Rowan Williams om samhällets kommersialisering

We are the first civilisation to treat monetary accumulation as an absolute goal, and it has obscured the whole of our discourse about shared well-being, or the "common good." Politics is trapped in discussion about efficiency and the maximising of choice; the west, at least, is dominated by the assumption that the state exists to protect choice and to do so by protecting financial competitiveness in every sphere.

Rowan Williams - Trading in the souls of men: The commodification of life

Kristus är uppstånden!

”Christ's resurrection has direct implications for contemporary politics. Today, western societies have witnessed the emergence of a new tribalism, fueled by the logic of capitalism with its proliferation of niche identities and by the politics of multiculturalism with its advocacy of mere "difference," while lacking the language to articulate any vision of a common good. Such multicultural pluralism is a mirror image of the postmodern ethics of difference, where each person is assumed to be absolutely "other."
[...]
"This amounts to a crisis in our social imagination: we find ourselves unable to imagine what it might really mean to live together. Margaret Thatcher's prophecy has come true: there is no such thing (anymore) as society."
--
Benjamin Myers - ”Rowan Williams and the Politics of the Empty Tomb”

Williams vs. Dawkins

Ärkebiskopen of Canterbury debatterar livets uppkomst med Richard Dawkins.

Rowan Williams om moral och transcendens

Can we make sense of morality without a religious notion of a transcendent or supernatural being?
I think that, to make sense of unconditional rights or claims, we need to be clear that there is such a thing as universal human nature and that it has some intrinsic dignity or worth. To try and ground this independently of the idea of a transcendent source of value seems to me not finally feasible. People do, of course, make such claims, and do so in good faith, but I don't see how you can define a universally shared, equal, independent-of-local-culture-and-habit conception of human flourishing without something more than a pragmatic or immanent basis.
In other words, I think morality ultimately needs a notion of the sacred - and for the Christian that means understanding all human beings without exception as the objects of an equal, unswerving, unconditional love.

Läs resten av intervjun med Rowan Williams här!

Blandad påse ...

Zizek om det offentliga förnuftet:

"This is why one should resist the temptation to react to the ongoing financial crisis, especially in Europe, with a retreat to protectionism, localism and the supposed safety of sovereign nation-states, which themselves are easy prey for freely-floating international capital. More than ever, the reply to every such financial crisis should be that we need to be even more internationalist and universalist than the illusory universality of global capital. Indeed, the idea of resisting global capital by retreating to the protection of particular ethnic identities is more suicidal than ever."

-Ben Myerer om det protestantiska leendet

"In the Protestant West today, smiling has become a moral imperative. The smile is regarded as the objective externalisation of a well ordered life. Sadness is moral failure."

- Ny intressant bok om teologi och ekonomi av Rowan Williams och Larry Elliot: Crisis and Recovery: Ethics, Economics and Justice

Om rädsla som substitut för visioner

Många är de kommentatorer som menar att den gångna valrörelsen utmärktes av en brist på visioner eller berättelser som förmår att hålla samman politiken och ge mening och sammanhang. I en läsvärd krönika i The Guardian ger Slavoj Zizek en hint om vad som kommit att ersätta den politiska visionen som sammanhållande funktion - rädslan:

"After the disintegration of the communist regimes in 1990, we entered a new era in which the predominant form of the exercise of state power became a depoliticised expert administration and the co-ordination of interests. The only way to introduce passion into this kind of politics, the only way to actively mobilise people, is through fear: the fear of immigrants, the fear of crime, the fear of godless sexual depravity, the fear of the excessive state (with its burden of high taxation and control), the fear of ecological catastrophe, as well as the fear of harassment (political correctness is the exemplary liberal form of the politics of fear). (...) This vision of the detoxification of one's neighbour suggests a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one's neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other. Even if it is cloaked as a defence of Christian values, it is itself the greatest threat to Christian legacy."

Jag vill i sammanhanget tipsa om den anglikanske ärkebiskopen Rowan Williams koncisa redogörelse för hur den kristna berättelsen ser på sambandet mellan rädsla och kärlek:

...

By the way ... Zizek föreläser i Stockholm den 15 och 16 november. Biljetterna är slutsålda sedan länge, men om någon skulle ha ett par plåtar över är jag hejdlöst intresserad!

Om Jul, Principer och Barth

I dagens Telegraph skriver Rowan Williams om jul, principer och Karl Barth:

"Christmas is supremely the story of a God who is not interested in telling us about principles"

"Christmas doesn't offer an alternative set of economic theories or even a social programme. It's a story – the record of an event that began to change the entire framework in which we think about human life, so that the unique value of every life came to be affirmed and assumed."

"That’s one reason why we tell this story repeatedly, the story of the ‘unprincipled’ God who values what others don’t notice, who relates to people we’d all rather forget, whose appeal is to everyone because he has made everyone capable of loving response.”

God Jul!

Om identitet och lojalitet

Den angelikanske ärkebiskopen av Canterbury, Rowan Williams, har i en föreläsning nyligen öppnat upp för att i vissa stycken tillämpa sharialagstiftning i Storbritannien. Detta har inte oväntat orsakat stor uppmärksamhet. Så även i Sverige (här och här och här).

Att döma av krigsrubrikerna och de uppskruvade tonläget tycks det vara få som bemödat sig med att läsa (föreläsningen i sin helhet) eller lyssna på vad Williams egentligen sa, eller mot vilken bakgrund han sa vad han sa.

Nedan följer ett utdrag som kanske bidrar till att sätta in sharia-diskussionen i sitt sammanhang:

"The danger arises not only when there is an assumption on the religious side that membership of the community (belonging to the umma or the Church or whatever) is the only significant category, so that participation in other kinds of socio-political arrangement is a kind of betrayal. It also occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity.

There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice. As I have maintained in several other contexts, this is a very unsatisfactory account of political reality in modern societies; but it is also a problematic basis for thinking of the legal category of citizenship and the nature of human interdependence."

Som jag tolkar Williams måste talet om "religiös lagstiftning" förstås mot bakgrund av enhetssamhällets upplösning och de utmaningar som pluralismen ställer den liberala demokratin inför; Hur kan vi leva tillsammans trots våra olikheter? Kanske blir det som Rowans förmodar i längden oundviktligt att i någon bemärkelse införa "religiös lagstiftning".

I ett läsvärt inlägg funderar James K.A. Smith i eftertänksam stil över uppståndelsen kring Williams föreläsning, och kokar ner det hela till:

"The challenge is simply this: what are we to do when individuals, and whole communities, find their identity in an allegiance that in some significant way exceeds their allegiance to a particular nation-state? Or what are we to do when the nation-state demands that it trump all other allegiances?"

För den som kan svara på den frågan kommer det sannolikt att instiftas ett nobelpris i politisk filosofi.