No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
I came across this project quite by accident. One day while I was reading Roberto Unger's Knowledge and Politics, I was struck with certain parallels between his thoughts and those of several Latin American liberation theologians such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, Jon Sobrino, S.J., and Juan Luis Segundo, S.J. The more I thought about the parallels, the more I chided myself, “This cannot be; what could a Harvard law professor have in common with liberation theologians?” But the more I read and reflected, the more I saw connections upon which I hope to elaborate in this article.
Other scholars have made connections between this Harvard law professor and several notable Roman Catholic priests who investigate and write about a theology which can liberate the millions of poor in Central and South America. Recently, for example, Paul Sigmund, a political science professor at Princeton, completed an investigation of liberation theology in which he identifies “a movement away from Marxist reductionism to communitarian participatory radicalism in the development of liberation theology over the last twenty years.” In urging the cultivation of a dialogue between communitarian theologians and thinkers from liberal (and Christian democratic) political institutions, Sigmund suggests that this discussion might also include ” ‘communitarian’ critics of Anglo-American liberalism, some of whose views resemble … liberationists.” Sigmund includes Roberto Unger in this group since he, along with Alasdair Maclntyre and Michael Walzer, criticizes classical arid contemporary liberals for their absence of a shared conception of the good, their unrealistic view of the person, and their effort to derive ideas of community from an artificial contract that bears no relationship to actual experience.
1. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, Knowledge and Politics, (Free Press, 1975)(hereinafter Unger, Knowledge and Politics)Google Scholar.
2. In another context the concept of liberation theology has captured legal audiences elsewhere: see Beers, Meredeth, Note, Preferential Option for the Poor: Liberation Theory in Brazil, 18 Nyu J Intl L & Pol 921 (1986)Google Scholar.
3. Sigmund, Paul E., Liberation Theology at the Crossroads at 194 (Oxford U Press, 1990)(hereinafter Sigmund, Liberation Theology)Google Scholar.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Ball, Milner S., The City of Unger, 81 Nw U L Rev 625, 626 (1987)Google Scholar. Ball continues by explaining that, “Unger is bent upon increasing the power and wealth of the people of Brazil and, at the same time, producing a governmental and economic example to inspire all mankind. If this is a type of grand ambition common to all politicians of conscience, not until now has it assumed the Ungerian form.” Id. Ball also notes on Unger's self-defense that his work Knowledge and Politics is a Christian book which affirms humankind's progress toward “the ideal.” Id at 660. While welcoming Unger's works as “a major contribution to our thinking about society,” Charles Davis offers one critique of Unger's religious outlook and criticism of “liberalism.” See, Davis, Charles, Religion and the Making of Society, 81 Nw U L Rev 718 (1987)Google Scholar. Cornell West, while appreciating Unger's motivation from “explicit religious concerns,” nonetheless is critical of his failure to take account of gender and race in his “emancipatory experimentalism that promotes permanent social transformation and perennial self-development toward ever increasing democracy and individual freedom.” West, Cornell, Between Dewey and Gramsci: Unger's Emancipatory Experimentalism, 81 Nw U L Rev 941, 950 (1987)Google Scholar.
7. Powell, H. Jefferson, The Gospel According to Roberto: A Theological Polemic, 1988 Duke L J 1013, 1027Google Scholar.
8. Sigmund, , Liberation Theology at 7 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.
9. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory, at 83 (Free Press, 1976) (hereinafter Unger, Law in Modern Society)Google Scholar.
10. Haight, Roger S.J., An Alternative Vision: An Interpretation of Liberation Theology at 41 (Paulist Press, 1985) (hereinafter Haight, Liberation Theology)Google Scholar.
11. Id. Haight calls our attention to the variety of understanding of the term praxis. However, he offers the general definition given by Matthew Lamb: “Praxis regards human action as what we actually do, and probably or possibly can do. Minimally, it can be a mere technical or mechanical repetition of movements, assembly-line routines with slight subjective engagement. More adequately, praxis is involvement and commitment; by our actions we become who we are.” Quoting from Lamb, Matthew, “The Theory-Praxis Relationship in Contemporary Christian Theologies,” 31 Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 149, 150 (1976)Google Scholar in Haight, , Liberation Theology at 300, note 18 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.
12. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 27 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
13. Id at 262.
14. See Haight, , Liberation Theology at 20–21 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar; and Berryman, Phillip, Liberation Theology: Essential Facts About the Revolutionary Movement in Latin America and Beyond at 140 (Temple U Press, 1987)(hereinafter Berryman, Liberation Theology)Google Scholar. The author states that, “Marxism can be regarded primarily as a set of questions-a method—for understanding society.” Id at 140.
15. See Gutiérrez, Gustavo, “Theology and the Social Sciences,” in The Truth Shall Make You Free at 53–84 (Orbis Books, 1990)Google Scholar; in showing the limitations of Marxism to the development of liberation theology, Gutiérrez states, “neither the social sciences generally nor the Latin American contribution to them can be reduced to the Marxist version. I am not denying the contributions Marxism has made to our understanding of economic and social matters; I do, howevever, want the necessary distinctions to be clearly grasped.” Id at 61. See also, Vidales, Raúl, Methodological Issues in Liberation Theology, in Gibellini, Rosino, ed., Frontiers of Theology in Latin America at 34–57 (Orbis Books, 1989)Google Scholar; this author argues that, “theology cannot claim a methodology that is strictly equivalent to the scientific methodology that has evolved in the exact sicences. We also know that we cannot derive some theological end-result simply by applying the various methods of other disciplines in some mechanical fashion …. By the same token, however, we cannot theologize in a whimsical or arbitrary way, paying no attention to the methodology as we do so.” Id at 35. See Bonino, Jose Miguez, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation at 86–105 (Fortress Press, 1975)Google Scholar; again, while recognizing the limitations of Marxism to liberation theology, Miguez Bonino concedes that, “we cannot receive the theological interpretation coming from the rich world without suspecting it and, therefore, asking what kind of praxis it supports, reflects, or legitimizes.” Id at 91. Finally, Rebecca Chopp has shown that, “The anthropology of liberation theology, in sum, emphasizes practical activity. It draws upon Aristotle's notion of praxis in which human agency is always related to a community and practically oriented. But the anthropology of liberation theology transforms this understanding in light of Marx's conception of praxis stressing the structural relations within society, the realities of ideological and systematic distortion, and the necessity for social and personal transformations.” Chopp, Rebecca S., The Praxis of Suffering at 123 (Orbis Books, 1986)Google Scholar.
16. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, The Critical Legal Studies Movement at 108 (Harvard, 1983)Google Scholar.
17. Id at 93.
18. Sobrino, Jon S.J., Christology at the Crossroads: A Latin American Approach at 35 (Orbis Books, 1978)Google Scholar.
19. Id at 119 (italics in the original).
20. Id at 120.
21. See Berryman, , Liberation Theology at 205Google Scholar (cited in note 14) where the author defines liberation theology as: “(1) an interpretation of Christian faith out of the suffering, struggle, and hope of the poor; (2) a theological critique of society and its ideological underpinnings; (3) a critique of the practice of the church and of Christians.”
22. Unger, Knowledge and Politics at frontispiece (cited in note 1).
23. Id at 3.
24. Haight, , Liberation Theology at 255 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.
25. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 239 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
26. Id at 236, 239.
27. Id at 239.
28. Id at 18-23.
29. Id at 23.
30. Segundo, Juan Luis S.J., The Community Called Church: A Theology for Artisans of a New Humanity at 4 (Orbis Books, 1973)Google Scholar (hereinafter Segundo, Community Called Church).
31. For example, in Gaudium et Spes the members of the Council exhorted that “it will be increasingly clear that the People of God and the human race in whose midst it lives render service to each other.” Elsewhere, the Council reminded us that, “through her individual members and her whole community, the Church believes she can contribute greatly toward making the family of man and its history more human.”
32. Segundo, , Community Called Church at 112 (cited in note 30)Google Scholar.
33. Haight, , Liberation Theology at 46 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.
34. Compare Haight, , Liberation Theology at 266–268 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.
35. Segundo, Juan Luis S.J.The Liberation of Theology at 71 (Orbis Books, 1976)Google Scholar.
36. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 237 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
37. Id at 262.
38. Id.
39. Id at 239.
40. The American bishops discussed a parallel situation in the United States experience when they pointed out at paragraph 77 of their pastoral letter Economic Justice for All (United States Catholic Conference, 1986)Google Scholar, that, “The ultimate injustice is for a person or group to be treated actively or abandoned passively as if they were nonmembers of the human race. To treat people this way is effectively to say that they simply do not count as human beings.”
41. Gutiérrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation at 29 (Orbis Books, rev ed 1988) (hereinafter Gutiérrez, Liberation)Google Scholar.
42. Economic Justice for All at para 186 (cited in note 40).
43. Gutiérrez, Liberation at 164 (cited in note 41).
44. Berryman, , Liberation Theology at 5 (cited in note 14)Google Scholar.
45. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 243 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
46. Id.
47. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 56 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
48. Id at 59.
49. Id at 68.
50. Id at 148. See also Segundo, , Liberation of Theology at 85Google Scholar (cited in note 35) where this author comments on the source of this human movement toward justice: “the pastoral success of the theology of liberation has been a process of moving from the gospel message to liberation, not from the liberation process to the gospel message.”
51. See Sobrino, Jon, The Church and the Poor at ch 4 (Orbis Books, 1984)Google Scholar.
52. Id at 270.
53. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 249 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
54. Id at 251.
55. Id at 253.
56. Id at 257, 258.
57. Id at 258. Unger is not alone among contemporary philosophically and theologically social commentators. Jean Porter and Daniel Mark Nelson have both recently contributed to the public discourse about the relevance and significance of prudence to the development of moral societies. See Porter, Jean, The Recovery of Virtue at 159 (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990)Google Scholar where she states that in regard to Aquinas' moral theory that can be appropriated for today, “prudence determines which courses of activity and specific actions would instantiate the virtues in the specific situations that make up our lives.” See also, Nelson, Daniel Mark, The Priority of Prudence: Virtue and Natural Law in Thomas Aquinas and the Implications for Modern Ethics at 81 (Penn State Press, 1992)Google Scholar where the author elaborates on a major thesis: “Prudence is a necessary virtue for practical reasoning because it enables one to do good deeds, the activity in which a good life consists, and to become a good and happy person …. Prudence enables us to act in the right way, for the right reasons, and at the right time …. Prudence gives one a sense of moral perspective.”
58. Mark 12:28-31; Matt 22:35-40; and Luke 10:25-28.
59. Matt 22:40.
60. Haight, , Liberation Theology at 80 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar. The author continues by insightfully arguing that
the centrality and urgency of this is augmented when one recalls the primacy of the moral dimension of faith as the indicator of faith's reality and authenticity. Active concern for other human beings on a social level, though never to the exclusion of concern for the other levels of personal and transcendent freedom, constitutes real union with God by an implied faith. And all faith that lacks this concern as its form is incomplete and suspect.
Id.
61. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 110 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
62. Id.
63. As Norbert Lohfink points out, the concern for the poor is not a specifically Christian concern, but is one that goes back to the traditions of the Ancient Near East. See Lohfink, Norbert F. S.J.Option for the Poor at 14, 18, 21, 23 (Bibal Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
64. Luke 10:30-37.
65. See, for example, Deut 10:18; 27:19; Psalm 10:18; Psalm 82:3; Psalm 103:6; Psalm 140:12; Eccl 5:8; Isaiah 1:17; Jer 5:28; and, Jer 22:3.
66. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 262 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
67. Id.
68. Id. at 261.
69. Id.
70. Id at 271.
71. Id.
72. See, for example, Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 67, 68 and 160 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar. Gutiérrez notes that, “The fullness of liberation—a free gift from Christ—is communion with God and with other human beings.” Id at 24. See also, Haight, Liberation Theology at 297 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar, where the author states that, “The term ‘solidarity’ is not only a constant in Latin American theological writing, it plays an even greater role in the common language of religious groups committed to the ideals of liberation. Like the religious symbol, “the people,” it contains deep spiritual and theological resonances.” In his encyclical letter of 12-30-87, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, John Paul II reaches a similar conclusion when he states at paragraph 26 that, “the conviction is growing of a radical interdependence and consequently of the need for a solidarity which will take up interdependence and transfer it to the moral plane. Today perhaps more than in the past, people are realizing that they are linked together by a common destiny, which is to be constructed together, if catastrophe for all is to be avoided.”
73. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 271 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
74. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 29 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
75. See also, Berryman, , Liberation Theology at 125–131Google Scholar (cited in note 14); Segundo, , Liberation of Theology at 69–95 (cited in note 35)Google Scholar; and Haight, , Liberation Theology at 9799, 266–269 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.
76. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 126 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
77. One response to this criticism is from Segundo, who argues that
There is no unbridgeable gap between the Church and politics, as Pharisaical theology claims. There is an intimate tie-up between the realm of human sensitivity and political commitment on the one hand, and theological reflection on the other hand. Recognition of that tie-up is an essential precondition for any theological methodology that purports to imitate the liberating creativity of Jesus' own methodology.
Segundo, , Liberation Theology at 81 (cited in note 35)Google Scholar.
78. See, for example, Populorum Progressio, Mar 26, 1967 encyclical letter, in which Paul VI made a tripartite appeal to Chatholics (para 81), Christians and believers (para 82), and people of good will (para 83) to assume the proper responsibilities in addressing those social ills which contribute to and sustain what I earlier identified as the “human problem.”
79. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 135 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
80. Id at 138.
81. Id at 140.
82. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 267 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
83. Id at 269.
84. Id.
85. Id at 236.
86. Id at 261.
87. Id at 262.
88. Id at 267.
89. Id at 274.
90. Id.
91. Gutiérrez, , Liberation at 174 (cited in note 41)Google Scholar.
92. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 290 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
93. Id at 295.
94. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XII, Chap 7, 1072a and 1072b.
95. Unger, , Law in Modern Society at 4 (cited in note 9)Google Scholar.
96. See, for example, Rahner, Karl S.J., Theological Investigations at ch 4 (Darton Longman & Todd, 1961)Google Scholar; McBrien, Richard P., Volume I, Catholocism (Winston Press, 1980)Google Scholar, Chapters VI (Belief and Unbelief Today), VII (Revelation), IX (The Christian Understanding of God), X (The Trinity), XII (The Christ of the New Testament), and XIV (The Christ of the Twentieth-Century Theology).
97. Unger, , Law in Modern Society at 76–83 (cited in note 9)Google Scholar.
98. Id at 81.
99. Id at 83.
100. Unger, , Knowledge and Politics at 293 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar.
101. Id.