John McSweeney

Exploration of the import for theology of the thought of Michel Foucault has been growing steadily in recent years, principally in relation to the Christian tradition. This article traces the evolution of this dialogue with his work, with a view to assessing its current state of development, highlighting the critical issues involved, and suggesting likely lines of investigation going forward. Having surveyed applications of aspects of his work to a variety of theological questions, and the discussion of his work under the rubric of 'postmodern theology', the article focuses upon the more in-depth theological engagement with his thought inaugurated by the work of James Bernauer and Jeremy Carrette. It is proposed that one of the most critical issues in this debate, currently and going forward, concerns assessment of the kind of relation to theology, if any, that can be extrapolated from Foucault's deployment of notions like 'spirituality' and his engagement with various theological themes

This article rethinks Michel Foucault’s relation to religion by situating his engagement with the ‘death of God’ in relation to his ongoing efforts to frame critical discourse in consistently immanent terms. It argues that a certain, indirect ‘theological’ horizon is the paradoxical and problematic limit, for Foucault, of the possibility of a thoroughgoing immanent discourse in his earlier work, due to the paradoxes of the death of long-duration of God (and ‘man’). The relation of his work to religion thus emerges less as a productive question, for Foucault, than as a problem to be resolved if his critical project is to be viable. The article argues that his later work is informed by a significant re-framing of his relation to religion, signalled in comments he makes at the end of his 1978 lecture, “What is Critique?” and performed in his engagements with Christian mysticism, the ‘political spirituality’ of the Iranian revolution and early Christian practices of the self. Foucault is shown to perform a complex openness to religion as ‘other,’ which negotiates the ‘religious problem’ haunting his early work, even as it must repeatedly risk undermining his project. It is concluded that the relation to religion in Foucault’s work, less reflects resonance with aspects of a religious worldview, than it stages and clarifies the challenge of thinking otherwise immanently after the death of God

Questions of cultural representation and contestation, central to political and ethical thinking after the so-called `cultural turn¿ of recent decades, have if anything intensified in a twenty-first century of new media, globalization, migration, and ever renewed struggles over identity, memory, and cultural performance. At the same time, theoretical debate is increasingly marked by a concern to retrieve a properly political sphere of action as such. The essays collected in this interdisciplinary volume aim to break new ground by exploring the critical space between the apparently enduring political vitality of cultural representation and contestation today, on the one hand, and the possible limits of a `cultural¿ politics, on the other. Combining concrete researches and theoretical reflection, and including a final chapter exploring the issues raised by the essays, this volume will be of interest to those in the disciplines of cultural studies, sociology, political philosophy and ethics.

In a recent article, Martin McQuillan has inaugurated a vigorous Derridean critique of a “violent tone” that has recently arisen in continental philosophy, exemplified by Slavoj Žižek’s attempt to retrieve Robespierre’s notion of “Terror. This article sets out to complicate such critique, opening a new perspective on the Derrida- Žižek debate on the question of politics. In particular, it examines Derrida’s and Žižek’s respective approaches to difference and violence as differing responses to a shared problematic of constructing a consistent politics within the horizon of a finite world. It proceeds by elaborating Žižek’s critique of Derridean deconstruction, highlighting how Derrida’s attempt to minimise violence via maximal openness to difference, within the horizon of the future-to-come, inadvertently reinscribes a minimal but problematic ontotheological trace which ironically circumscribes deconstructive openness to difference. The article goes on to examine how Žižek’s alternative construal of a purified violence and self-difference ends up repeating in somewhat different terms these same problematic features of Derrida’s writings. The article concludes by arguing that each approach requires a theoretically-integrated ethos of ‘becoming other’ in which the unavoidable theoretical anticipation of difference is ruptured by the actual encounter with difference

In The Monstrosity of Christ, Slavoj Žižek cites the twins Claus and Lucas, from Agota Kristof’s The Notebook, as exemplars of the simultaneously naive and reflexive stance, which he considers to be crucial to a materialist ethics. This article argues, however, that the twins’ stance suffers from a ‘blindness’ as to the ethicality of their acts, shared by Žižek’s own ethics. It proposes that, by situating their actions within the trilogy to which The Notebook belongs, a richer three-fold ethics of reflexive subjectivization emerges, in which reflexivity becomes the paradoxical condition of naivety, enabling Žižek to address this problem. Naive acts are granted consistency and significance by the construction of a new point de capiton, and a related interpretative framework, . However, insofar as this construction fails, acts are opened to the judgment of what is ‘other’ , constituting what in Žižek’s Beckettian terms may be called an ethics of ‘failing again, failing better’. The deeper significance of this proposal is demonstrated by uncovering a similar, but more problematically-realized three-fold reflexive-subjective relation to act within St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, with an appeal to authority taking the place of Kristof’s appeal to concrete historical judgment. It is further argued that insofar as Žižek largely does not attend to these dynamics, he tends to repeat this problematic Pauline solution in his own work. The article concludes that Kristof’s ethics of failure enables Žižek to avoid these problems, without compromising his distinctive ethical stance