Wednesday, March 02, 2005
(5:03 PM) | Anonymous:
I hate holism.
Today I read a paper on Lukan Christology which contained the phrase:"Thus, Luke's notion of salvation is thoroughly holistic. As Ben Witherington* summarizes, Luke's concept of salvation has social, physical and spiritual dimensions."
I have written rudely next to that phrase, "And what of of the other gospels? Do they lack holistic salvation?" Is Paul's notion of salvation unrounded? And what the hell does "spiritual" mean anyway? I suggest that it's a new western invention created by people who want to talk about God separate from the body. They have to invent something that sounds as though it is "out there". At least it gives the illusion of being "out there", but really it's just another way to ego-stroke. What exactly is the "social" separate from physical?
Anyhow, I didn't dwell on this for too long, but tonight I was flicking through Stanley Fish's "There's no such thing as free speech" book. In the back, there's an interview with him about methods of teaching. He speaks about his wife, who has developed "radical pedagogy", but says that he's not into that because: "For me the classroom is still what she has formally renounced: a performance occasion. And I enjoy the performances; I enjoy orchestrating the class in ways that involve students in the performances, but no one is under any illusion that this is a participatory of democracy in any class of mine."
Now that all of the writing on performance sounds excellent to me. I love being in the classroom more than any other place, even if I don't have a chance to say anything. I especially like being guided by certain teachers, to the point where I'll choose a class entirely based on who is teaching it, whether or not I care about the subject. Indeed, I usually will care about the subject by the end of the term. I go deliberately to be formed to think like that person, or at least to play the game the same way that they do. I must have some criteria by which I initially choose the teacher, but I've not noticed that my favourites have a great deal in common except the gift of enthusiasm for the sub-discipline which they attempt to communicate. They tend also not to read straight from their notes, but some do stick closely to something pre-written. I'm a complete lecture junkie. I like to read transcripts, but I prefer to see a live performance. It has become rather addictive, and I tend to break the rules about whose classes I'm allowed to be in, and how often. That said, I do like class discussions, but once again, I know within a couple of classes that some people should not open their mouths. If the teacher is really good, I prefer that they not open the forum for discussion because other people are less worth hearing than them. So, I was lying on my bed reading Fish and mentally nodding...
However, Fish then goes on to say: "I listened to some of the interviews for our assistant director of composition position yesterday, and every one of the interviewees I talked to identified himself or herself as a person interested in just this new kind of liberatory, new age, holistic, collaborative teaching."
And then I realised... I hate the word "holistic".
I don't see herbal remedies as being any more "holistic" than medicine created in a laboratory. I don't see Luke's soteriology as any more "holistic" than Paul's. I don't see "holistic" teaching methods as better than other teaching methods - why would they be? At least with traditional teaching methods, you know who has the power in the classroom. Why is listening to classmates who haven't yet been disciplined "liberatory"? Yuck, yuck, yuck. "Holistic" rightly gets associated with "new age", but new age of what? I suggest that we head back to Kansas right now.
It doesn't surprise me that the word "holism" has come into vogue just as all of our narratives are collapsing. We didn't need to talk about holism when we were better traditioned because (I think) it would have been odd to point out that something was non-holistic.
The online dictionary of etymology that I use suggests that the word "holistic" refers to the theory that "regards nature as consisting of wholes". It was coined by "General J.C. Smuts". Further investigation of Smuts(!) reveals this quotation: "Holism is an attempt at synthesis, an attempt at bringing together many currents of thought and development such as we have seen in our day. It is not a system of philosophy."
I have to pass on whether that is a philosophy. I don't know too well what "a system of philosophy" looks like. However, I suppose my objection is with regards to who is making the attempt at synthesis. Why is group-discussion more "holistic" than the Socratic method? Why are herbal "remedies" more "holistic" than prayer? I think I must resist bringing together "currents of thoughts and developments" in case they fail to be fruitful. It's like being told, in the middle of an argument that: "we all agree really". It's just a way of closing down the discussion.
*I can no longer read the name Ben Witherington without remembering that this is in fact Ben Witherington III. That annoys me almost as much as the word holistic. If you're royalty it makes sense to be able to tell Henry VII from Henry VIII, but who cares about Ben Witherington II?
