Yesterday evening (Tuesday 5th Feb) John Milbank came to give the Cadbury Lecture here at the University of Birmingham on the theme of 'Theology and the Idea of the University'. I have always enjoyed reading John's work and I actually enjoyed the lecture. My overall view, however, is that while I tend to agree with much of his analysis of the 'problem', I very rarely agree with his particular 'solution'. Last night's lecture was a very clear case in point.
I may have got some of the facts, or points in the argument, wrong so please do take this as a definitive presentation of John Milbank's ideas. However, as I understand it, the main point he wanted to make was that of the three primary characteristics of the University, universality of knowledge, independence of institution and freedom of expression, the first has its roots clearly in the Christian theological tradition, the second in a more secular reaction and the third sat somewhere between the Christian and the secular.
As ever John provided a clear and detailed exposition of the history, or genealogy, of the 'university' as an idea and an institution. It was the question of universality, however, that formed the bulk of the lecture and John traced this back, not to the University as such, but rather to the idea of the Cathedral school as an arena for the widest range of possible disciplines. It is only when we include God within the preview of what that universality of knowledge, or study, might include that, according to John, we can really talk about 'universality of knowledge' at all. This suggests, therefore, that theology must have a role within the University and John went on to argue, drawing on the tradition of Newman's 'Idea of a University', that it ought to be possible to explore a theological reading of history, sociology, literature, biology and even maths. He did acknowledge, however, that this would probably be best done in the modern world within the context of a Christian (or other faith based) institution.
I am very certain that I do not share John's view of what 'theology' is or could be (although that is a discussion for another day). I am also unsure whether any 'theological' understanding of, say, science, might have a place within the contemporary University. What concerned me, however, about the kinds of solutions that John was presenting for the contemporary University is that they did not seem to take account of where Universities are in the real world. John did use the word 'nostalgic' and one of the questions from the floor suggested 'romantic', although this was clearly rejected by John. There is, however, always a sense with John's 'solutions' that we have to look back into history, usually pre-reformation Christian history, and lift something from that time and space into the present, that we can only go forward by looking back. Of course we can all learn from history, and I would be among the first to suggest that we should explore all the different possibilities and potentialities that exist in our past, but this could never be a blueprint for the future.
In these notes I am presenting one strand on what I have called 'the new collegiality', a new future for the University. It would be easy to see this also as mere 'nostalgia' for a lost past. The use of the term 'collegiality' in my title certainly suggests that that is where I want to go. That, however, is not the case. We are in a different space, a new space. We cannot go back to models from the time when Christian (or even religious) discourses were dominant. We cannot go back to Newman's context of the mid-nineteenth century (although I would, and will, argue that there is much we can learn from this time). Nor can we go back to the cosy 'collegial' ideal of the 1960s, or whatever period we care to choose. That does not mean, however, that we have to accept the status quo or that there is nowhere else to go. In these notes I do want to present a clear vision, based on where I believe we have got to and where we need to go forward. Theology may have a place in that vision (alongside many other disciplines) but will certainly not be my own starting point, at least not in the way John Milbank understands 'theology'.
No comments:
Post a Comment