On Owning our Words.
Recent events in the life of this blog have led me to consider the ethics of anonymity. Specifically the ethics of anonymous theology. Can or should Christians claim anonymity, to any degree, in the production of theology?
I come at this question of anonymity through the question of suffering. As Yoder is want to point out, the concrete way in which we are called to follow Christ is to follow him to the Cross. Thus, as Christians we are called first and foremost to willfully suffer. As such, our work as theologians, ethicists and pastors is to willingly and joyfully follow Christ to the cross in our theology, ethics and pastoral work. The cross is therefore, if nothing else, a call to vocationally suffer along with Christ. DWL's recent post on suffering illustrates, in part, how this call to suffer plays out. What it fails to do, however, is connect our actions in theology with the potential for suffering. This is not necessarily what DWL intended, or set out to do. It is, however, critically important to connect our work in theology, et. all, to the potential for suffering as described by DWL's typology. Surely there is potential not only for subjective and intersubjective suffering, but also for redemptive (1&2) and liberative suffering in our work.
While DWL is quick to point out that his recent typology of suffering is descriptive not prescriptive, there is a sense in which any descriptive typology of inevitable events --in order to be complete-- must also be, at least tacitly, prescriptive. In other words, given the inevitability of suffering within the human condition, any typology that strives to be remotely complete must shoulder not only the responsibility of describing past suffering, but also the burden that comes with the knowledge that any description of suffering will also be used to judge and sort future suffering.
With our call to joyfully suffer vouchsafed in the cross, and the descriptive-cum-prescriptive typology of suffering established by DWL, the question of anonymity with regards to theology can be addressed from it's ability to enable or hinder the potential for suffering. In as much as our anonymity hides our identity from those who may persecute us for our proclamation of the gospel, our anonymity prevents our willful suffering, our willful following of Christ to the cross, and inhibits, if not outright prevents the redemption of suffering. Because of this, as Christians, we must own our words and ideas --even our blog posts-- by name so as to not willfully avoid the suffering we claim to embrace with every bite of the bread and sip of the wine. Our recourse to anonymity, be that for reasons of fear of reprisal or general concern for the future, is therefore a recourse against the call of Christ to suffer. Because of this, can we post here under the anonymity of our initials or nicknames and not turn away from that which we are called? If we wish to carry on theological conversation in the public sphere --for that is where a blog resides-- can we do so ethically without owning our words?
I come at this question of anonymity through the question of suffering. As Yoder is want to point out, the concrete way in which we are called to follow Christ is to follow him to the Cross. Thus, as Christians we are called first and foremost to willfully suffer. As such, our work as theologians, ethicists and pastors is to willingly and joyfully follow Christ to the cross in our theology, ethics and pastoral work. The cross is therefore, if nothing else, a call to vocationally suffer along with Christ. DWL's recent post on suffering illustrates, in part, how this call to suffer plays out. What it fails to do, however, is connect our actions in theology with the potential for suffering. This is not necessarily what DWL intended, or set out to do. It is, however, critically important to connect our work in theology, et. all, to the potential for suffering as described by DWL's typology. Surely there is potential not only for subjective and intersubjective suffering, but also for redemptive (1&2) and liberative suffering in our work.
While DWL is quick to point out that his recent typology of suffering is descriptive not prescriptive, there is a sense in which any descriptive typology of inevitable events --in order to be complete-- must also be, at least tacitly, prescriptive. In other words, given the inevitability of suffering within the human condition, any typology that strives to be remotely complete must shoulder not only the responsibility of describing past suffering, but also the burden that comes with the knowledge that any description of suffering will also be used to judge and sort future suffering.
With our call to joyfully suffer vouchsafed in the cross, and the descriptive-cum-prescriptive typology of suffering established by DWL, the question of anonymity with regards to theology can be addressed from it's ability to enable or hinder the potential for suffering. In as much as our anonymity hides our identity from those who may persecute us for our proclamation of the gospel, our anonymity prevents our willful suffering, our willful following of Christ to the cross, and inhibits, if not outright prevents the redemption of suffering. Because of this, as Christians, we must own our words and ideas --even our blog posts-- by name so as to not willfully avoid the suffering we claim to embrace with every bite of the bread and sip of the wine. Our recourse to anonymity, be that for reasons of fear of reprisal or general concern for the future, is therefore a recourse against the call of Christ to suffer. Because of this, can we post here under the anonymity of our initials or nicknames and not turn away from that which we are called? If we wish to carry on theological conversation in the public sphere --for that is where a blog resides-- can we do so ethically without owning our words?
posted by Kevin P at 3:02 PM
1 Comments:
To reprise/summarize my conversation with Kevin:
Kevin's contentions (posted and otherwise) fall under three headings: 1) Anonymous posting is irresponisble if not unethical; 2) My typology and concept of redemptive suffering somehow commits me to dully identifying myself in my posts; 3) That my contention that our blog is mostly and internal conversation which others are allowed to "overhear" and join provides no relief, insamuch as a blog is by definition public speech.
I'll respond in reverse order:
1) While a blog may have been designed as a public communication medium, it is in no way necessary that I/we use it as such. First, many bloggers post under pseudonyms, personae, and/or anonymously. Second, the technology/medium of a blog can have no inherent limits/purpose other than those which its capabilities can preclude. That is, the fact that I/we can use the blog more as bulletin board, listserve, or private forum is not precluded by any technological norm.
And third, I'm suspicious that any internet/web medium can inherently entail a fiduciary obligation to disclosure. On the contrary, it seems to encourage, if not solicit anonymity, pseudonymity, and dissimulation of identity. (See Zizek ON BELIEF concerning the gnostic inflections of "the digital heresy.")
NOTE: In fairness to Kevin, this is the least significant strand of his objection, and one he (I think) has dropped.
2) My typology is, in fact, descriptive and not prescriptive in any meaningful sense. Its adjudication is retropsective - posterior interpretation. While it may inherently commend certain kinds of suffering, it cannot on force of its own logic mandate them. It does not, in principle, preclude a Christian (or community of Christians) from foregoing an opportunity for any forms of redemptive suffering.
3) Here I hace an A and a B response.
A) First, I do not find there to be any fundamental fiduciary obligation to "own" or "claim" one's speech. While I believe critique, criticism, and calumny (in general) require attribution. Though we do, for good reason, allow anonymous courtroom testimony. And I see no reason why Christians ought not to avail themselves of such protection. Secondly, it seems certain actions (gifts,especially) ought to be made anonymously (see Derrida on gift). And perhaps, certain gifts of thought and speech do not necessarily require self-attribution. The idea in itself ought to be enough.
B) I don't concede the fact that I am anonymous on this blog. This returns us to the third objection and response (supra). First, though public, I consider this forum primarily to be an additional means of communicating with people from the Socratic Club. Thus, I am known to those who are the primary readers of my posts (witnes the fact that respondents use my first name in their replies). And second, I consider the "public" character of this blog to be akin to a cocktail party conversation. Some of us are in a circle talking, and we know each other. Anyone else overhearing is free to step in, introduce themselves, and join in the discussion. Similarly, anyone can email Wilson and get let in on the posts and, presumably get to know those of us who post.
While perhaps we ought to amend our protocols (e.g. make old threads dead so we don't get replies on things to which none of us are reading any longer). But, beyond that, I don't feel Kevin's objections to my semi-anonymity to be devastating.
Post a Comment
<< Home