I mentioned last week that I was beginning my Doctor of Ministry program at Fuller this month. Lucky for all of you that means I’ll have lots of stuff to post! Woohoo!! Here’s my book review of Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, by Stephen Toulmin.
—
In Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, Stephen Toulmin makes two major arguments. The first argument is foundational to the second.
Toulmin’s first point is that Modernity did not arise from the fact that philosophers and scientists were free from political unrest or pressure from the church. Rather, the rise of Modernity was a response to the turbulence of the times. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was a major factor in the growing “Quest for Certainty” (70). People wanted to have stability in their lives. Toulmin states that “from 1615 to 1650, people had a fair chance of having their throats cut and their houses burned down by strangers who merely disliked their religion” (17). Out of this instability, came the search for universal principles (in philosophy, in ethics, in science, etc.) that would hopefully yield a more peaceful society.
Second, Toulmin argues that the development of the Modern Cosmopolis led to a dehumanizing of societies and governments. The desire was, of course, for something good (the social stability mentioned above). To achieve this, Modernity sought two kinds of order: order in the universe (the cosmos) and order in the social/political realm (the polis). From this pursuit came the principle of the cosmopolis—a society in which the order of the social/political realm was at its best when it reflected the divine order in nature.
The dehumanization stemmed from the fact that philosophers and scientists sought to decontextualize everything. Toulmin states that “the 17th century philosophers were theory-centered, not practical-minded” (34). By refusing to focus on specific circumstances (context), people ended up being oppressed, exploited, or generally ignored if they were not in the upper classes of the dominant society.
As Modernity (or at least, this phase of Modernity) has begun to come to an end, the goal, according to Toulmin, is to reintroduce the significance of context. By so doing, Modernity can be humanized. Toulmin states, “As things stand, we can neither cling to Modernity in its historic form, nor reject it totally—least of all despise it. The task is, rather, to reform, and even reclaim, our inherited modernity, by humanizing it” (180).
What strikes me most about Toulmin’s arguments is that most of what he challenges, our culture has generally taken for granted. Universal principles? Of course. Why wouldn’t we seek principles that are true everywhere, at all times. The assertion that the quest for universal principles has led to exploitation and oppression is not a connection I would have guessed. It almost sounds like we should put an end to our search for universals.
My inclination is to respond, “But some things must be universal, mustn’t they? Isn’t right always right and wrong always wrong? Is it a given that a desire for universal rights and wrongs will eventually lead toward some sort of oppression?”
As I reflect on this, I begin to realize that there is a tendency toward some sort of oppression. Or if not oppression, then at least judgmentalism. Toulmin says that the “idolization of ‘traditional values’…and its dogmas stand in the way of more discriminating and discerning approaches to moral issues” (195). He’s right. When we unthinkingly rely on “traditional values,” it is easy to ignore the context in which someone might have failed to live out those values. Toulmin pointedly adds that “dogmatic appeals to ‘tradition’ are, in biblical terms, the teachings of the Pharisees more than those of Jesus” (195).
But this is difficult. It is much easier to point to a universal principle and then point at an action and say, “That was right” or “That was wrong.” It’s much harder to weigh a situation and wrestle with the “rightness” or “wrongness” based on the context.
But, certainly, this is what Jesus did. Whereas the teachers of the law and the Pharisees were ready to condemn the woman caught in adultery, Jesus’ response was based on the context of the situation (John 8:1-11).
As a leader, my longing is for my congregation to leave behind blind judgment based on universal principles. It’s not that I think universal principles are all bad; it’s blind judgment that is bad.
In teaching my congregation to humanize our world, I’m not sure that I would spend a lot of time on the intricacies of Modernity in the way that Toulmin does. I suppose an in-depth discussion like that might be appropriate in a Bible study or small group setting, but a little too academic for a Sunday morning.
However, I think there is something to be gained in helping people understand the importance of context—that when someone “sins” there is a context to that sin. And it’s not that I would want to minimize the significance of sin. Instead, I would want to teach our people to maximize their understanding of a person’s context.
And I think that love is a big part of this. Love focuses on the person. Love understands the context. Love listens to the story. Love says, “Neither do I condemn you” (John 8:11).
Thanks to Scott over at Living Dusty, I discovered this article on Christianity Today’s blog, Out of Ur.
Markus Watson
