Towards a New Religious Dialogue: Buddhism and Postmodern Theology

This paper proffers an example of a new form of religious dialogue. It subverts, rather than assumes the philosophical tradition of universal reason, upon which religious dialogue has traditionally proceeded. To this end, I call into question the frequently perceived affinity between Buddhism and radical postmodern a/theology. Whereas the latter works within a framework of oppositions inherited from the modern philosophical tradition, Buddhism is innocent of such a framework, and jettisons its 'either-or' antinomies. In this respect, I argue that there is a striking 'coincidence in outlook' between Buddhism and conservative postmodern theology, which also seeks to subvert the modern philosophical framework which it regards as being essentially secular. I suggest that this 'coincidence in outlook', which contrasts with the modern outlook, opens the way for a religious dialogue based on a mutual affirmation of difference, rather than on the distorting universalist quest for affinity at all costs.     

Infelicitous inter-ritual hospitality

This article focuses on inter-ritual hospitality, ‘where the reciprocal roles of host and guest set the parameters for interaction’ (60). This type of hospitality has the potential to enhance the dialogue between religions; indeed, one may ask whether there can be a greater token of mutual respect and appreciation than that of inviting another to share one’s rituals. In this article, however, I am not interested primarily in the success stories of inter-ritual hospitality that have brought growth and enrichment for the parties involved; rather, I will focus my attention on its infelicitous counterparts. The failure of inter-ritual hospitality is a subject that has been explored very little in interreligious studies, and there is little (ethnographic) documentation on this subject. One could say that inter-ritual failure is virgin territory among interreligious scholars. I will begin to explore some of the issues at stake and examine where inter-ritual hospitality can go wrong. In doing so, I continue and expand the research done by ritual scholars who have focused their attention on infelicitous ritual performances conducted mainly in ‘monoreligious’ settings.     

La production et la compréhension de références dans les théories psychologiques actuelles du dialogue

Dialogue is a joint activity during which at least two partners interact in order to reach a common goal. Throughout the interaction, each speaker resorts to a number of processes, which contribute to dialogue success. Several theoretical approaches have been developed in order to account for these processes. Among these approaches, the collaborative approach can be considered as the most influent one in the field. This approach offers a global framework for dialogue by pointing out that interactively building up mutual knowledge allows partners to adapt to each other during the remainder of the interaction. This implies that speakers frequently resort to costly inferential processes to determine what their partner is likely to know and what he or she is also likely to ignore. However, this approach has seriously been challenged by the egocentric approach, which suggests that speakers sometimes fail to take into account their partners’ dialogic needs. Furthermore, recent work within this approach has pointed out that adaptation is not systematically necessary for dialogue to succeed – rather, individual processes at play within each speaker incidentally contribute to mutual understanding. The probabilistic approach offers a means to overcome the apparent discrepancy between collaboration and egocentrism by showing how the processes at play during reference production and comprehension may be simultaneously affected by both kinds of influences. Moreover, the relative weighting of each kind of influence depends on the characteristics of the dialogue situation per se: speakers are more or less likely to act collaboratively depending on the situation they find themselves in. Finally, the interactive alignment model offers a qualitatively different framework for dialogue, as it suggests that most dialogic behaviors can be accounted for by one single automatic process. The aim of the current review is to provide a thorough presentation of each of these approaches, and to determine to what extent they are compatible with each other, on one hand and how they differ, on the other. We also raise the question of the apparent easiness of dialogue, looking at how – according to each approach – speakers deal with the individual and collective costs inherent in dialogue. We finally point out a number of issues that remain to be addressed in this research field.     

Disability,Dialogue, and the Posthuman

This article is the result of a mutual interest in the radical philosophical dialogue discussed by Martin Buber. The radical dialogue is rooted in western European values of humanism, values that are challenged because they exclude women, people with disabilities, non-western, indigenous people and sexual minorities. With our basis in radical dialogue we are discussing flaws within the very concept of dialogue, how dialogue is challenged in encounters between people with severe disabilities and their helpers, and we are proposing a new interpretation of dialogue in a posthuman area. To illuminate what might be at stake in relations where power is clearly imbalanced we use Pierre Bourdieus theory of the gift when asking ourselves: “How can we understand dialogue when there apparently is one dominant giver and one receiver unable to return the gift?” Discussing this question, we draw on Rosi Braidotti and her Posthuman Critical Theory to see if we can find new grounds to build dialogue on.     

Agency,Thought, and Language: Analytic Philosophy Goes to School

I take as my starting point recent concerns from within educational psychology about the need to treat the conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of empirical research in the field more seriously, specifically in the context of work on the self, mind and agency. Developing this theme, I find such conceptual support in the writings of P. F. Strawson and Donald Davidson, two giants of analytic philosophy in the second half of the Twentieth Century. Drawing particularly on Davidson’s later work, in which he seeks to integrate key claims about subjectivity, objectivity, belief, truth and knowledge, within what he refers to as a triangular framework of two speakers and a common world, I find support for pedagogic and classroom organizational structures based on collaborative thinking and dialogue. While Davidson did not write about education, I argue that his framework has much to offer, most particularly in view of the priority it affords language and dialogue as the necessary and sufficient conditions for reason, belief and thought—in short, for being a person in the world.     

The Relevance of Tillich for the Theology and Science Dialogue

This paper explores the relevance of the theology of Paul Tillich for the contemporary dialogue with the natural sciences. The focus is on his Systematic Theology , volume I. First I discuss the general relevance of Tillich's methodology (namely, the method of correlation) for that dialogue, stressing that a genuine dialogue requires cognitive input from both sides and that both sides find "value added" according to their own criteria (or what I call the method of "mutual creative interaction"). Then I move specifically to a Tillichian theological analysis of twentieth-century theoretical science and its empirical discoveries, including Big Bang, inflationary, and quantum cosmologies, quantum physics, thermodynamics, chaos and complexity, and molecular and evolutionary biology, suggesting how they relate to such Tillichian themes as finitude and the categories of being and knowing (time, space, causality, and substance) and to Tillich's understanding of such symbols as God, freedom and destiny, creation, and estrangement. In doing so, my intention is to provide a point of departure for further extended analyses of Tillich's theology in relation to contemporary natural science.     

Genetics,Developmental Psychopathology,and Psychoanalytic Theory: The Case for Ending Our (Not So) Splendid Isolation

This paper considers the historical isolation of psychoanalysis from other scientific academic disciplines. The example of behavior genetics is used to illustrate the potential mutual benefit of cross-fertilization. Exploring links between the two disciplines makes it possible to debate antipsycho-analytic constructions in behavior genetics with greater vigor. At the same time, psychoanalysis, which studies subjectivity, is relevant to a discipline that naively explores the objective environment without considering the crucial mediation through the subjective world. Microbiology and genetics offer models of the mechanisms by which meaning generation and interpretive capacity might interface with the unfolding of genetic expression. Simultaneously, emerging psychoanalytic developmental models have provided an ontogenetic psychological framework that links development of this capacity to the infant-mother relationship. The paper concludes by stressing the need for a cadre of specialist psychoanalytic professionals dedicated to research as the precondition of any meaningful dialogue between psychoanalysis and any other discipline.     

Memory for the intentions of sentences

Memory for the intentions of sentences was studied in two recognition tasks. In each study, Ss first acted out a dialogue written for two people. They then judged whether certain sentences in a second dialogue were the same as or different from previons sentences (Experiment I) or chose between two intentions suggested for some previous sentences (Experiment II) Sentences which were repeated with the same intention across the two dialogues were judged as being the same significantly more often than were sentences repeated with a different intention. The appropriate intention for each of these sentences was also usually chosen. In both studies, Ss appeared to remember more accurately the sentences they had spoken themselves than they did those that were addressed to them.     

The Integrity of Interfaith Dialogue

Since the second half of the last century, not only has there been much talk of interfaith dialogue but also meetings and activities aimed at promoting interfaith dialogue in general and Christian-Muslim dialogue in particular have become common phenomena. Despite the modest gains made through dialogue in promoting better understanding between people of different religions, dialogue has become increasingly vulnerable to popular mistrust in the eyes of many in the Western, but even more in the non-Western, worlds. Dialogue is perceived by many as an attempt to undermine faith in order to preserve interfaith harmony and to promote peaceful co-existence at the expense of honest engagement and discussion. To build confidence in dialogue amongst people from the non-Western world, I have identified five main issues that need critical re-examination, namely: theological issues and the general notion that truth claims are the main stumbling blocks to dialogue; the relationship between mission or propagation and dialogue; the challenge of inherited traditions in relation to the negative and hostile depictions of the Other; the burden of the past and the need to be honest with ourselves and partners in dialogue; and facing the challenge of re-examining our presuppositions about the Other in light of existential realities.     

The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and Interreligious Dialogue

This article examines how, through a pan-Orthodox synodical decision, the Orthodox Church has for the first time officially asserted its obligation to enter into dialogue with people of other cultures and religious beliefs and emphasized the value of serious and clear interreligious dialogue to promote mutual trust, peace, and reconciliation. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church of Crete clarified that interreligious dialogue excludes both syncretism and proselytism, and that interreligious dialogue needs to be accompanied by the condemnation of fundamentalism, nationalism, and the religious justification of violence. Finally, this article makes reference to the basic principles of the Orthodox tradition regarding the promotion of interreligious dialogue and emphasizes that dialogue entails respect for other religions but also discernment.     

In Sickness and in Health: Cripping and Queering Marriage Equality

On the heels of the groundbreaking Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement for marriage equality has received unprecedented coverage. Few people, however, have heard of the marriage equality movement for people with disabilities (PWD). In order to understand the lack of coalition between the two movements, as well as the invisibility of the PWD marriage equality movement, I provide a conceptual analysis of both marriage movement discourses. Drawing on Cathy Cohen's work on secondary marginalization in the black community, I argue that both LGBT folks and PWD actively obscure the most needy, most dependent, and most queer members of their respective communities to gain sympathy and support from a (perceived) independent, heteronormative majority. However, bringing the two movements into dialogue can help us rethink intimate relationships, marriage, and who counts as a citizen worthy of rights.     

A BIOLOGIST'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCE‐RELIGION DIALOGUE IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY

In recent issues of Zygon, numerous reflections have been published commenting on where the field of science‐and‐religion has been, where it presently stands, and where it should move in the future. These reflections touch on the importance of the dialogue and raise questions as to what audience the dialogue addresses and whom it should address. Some scholars see the dialogue as prospering, while others point out that much work needs to be done to make the dialogue more accessible to a larger audience and more successful at tackling the provocative questions before us. Other academics view the questions themselves as needing further consideration and focus before answers to them can even be explored. In this article I provide a general overview of these essays by outlining some general categories of thought that seem to emerge from the contributors. I then present some of my own opinions concerning the future of the science‐religion field and emphasize that the dialogue, in addition to its traditional roles, must further the philosophical framework that can aid humanity in resolving the most pressing global concerns of our time.     

A vision of dialogical pluralism in psychology

This paper argues for dialogical approach to pluralism in psychology. We argue that human psychology is both ontologically and epistemologically pluralistic and advocate an integrated approach to disciplinary pluralism based on mutual, dialogical engagement among psychology's diverse traditions. A framework for such dialogical engagement is developed from the standpoint of a hermeneutic understanding of pluralism. Some possibilities for implementing a dialogical approach to pluralism, in terms of intra-disciplinary boundary-work and oppositional contrasts among psychology's diverse traditions, are then considered as ways of promoting disciplinary integration through dialogue.     

Some reflections on the two psychologies of love

The mainstream view of love is that it is a state that arises from people mutually reinforcing each other or providing benefits to each other Yet careful quantitative analyses of imaginative thought patterns of people in love or in a state of affiliative arousal reveal themes of dialogue, commitment, and harmony rather than of mutual benefits It is suggested that asking people about love leads them to give causal explanations for the state which psychologists have elaborated into the theory that love is a response to having one's needs met Imaginative experiences characteristic of the state of being in love on the other hand may be different because they are primarily right brain mediated and do not share in the causal, instrumental type of reasoning characteristic of left brain conscious thinking Such conceivably right brain mediated experiences in TATs are more closely associated than presumably left brain mediated self-reports are with such physiological measures as evoked scalp potentials, neurohormone concentrations, and immune functions A vew of love that takes both self-report (left brain) and fantasy (right brain) measures into account does a better job of predicting affiliative behavior than does a view that relies solely on one or the other of the two types of measures     

From method to hermeneutics: which epistemological framework for narrative medicine?

The past 10 years have seen considerable developments in the use of narrative in medicine, primarily through the emergence of the so-called narrative medicine. In this article, I question narrative medicine’s self-understanding and contend that one of the most prominent issues is its lack of a clear epistemological framework. Drawing from Gadamer’s work on hermeneutics, I first show that narrative medicine is deeply linked with the hermeneutical field of knowledge. Then I try to identify which claims can be legitimately expected from narrative medicine, and which ones cannot be. I scrutinize in particular whether narrative medicine can legitimately grasp the patient’s lived experience of his or her illness. In the last section of this article, I begin to explore the potential usefulness of this epistemological clarification. This analysis allows for a further understanding of what is really at stake with narrative medicine, and thus to identify when it may be convenient, and when it may not. Furthermore, this clarification opens up promising new possibilities of dialogue with critics of the field. I conclude that narrative medicine finds its proper place as a possible tool available to mediate dialogue, which is at the heart of the clinical encounter in medical practice.     

Mutual gaze and social cognition

I examine the role of mutual gaze in social cognition. I start by discussing recent studies of joint visual attention in order to show that social cognition is operative in infancy prior to the emergence of theoretical skills required to make judgments about other people's states of mind. Such social cognition depends on the communicative potential inherent in human bodies. I proceed to examine this embodied social cognition in the context of Merleau-Ponty's views on vision. I expose some inner difficulties within Merleau-Ponty's position as well as to point out the ways of resolving them by means of combined insights from developmental psychology and the analyses of self-other relations from philosophies of dialogue.     

Theology after Dialogue: Christian–Muslim Engagement Today and Tomorrow

The phenomenon of Christian–Muslim dialogue has had a very chequered history. At varying times, three broad modes of engagement can be said to have operated: antipathy, affinity and inquiry, and these three modes can be found still in today's world. In some places, hostility and antipathy abound. In others, voices and actions express cordial friendship, détente and affinity. In this latter climate, the prospect of engagement in mutual inquiry and cooperative ventures is not only theoretically possible, but actively pursued, and in the first decade of the twenty-first century, a number of notable initiatives in the arena of mutual inquiry have taken place. This article addresses aspects of the context and development of Christian–Muslim dialogue as a modern phenomenon, and then turns to a review of three twenty-first century developments – the Building Bridges seminar series; the Stuttgart-based Christian–Muslim Theological Forum and the “Common Word” letter. It also reflects on the models and theology of dialogue, including not only theology for dialogue, but also theology in and – importantly – after dialogue.     

From Hostility to Hospitality: Teaching About Race and Privilege in a Post-election Climate

Now more than ever the role of the other has been put into question and marginalized in a redefinition of an “American national self-protective identity” in the current post election climate. In philosophical terms, an identity of a radical other- implies that any change, any difference, any impurity can be conceived as posing a threat to identity. If a specific group of people is identified as preventing the self from being what it ought to be, the other is identified as a security threat. One option is to willingly conform to the assigned role as a threat. The opposite option I argue in my paper is one that can be achieved through the lens of a cosmopolitan framework of hospitality. By exploring the writings of French philosopher, feminist and psychoanalyst Luce Irigary’s cosmopolitan pedagogy of difference rooted in the concept of hospitality from the point of view of education, I hope put forth an alternative phenomenological pedagogy, one that connects issues of positionality with those of an embodied anti-racist philosophy of difference. By using case studies from my own classroom, I hope to elucidate how educators can implement an anti-racist pedagogy in the current post election climate, by creating spaces for dialogue where students are engaging in an authentic discourse on the nature of their positionality.     

Positive youth development as a guiding framework in sport research: Is it time to plan for a transition?

Positive youth development is a popular guiding framework for studying the psychosocial development of youth. In sport research, for more than two decades, this framework has enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms involved in successful shifts from youth to adulthood. Nonetheless, scholars have recently taken a more critical stance on the positive youth development framework by elucidating some of its shortcomings. To help determine whether it may be warranted to plan for a transition from the positive youth development framework in sport research, a critical commentary is offered. The purpose of this commentary lies in situating three ontologically distinct arguments that depict the shortcomings of the positive youth development framework, namely the operationalization argument, the social justice argument, and the posthumanist argument. This paper is offered as an open invitation to instigate dialogue on what may come next for youth development in sport research and whether planning for a transition is warranted.