{"id":10040,"date":"2016-11-02T22:19:21","date_gmt":"2016-11-03T05:19:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/?p=10040"},"modified":"2016-11-02T22:19:21","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T05:19:21","slug":"its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-i-feel-fine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-i-feel-fine\/","title":{"rendered":"It&#8217;s the End of the World as We Know it&#8230; and I Feel Fine"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/31v9rbj-ncL.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-10039 alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/31v9rbj-ncL-300x228.jpg\" alt=\"31v9rbj-ncL\" width=\"300\" height=\"228\" \/><\/a>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<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>, but remarks throughout the text suggest otherwise.<\/p>\n<p>For instance<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>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. <\/em> 370<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>And<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u2026the 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<\/em>. 371<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Finally, and perhaps most jarring,<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>\u2026so 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<\/em>. 368<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>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 <strong>the end of the world as we know it<\/strong><\/em>. 371<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A common thread throughout Elliot\u2019s 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:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Freud posits \u201cthe idea that violent and self-destructive aggression lies at the core of civilization\u201d (37).<\/li>\n<li>Giddens, \u201cset out a powerful account of the tensions and contradictions of contemporary societies\u2014ranging from current anxieties affecting identity and intimacy to high-intensity global risks, such as nuclear war\u201d (153).<\/li>\n<li>\u201cIn postmodern social theory, there is a marked focus on the deconstruction and fragmentation of the human subject\u201d (286).<\/li>\n<li>And most especially: \u201cSocial 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.\u201d (368)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>During our chat Monday, Jason challenged us to look for the <strong><em>plausibility structures<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a><\/em><\/strong> 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.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> Can that be considered a plausibility structure?<a href=\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/homerendisnear.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-10038 alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/homerendisnear-300x226.png\" alt=\"homerendisnear\" width=\"300\" height=\"226\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019d 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\u2019t ignore evil, but seek out opportunities and stories of alternatives to it. Perhaps this is the <strong><em>invisible thread<\/em><\/strong> running throughout history: hope that <em>Someone Else<\/em> 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 <em>in the midst<\/em> of the turbulence.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> \u201c\u2026social theory is not really in the business of seeking to predict the future\u201d (371).<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> Introduced by Peter Berger (1966), <em>The Sacred Canopy<\/em>. \u201cThere 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 <em>specific<\/em> 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 \u201cbase\u201d for its continuing existence as a world that is real to actual human beings. This \u201cbase may be called its plausibility structure.\u201d 45. I share this long quote to argue that plausibility structure can refer, not only to religious belief, but to any \u201creality-maintaining process.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a> This is all understandable, given that contemporary social theory emerged out of an attempt to understand the Holocaust and what contributed to it (372).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":85,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[745,196,746,719],"class_list":["post-10040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-cubs","tag-elliot","tag-plausibility-structure","tag-social-theory","cohort-lgp7"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/85"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}