God in Recent French Phenomenology

Abstract

In this essay, I provide an introduction to the so-called 'theological turn' in recent French, 'new' phenomenology. I begin by articulating the stakes of excluding God from phenomenology (as advocated by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger) and then move on to a brief consideration of why Dominique Janicaud contends that, by inquiring into the 'inapparent', new phenomenology is no longer phenomenological. I then consider the general trajectories of this recent movement and argue that there are five main themes that unite the work of such varied thinkers as Levinas, Derrida, Marion, Henry, Chrétien, Lacoste, and Ricoeur. I conclude by outlining points of overlap between new phenomenology and contemporary analytic philosophy of religion and suggest that the two stand as important resources for each other.

The New Phenomenology and Analytic Philosophy of Religion

“…This new resource is, in fact, the very old theological archive. Dipping into this vast literature for alternative descriptions and vocabularies is not a movement towards positive religion, but simply a heuristic device that allows philosophical inquiry to recognize its own critical limits and continual hermeneutic struggle.’ The New Phenomenologist, on this model, utilises and appropriates the concepts and methods found in a particular religious tradition, but without ever committing themselves ( qua phenomenologists) to the truth or otherwise of any theology, for their sole aim is to undertake philosophical analysis from a theologically neutral standpoint…”

“…Referring to the philosophy of Derrida, Levinas, Marion and Henry, Simmons points out that ‘they all, for the most part, use solidly phenomenological criteria to guide their inquiry. Appeals to the authority of religious tradition and sacred texts are strictly prohibited.’ A specific example of this is the dispute between Derrida and Marion over the conditions of possibility of religious phenomena, where the debate was conducted solely on the ‘neutral’ territory of considerations concerning possibility and phenomenality, without bringing in (say) religious doctrines into the discussion at all. Another example given by Simmons is Levinas’ practice of drawing on his own Jewish tradition for illustrative examples or ideas: when doing so, Levinas is careful to emphasize that these examples have a universal authority or validity, and do not require the backing of some particular religious tradition for their authority …”

“…I won't say much about the Husserlian and Heideggerian background to the New Phenomenology, except when it is important in bringing out some of the continuities and discontinuities between the two. My approach will be to consider the New Phenomenology under three headings, as suggested in a recent article by J. Aaron Simmons, and to look at how analytic philosophers of religion are likely to respond to each of these aspects of the new phenomenological movement. The perspective I will assume will be that of the typical (theistic or Christian) analytic philosopher of religion, and how they might assess the methods, arguments and goals of the New Phenomenologists.…”

On Shared Hopes for (Mashup) Philosophy of Religion: A Reply to Trakakis

“…I have chosen to begin my reply to Nick Trakakis's fine essay, ‘The New Phenomenology and Analytic Philosophy of Religion’ (in The Heythrop Journal 2012, doi: HEYJ782), with this brief discussion of mashup music because his essay, along with my own essays, ‘God in Recent French Phenomenology’ and ‘Continuing to Look for God in France: On the Relationship Between Phenomenology and Theology’, which serve as the primary objects of Trakakis's critical attention, can plausibly be read as examples of something like ‘mashup philosophy of religion’ . Rather than mashing up heavy metal and rap, however, in our work continental philosophy of religion and analytic philosophy of religion are brought together (in these essays, in particular, the focus is largely on a mashup of new phenomenology and Reformed epistemology).…”

Agency, Stewardship, and the Universal-Family Firm

“…In particular, our paper demonstrates that the idea of a Universalfamily firm is observable and credible (e.g., evident in descriptions of practices associated within the first century Early Church and the twenty-first century Economy of Communion movement), and describes key factors associated with Universal-family firms and how these factors are related to each other (inclusivity of the marginalized, benefaction that counters patron-client relations, servant leadership that treats everyone with dignity, and embracement of liberating organizational practices). Finally, in terms of identifying possible antecedents and conditions associated with Universal-family firms-which may range from the personal beliefs and practices of organizational members, to structural characteristics of who comprises an organization, to what variety of capitalism a firm is operating in-we suggest that Universal-family firms are more likely to be evident when: members are open to the idea of an altruistic God (consistent with the "theological turn", Simmons, 2008); members practice spiritual disciplines (Dyck, 2014); firms are not dominated by one biological family (Le Breton -Miller, Miller & Lester, 2011, p. 717); managers do not serve (only) one biological family (Miller et al, 2014); and firms operate in a coordinated rather than a liberal market economy (Carnevale & Mazzuca, 2014).…”