Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Otherness of God

The Otherness of God stated that ‘‘from beginning to end, one question occupied him: the question of God.’’ 1 In light of Certeau’s persistent attention to the writings of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mystics, not to mention his status as a member of the Society of Jesus, such a claim seems plausible.2 But how can we square this claim with the view, advanced by Wlad Godzich, that Certeau’s work offers us an account of alterity that does not carry with it overtones of the sacred or transcendent— a notion of otherness that avoids reestablishing ‘‘the dominance of the religious over the rational’’ that so much postmodern thought risks— and thus fulfills the desire for what Edward Said calls a ‘‘secular criticism’’? 3 Moreover, how does Giard’s claim affect the almost exclusively secular reading of Certeau in the English-speaking world? How, if at all, does the God with whom he was allegedly occupied fit within Certeau’s heterological project, especially as this project has been appropriated in the field of cultural studies? And who is this God? Is this God-inquotation-marks, the product of discourses of the past—‘‘the universal speaking subject’’ who The South Atlantic Quarterly :, Spring . Copyright ©  by Duke University http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png South Atlantic Quarterly Duke University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/the-otherness-of-god-0qXNqQZZOX

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0038-2876
eISSN
1527-8026
DOI
10.1215/00382876-100-2-349
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

stated that ‘‘from beginning to end, one question occupied him: the question of God.’’ 1 In light of Certeau’s persistent attention to the writings of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century mystics, not to mention his status as a member of the Society of Jesus, such a claim seems plausible.2 But how can we square this claim with the view, advanced by Wlad Godzich, that Certeau’s work offers us an account of alterity that does not carry with it overtones of the sacred or transcendent— a notion of otherness that avoids reestablishing ‘‘the dominance of the religious over the rational’’ that so much postmodern thought risks— and thus fulfills the desire for what Edward Said calls a ‘‘secular criticism’’? 3 Moreover, how does Giard’s claim affect the almost exclusively secular reading of Certeau in the English-speaking world? How, if at all, does the God with whom he was allegedly occupied fit within Certeau’s heterological project, especially as this project has been appropriated in the field of cultural studies? And who is this God? Is this God-inquotation-marks, the product of discourses of the past—‘‘the universal speaking subject’’ who The South Atlantic Quarterly :, Spring . Copyright ©  by Duke University

Journal

South Atlantic QuarterlyDuke University Press

Published: Apr 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.