[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:14:20 -0400
I wrote:
"What liberal democracy could not and cannot borrow from Christianity is the
benevolence of hope."
to which John McCreery wrote:
"Please explain this astonishing statement."
I mentioned the agreement of Habermas and Derrida on this matter. What they
both agree on is the absence of hope within liberal democracy even though it
is necessary, particularly when addressing the issue of justice. In the
case of Habermas, he raises the issue of bringing about justice particularly
in the case where the victim is no longer living. Where there is no longer
a victim who can testify to injustice, a liberal democratic society must
adopt the hope of justice for those who are dead. A murderer is guilty even
though there is no victim who can testify to an injustice. However, because
a liberal democratic society cannot itself articulate a particular account
of how this justice might be enacted, justice within a liberal democracy is
parasitical on the particular accounts of hopeful justice that its citizens
adopt. That is, justice depends on there being accounts of hope circulating
within the citizenry but cannot itself adopt any of it, remaining purely
purely formal.
For Derrida, hope lies in the promise of justice. For promises to be made,
for arguments to be engaged in, and ultimately for any instance of language
use, there must be a hope of justice should there be lies, violence and the
betrayal of trust. However, this hope always remains partly in the future,
and never fully made present. In Derrida's terms, it remains a messianic
promise. In a liberal democracy, justice can never be fully satisfied, yet
is, in some fashion, present. The criminal is charged, judged and
sentenced, but yet justice is not fully satisfied, still to come. As
Derrida notes, for those in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is the hope
of a Messiah whose coming will bring a final justice that satisfies. But
within liberal democracy, the hope of the promise of justice can never adopt
the particularity of this tradition, so the hope remains purely formal.
I am not denying that people in the public sphere refer to hope, but rather
that this reference must always remain empty of particular content. On the
other hand, for those of us who live within the Christian tradition, or
other religious traditions, hope is meaningful.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Glen Haven, NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
