DataPDF Available

DuBois-Heather-2020-Review-of-Trauma-and-Transcendence-Theological-Studies.pdf

Authors:

Abstract

Review of "Trauma and Transcendence"
518 Theological Studies 81(2)
convey the person behind the work, they deftly introduce not only the book but
Elshtain herself. Most of the nineteen essays that follow are well-chosen and of high
quality. Collectively, they cover all of Elshtain’s major works, from diverse discipli-
nary angles, and strike a balance between appreciation and critique, though apprecia-
tion prevails overall.
Many essays are illuminating and complementary. William Galston, Arlene
Saxonhouse, and Don Browning contribute insightful analyses of Elshtain’s method-
ology as a political theorist and “social feminist.” Lisa Cahill, Nigel Biggar, Eric
Gregory, and Robin Lovin provide differing assessments of Elshtain’s “Augustinianism,”
and its value for the present. Chris Brown marshals a spirited, if not quite convincing,
defense of Elshtain’s case for the War on Terror, while John Carlson carefully recon-
structs the evolution of her just war thinking and offers an immanent critique. Francis
Fukuyama raises intriguing questions about whether the social pathologies of democ-
racy that preoccupied Elshtain have been superseded by others.
Inevitably, certain issues remain underexplored. Though several authors discuss
Elshtain’s feminism, none directly evaluates it in light of contemporary feminist
thought. Neither does any fully examine Elshtain’s relationship to Catholicism (to
which she converted). Including more early career scholars might have strengthened
the book’s case for Elshtain’s contemporary relevance. Nevertheless, for anyone inter-
ested in Elshtain, or the subjects she addressed, this volume is highly recommended.
Nicholas Hayes-Mota
Boston College
Trauma and Transcendence: Suffering and the Limits of Theory. Edited by Eric Boynton
and Peter Capretto. New York: Fordham University Press, 2018. Pp. 344. $35.
Trauma borders life and death. This proximity to death, an experience that cannot be
recounted, makes trauma unassailable and incomprehensible. And yet, responses to
trauma take place within fallible human processes of interpretation, addressing or
disavowing tangible effects, some of which are remediable. Trauma and Transcendence:
Suffering and the Limits of Theory identifies this contrast to enrich trauma theory in
the humanities. As the editors observe, a vanguard of literary theorists and continental
philosophers have shown that many biomedical approaches to trauma are debilitated
by “reductionism” (3). Conversely, some scholars theorizing trauma outside of clinical
settings are guilty of “obscurantism” (3). While the volume does not directly mediate
this conflict, it gathers philosophers, social theorists, humanistic psychologists, and
theologians who are not invested in feeding this polarization.
Because the fourteen essays do not all engage the poles that frame the book, their
correlation is not uniformly obvious. However, what emerges from a close reading is
a shared pair of insights about trauma: first, context is crucial to the types and the
degrees of harm and healing; and, second, context is always relational. The humanities
are uniquely suited to flesh out the implications of these insights and to do so with
methodologies that keep theory close to the people for whom trauma studies should be
Shorter Notices 519
pursued. This book will be of interest to theologians who write about suffering, evil,
and theodicy, as well as to theologians who are refining descriptions of transcendence,
whether in terms of incarnation, spirituality, salvation, or ecclesiology.
Heather M. DuBois
Stonehill College, Easton, MA
Atheist Overrearch: What Atheism Can’t Deliver. By Christian Smith. Oxford: Oxford
University, 2019. Pp. v+159. $19.99.
Christian Smith is best known for his book, What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity,
Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2011), a sociological opus drawing upon the critical realist school of Roy
Bhaskar, Margaret Archer, et al. (but not Bernard Lonergan). This present work is
brief, and its aim is captured by its title: to demonstrate that modern proponents of
atheism consistently overreach in their claims in two main areas: what morality athe-
ism can rationally justify, and what science can demonstrate in relation to religion. The
intended audience for his argument is not professional theologians or philosophers,
but an “educated reading public and . . . undergraduate college students” (7).
The book consists of four chapters and a brief conclusion. The first two chapters are
the most substantial, dealing with the moral claims asserted by atheists. At issue is not
whether atheists can live moral lives, but the rational justifications that atheism gives
for those lives. In considering a range of authors in the New Atheist movement, S.
argues that they overreach in their claims, and that in general they draw on little more
than enlightened self-interest, and thereby cannot support a high moral ethics of “uni-
versal benevolence and human rights.” His arguments are not necessarily new, but
they are clearly articulated, with a minimum of technicalities. The third chapter con-
siders the claims of the more scientifically oriented atheists to the effect that science
“disproves” religious claims. Once more S. argues that they overreach, claiming com-
petence in matters beyond their scientific authority, and making unsubstantiated leaps
of logic. Again, these arguments are not new. S. does not take them head-on in relation
to their scientific claims but simply argues for respecting different areas of expertise.
The final chapter considers the claims as to whether humans are “naturally religious.”
Much hinges on what is meant by both “natural” and “religious.” Here S. brings his
sociological expertise to bear, but it is also the chapter where he is most likely to lose
his intended audience. He presumes positions argued in two previous books and intro-
duces technical language that on a first reading will be quite obscure. In sum, the
answer he gives is that in some limited sense, yes, humans are “naturally religious,” at
least in such a way that the “New Atheist dream of a fundamentally secular world will
prove illusory” (122). There is a brief conclusion where S. reviews his overall argu-
ment but adds a suggestion that atheism would be better served by attending to
Aristotelian ethics to provide them with a better ethical foundation than the Kantian
approach they current employ.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.