at a distance to the state: radical democracy and religion

I've been working on a paper on radical democracy and radical ecclesiology for two different conferences, and I was hoping to get some feedback from you all.  It begins by comparing Thomas Hobbes and Alain Badiou concerning the State, and then looks at the recent collaboration by Romand Coles and Stanley Hauerwas called Christianity, Democracy, and the Radical Ordinary: Conversations Between a Radical Democrat and a Christian.

It is some what of a survey paper, and still in draft condition.  I don't feel that I have pulled it all together.  Anyway, I'm fine with heavy criticism, so shoot off some comments or email me ([email protected]) if you have the time to read it. 

Download: at a distance to the state draft.doc

Abstract: Contemporary globalization puts both religion and the State on notice.  Giving rise to a backlash of religious fundamentalism, cultural and economic globalization also puts the State into a reactionary stance.  In light of this, questioning the political relationship between religion and the State must again offer an account of the State as well as religion.  This paper will therefore investigate the relationship between the State, religion, and radical democracy.  An interrogation of the State will proceed through a juxtaposition of the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and 21st century French philosopher Alain Badiou.  The former understands politics as principally concerned with forming the State, while the latter understands politics as operating ‘at a distance to the State.’  Within these conceptions of the State, we will then examine the recent account by Romand Coles and Stanely Hauerwas of radical democracy and radical ecclesiology in Christianity, Democracy, and the Radical Ordinary: Conversations Between a Radical Democrat and a Christian.  In relation to Hobbes and Badiou, we will examine the feasibility of the church as an alternative ‘polis’ in relation to the project of radical democracy.  With Badiou, it will be argued that the best understanding of politics is not as ‘against the State’ in a religious or political sectarianism, but ‘at a distance to the State’ and yet participating within it, both reducing either the polemical rhetoric between the two or a reduction of one to the other.

Comments

[Michael Cline]

If I get a second, I'd love to read your entire piece.

However, at the danger of being "that guy," can I ask why Hauerwas' first name is spelled Stanely instead of Stanley? I'm sure you would have caught it in your editing, but just thought I would point it out. Sounds like a great paper!

[Geoff Holsclaw]

duh! I would never have gotten out of high school w/o spell check!

[Darrell Lackey]

Hello,

This will probably be explicated and maybe I misunderstand, but how should we understand politics as working at a "distance from the state" when perhaps there is no distance? What if the Gospel is the narrative that encompasses all others? What if the Church is the only politics that allows any other contrual of politics to become something other than a dead construal of power?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Darrell,

Yes, from one perspective the Gospel is the narrative that encompasses all others. But the claims of the State have sought to set aside all competing politics, and therefore, in view of the narrative the State tells itself and which many interested in politics follow, the Church must articulate and practice a politics that is 'at a distance to the State.'

Too often this is taken as 'against the state' because those for liberal politics cannot imagine anything else, and therefore, anything that doesn't underwrite 'state-oriented politics' necessarily tends toward sectarianism (violence or irrelevance).

One the account presented, the Church neither is for or against the State, but at a distance to it.

[Darrell Lackey]

Geoff,

Thank you. I look forward to your paper.