ, ain’t scared! We know the battle is not ours but the Lord’s.
Thank you for post.