by Alan S. Cajes
I audited a course on Intercultural and Inter-religious Dialogue (Theo 248.2) at
the Loyola School of Theology. A good friend, Fr.
Albert Alejo, S.J., Ph.D., teaches the course. The first meeting of
the class reminded me of the postmodernist outlook that I have imbibed as
a researcher. The key concepts of this outlook include the following:
“difference,” “tolerance,” “contextualism,” “relativism,” “dialogue,” and
“defiance.”
Difference. The term “difference” comes from the Latin word differo,
which means to bring apart. If everything is different, then everything is
separate, distinct, and distinguishable. The concept of difference has wide
implications in the various areas of human life, i.e., the economic, social,
cultural, and political aspects. It implies, for instance, that an economic,
cultural or political system that works in one country may not work in another
given the difference of people's experiences as shaped by the categories of
space and time. In particular, it does not follow that since the presidential
system of government works quite well in the United States of America, then, it
should work well in the Philippines.
Tolerance. Difference leads to the idea of “tolerance”, which is to recognize and
respect the unique condition of reality in general. In practical terms,
tolerance means, for example, respect to other cultures. In the Philippine
setting, there are various local cultures that co-exist with one another,
although such relationship is not always harmonious and peaceful. Cultural
co-existence means the existence of various and different cultural communities
that tolerate each other's presence.[1]
Contextualism. Context may be defined as the parts or relevant circumstances that
surround a text, which is understood, in a general way, as anything that can be
interpreted. Context gives meaning to a text; hence, textual interpretation
becomes possible by understanding the text’s context. Polygamy, for example,
could be right or wrong depending on its context; it is unacceptable within the
context of the Catholicism, but acceptable within the context of Islam.
Relativism. Relativism assumes that meaning should not be considered in
relation to a universal or transcendental standard or logos because such logos
presupposes identity and fails to account the contextual dimension of meaning.
Meaning is relative to the interpreter and the context of the text being
interpreted. This implies that there are different meanings of a text, instead
of one, and that each interpretation of meaning is legitimate. Relativism,
together with difference, is related to the idea of non-commensurability, which
“involves a radical notion of non-comparability, and the unacceptability of
imposing one set of cultural norms over another.”
Dialogue. Under a condition characterized by difference, contextualism,
relativism and tolerance, the only viable way of maintaining social and
political order is not through the totalizing power or authority of the state
but though the spirit of dialogue, negotiation and cooperation. Dialogue is not
a communication among non-equals. It is a communication premised on
differences. It is a process of coming to understand the positions of each
party to a dialogue using the rule of consensus. It is a dialogue through words
and words are contextual. The purpose of dialogue is not to win over the
positions behind the words, but to fuse the horizons of the dialoging
positions.
Defiance. The attitude of postmodernism is active opposition against authority,
because authority is perceived as a product of logocentrism or totalization,
which is a violation of the notion of difference. Postmodernism rejects grand
or totalizing narratives and since the state is one of the grand narratives,
postmodernists defy the authority of the state.
[1]Following this train of thought, the colonization of the Philippines by
the Spaniards and the Americans violate the notion of tolerance. The foreigners
operated on the basis of identity, which presupposes that everyone is similar
and shares the same nature. This notion led to their desire to impose
uniformity on the natives, with uniformity based on the identity of the
occupants. They made the Filipinos think the way they thought, act the way they
behaved, put on clothes the way they dressed, speak the way they spoke, build
houses the way they built their own, etc. Colonization was totalization. It
sought to make Filipinos uniform and identical both in internal and external
manifestations. It prevented tolerance of the differences among the various
cultural communities in the country.
