The Four authors encountered in class, Capoto, Vollman, Bauman and Appiah, all demonstrated an awareness that one has responsibility for the Other, and that this responsibility can be understood morally and spiritually. I read Caputo as advocating that religion, the spiritual dimension, is the realm of pure agency. What made St. Augustine religious and lover was that he was earnest toward and receptive to the object of his passion. He was open-minded. This receptivity, this open-mindedness, is the mark of religious truth. St. Augustine is not religious because he was the proponent of particular creeds, the creeds of Christianity. We have historical evidence of many individuals who were the proponents of similar creeds and yet who acted very different than St. Augustine. Those individuals acted without passion, without love. They failed to love their neighbors; they were intolerant and enacted violence against others. They claimed to religious, but their deeds demonstrated that they were irreligious. In contrast, St. Augustine’s demonstrates an earnestness and receptiveness to the impossible. And his receptivity created a humility. Capotu understands the religious as true agents, empowered to respond to the object of their passion.
What frustrates agency? Caputo contrasts Augustine to the modern Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is built on the failed epistemological theories of objectivity, and fails to take into account the role of subjectivity in knowledge. Fundamentalists are akin to Positivists. They are passionate but lack humility and open-mindedness. They are convinced that they have access to knowledge that trumps. They have a particular worldview and resist any challenge to it. They are intolerant toward those who disagree. They are arrogant and proud. They are seeking action, not interaction. They are not entering into dialogue; they are not asking questions.
If anything, Vollman’s Poor People was a book of questions. Vollman is not arrogant and proud. He is opinionated, for sure, but opinion is different than arrogance. Vollman comes across as very honest. He really doesn’t have any method to “fix it.” He can only opine. He claims no superior intellect able to systematically categorize the plight of others and generate a apparent-to-any-who-would-gives-a-damn solution. Vollman struck me as one approximates Caputo unhinged fellow, one who is undone. He has heard the categories that others have offered up to frame the issue of poverty, and he explores them: Is there Truth there or not? Do some people lack initiative and so have “earned” their poverty? Or are poor people victims? What should one do concerning poor people? What can Vollman do, except continue to engage the Poor and the Reader?
I believe Bauman would appreciate Vollman, for Vollman comes across as a wandering pilgrim, even in his own neighborhood I interpret Bauman as saying that if the Poor and the Reader are to have true agency, then Vollman is right to avoid hard-and-fast categories of Poverty Comprehension and Reader Response. To approach the issue and the Reader with categories is to bring the seeds of acceptable and unacceptable outcomes. And as such it is to dictate the parameters of action. I read Bauman as advocating us not have any prescribed outcome concerning the Other. There should be no predefined boundaries for the relationship. To have predefined boundaries when encountering the Other would be to limit, to frustrate, the Other’s agency. Only when one enters into relationship with the Other freely, without categories of acceptable and unacceptable response, does the Other have the opportunity to truly respond, to choose to act responsibly. Only then can the Other be a true moral agent.
Love is Recognizing Otherness
Against Indoctrination: Cosmopolitanism and its Implications for the Moral and Spiritual Dimensions of Education
The Four authors encountered in class, Capoto, Vollman, Bauman and Appiah, all demonstrated an awareness that one has responsibility for the Other, and that this responsibility can be understood morally and spiritually. I read Caputo as advocating that religion, the spiritual dimension, is the realm of pure agency. What made St. Augustine religious and lover was that he was earnest toward and receptive to the object of his passion. He was open-minded. This receptivity, this open-mindedness, is the mark of religious truth. St. Augustine is not religious because he was the proponent of particular creeds, the creeds of Christianity. We have historical evidence of many individuals who were the proponents of similar creeds and yet who acted very different than St. Augustine. Those individuals acted without passion, without love. They failed to love their neighbors; they were intolerant and enacted violence against others. They claimed to religious, but their deeds demonstrated that they were irreligious. In contrast, St. Augustine’s demonstrates an earnestness and receptiveness to the impossible. And his receptivity created a humility. Capotu understands the religious as true agents, empowered to respond to the object of their passion.
What frustrates agency? Caputo contrasts Augustine to the modern Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is built on the failed epistemological theories of objectivity, and fails to take into account the role of subjectivity in knowledge. Fundamentalists are akin to Positivists. They are passionate but lack humility and open-mindedness. They are convinced that they have access to knowledge that trumps. They have a particular worldview and resist any challenge to it. They are intolerant toward those who disagree. They are arrogant and proud. They are seeking action, not interaction. They are not entering into dialogue; they are not asking questions.
If anything, Vollman’s Poor People was a book of questions. Vollman is not arrogant and proud. He is opinionated, for sure, but opinion is different than arrogance. Vollman comes across as very honest. He really doesn’t have any method to “fix it.” He can only opine. He claims no superior intellect able to systematically categorize the plight of others and generate a apparent-to-any-who-would-gives-a-damn solution. Vollman struck me as one approximates Caputo unhinged fellow, one who is undone. He has heard the categories that others have offered up to frame the issue of poverty, and he explores them: Is there Truth there or not? Do some people lack initiative and so have “earned” their poverty? Or are poor people victims? What should one do concerning poor people? What can Vollman do, except continue to engage the Poor and the Reader?
I believe Bauman would appreciate Vollman, for Vollman comes across as a wandering pilgrim, even in his own neighborhood I interpret Bauman as saying that if the Poor and the Reader are to have true agency, then Vollman is right to avoid hard-and-fast categories of Poverty Comprehension and Reader Response. To approach the issue and the Reader with categories is to bring the seeds of acceptable and unacceptable outcomes. And as such it is to dictate the parameters of action. I read Bauman as advocating us not have any prescribed outcome concerning the Other. There should be no predefined boundaries for the relationship. To have predefined boundaries when encountering the Other would be to limit, to frustrate, the Other’s agency. Only when one enters into relationship with the Other freely, without categories of acceptable and unacceptable response, does the Other have the opportunity to truly respond, to choose to act responsibly. Only then can the Other be a true moral agent.