Journal of the American Academy of Religion Volume 74 Issue 1 2006 [Doi 10.2307%2F4094096] Review by- Victor E. Taylor -- On the Future of the Study of Religion in the Academy Impossible

7/27/2019 Journal of the American Academy of Religion Volume 74 Issue 1 2006 [Doi 10.2307%2F4094096] Review by- Victo

1/4

merican cademy of Religion

Impossible God: Derrida's Theology by Hugh Rayment-PickardReview by: Victor E. TaylorJournal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 74, No. 1, On the Future of the Study ofReligion in the Academy (Mar., 2006), pp. 227-229

Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4094096.

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University PressandAmerican Academy of Religionare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toJournal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:06:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4094096?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4094096?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/4

BookReviews 227content and Russianreligious thought. This is a particularly trangeomissioncoming from someone who is a specialistprecisely n Russianreligiousthought.A secondpuzzleis thatKornblattquerieswhy Jewswould convertspecifically oRussian Orthodoxy, with its antisemitism, rather than another form ofChristianity--as f antisemitismwerenot somethingthathistorically xisted o anequal, if not greater,degreein Protestantismand Catholicism(though perhapsantisemitism is strongerin RussianOrthodoxythan in other Christianconfes-sions today). Finally,students of comparativereligion might wish for a deeperengagementwith the theoretical iteratureon conversions.Despite any shortcomings,however,the book providesprovocative nsightsinto the nature of religiousversus ethnic identity and the fluidity of multipleidentities in a postmodern world, as well as deepening our understandingofSovietJewry.Thebook willbe of interest o a broadrangeof studentsandscholarsinterested n Jewry,conversions,and Russianreligioushistory.doi:10.1093/jaarel/1fj036 Scott M. KenworthyAdvance ccess ublicationanuary0,2006 Miami University

Impossible God: Derrida's Theology. By Hugh Rayment-Pickard. AshgatePublishingCompany,2003. 185pages.$84.95.ImpossibleGod: Derrida's Theologyappears in Ashgate's TranscendingBoundaries in Philosophy and Theology series. The monograph representsacontinued engagement with continental philosophy of religion by Rayment-Pickardwhose worksincludePhilosophies f History BlackwellPublishers2000)and TheMythsof Time(Darton,Longman& Todd London2004).The volume'sintroductorychapterentitled Death,Impossiblity,Theology:The Theme of Derrida'sPhilosophy providesa usefulcomprehensivesketchofJacquesDerrida'spoststructuralist heory as it relates to perennial issues oftruth and reality n the western theo-philosophical tradition. More than arepackagingof previouslypublishedcommentary,Rayment-Pickardhows the

keyelementsof Derrida's houghtin the contextof writing philosophyin a post-modernage.The authorinsightfullynotes in this firstchapter he significanceofDerrida's difficult prose, which many of his critics have too quickly seizedupon as anopportunity orintellectualmpeachment.QuotingDerridaRayment-Pickardbeginswith a line from ThePostCard n which Derrida ronicallystatesIwould like to write to you so simply,so simply,so simply 1). The sosimply,throughits multiplicationand repetition, providesa complexitythat Rayment-Pickardrightlysees as twofold: a structuralcomplexitythat arises because ofthe way Derridabelieveslanguagefunctions;and a conceptual complexitythatarisesas he tries to indicatethe unstable,paradoxicalandimpossiblecharacter fall foundationalideas and realities (2). It is this paradoxicaland impossiblecharacterof all foundationalideas and realities hat forms the cornerstone ofRayment-Pickard'study. By examining a Derridean,poststructuralist heory

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.129 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:06:48 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

228 Journalof theAmericanAcademyof Religionof language and its implicationsforconceptualanalysis, he author offers a per-spectiveon Derrideantheology that embracesan apophatic approachto reli-gious inquiry. This makes the volume a valuable contribution to the currentinterdisciplinaryscholarship about the (im)possibility of God and engagesdirectly or indirectlythe recent writings of Mark C. Taylor,John D. Caputo,Jean-LucMarion,KevinHart,RichardKearney,CarlA. Raschke,and othercon-temporary igures n religious heory.If language, n general, unctionsin the absenceof stabilityand foundation,thenwhat canbe said of theologicalanguagen particular?his is the inexhaustiblequestionof postmoderntheologythat beginsin the late 1970s with the worksofCarlA. Raschke,MarkC. Taylor,and CharlesE. Winquist.Rayment-Pickard'scontributionto this four-decade ong discussionis to re-visit these earliertheo-philosophicalbreakthroughsn the context of Derridean impossibility, whichRayment-Pickardiews as an idealspacefortheological nquiry.While not orig-inalto Rayment-Pickard'sook, Derridean impossibility oes find a new sym-pathetictreatment n thiswork,especially n the laterchapters. n his analysisofthis earliermovementaround deconstructive heologythe author,Iwould pointout, could have providedmore context for his argument.The eminent literaryscholarRodolpheGasch6appearsn the textas a sourcefor his readingof Derrida;however, the connection between Derridaand theology rests almost solely onthe workof MarkC.Taylorand leaves out some of the importantwritingsof theearly postmodern theologians previously mentioned. Rayment-Pickard'sargumentcertainly s not in error without them, but includingthese importantfiguresin the history of ideas in postmodern theology would have made for aricher work, especially as it relates to poststructuralist heories of language,death, and theologicaldiscoursepresentedin the laterchapters.In addition,anexamination of these earlier,Derrida inspired postmodern theological workswould haveserved to markthe differencesbetweena philosophicalDerridaanda theologicalDerrida hat is critical o the author'soverallanalysis.One of the manysignificantaspectsof this book is the excellentdiscussionofDerrida's ndebtedness o Edmund Husserland MartinHeidegger.Chapters2, 3,and4 provideastuteand innovativereadingsof phenomenologyand deconstruc-tion, especially sit tiestogethervariousphilosophiesof language, ime,anddeath.Thesepatientdiscussionsof phenomenologyand its aftermathn continentalphi-losophy vis-a-visdeconstructionprovidea valuablereassessmentof the tensionbetweencognitionandrevelation.The centralconcernthroughout he chapters sDerrida'sattempt tomake a phenomenonof the impossibilityof a phenomenol-ogy [119].Thetheme of impossibility llowsRayment-Pickardo closelyexaminethewesternphilosophical raditionas a meditationon death.With anemphasisonDerrida'sreadingof Heidegger, mpossibilityappearsas an aporia r chias-mus thatmarksthe impossibility/possibilityf God. This line of argumentpro-ceeding from the earlierchaptersis concisely made in the final two chaptersentitled Theologicalmpossibility nd God, hisSubject,Entity,orX.Philosophy'srecentturn to deconstruction,accordingto Rayment-Pickard,begins with Husserl'snegation of false certaintiesin the field of perception(123). This is followed by Heidegger's negation of false certainty of ontic



4/4

BookReviews 229perception (123), which prepares he way for Derrida's radicaluncertaintyofdiffirance 123). The generaltrajectory, hen, is summarizedas the following:Eachoperates by identifying and dismantlinga false apodicity, showing theplay of shadows for what it is, like the prisoners n Plato'scavewho releases heblinkers on the others (123). The key question that troublesthe remainderofthe book comes from Mark C. Taylor's1992 essay nO nOt nO in which heasks is his [Derrida's]nonsaying a saying?A denegation? 123). Rayment-Pickard'sresponseto this difficultquestion is to posit a series of responsesthatbegin with a consideration of JacquesDerridaas a negative heologian (JohnD. Caputo) and ends with the possibilityof Derridaas a Kantian dealist a laKevin Hart. Between these two theological poles lies, of course, the khora,which servesas an impasse,makinga conclusiveexposition of Derrida's heol-ogy impossible.This impossibility,however, is an apophasisof khora, whichinvitesspeculation n a Christologicaleterology 163)aswellasother igurationsof the multiplethatdo not compromise he radicality f Derrideananti-theology.This final meditation on the failure of closure/completionand the primordialstatus of the chiasmus s the otherfigure n philosophyoffersa carefulreasser-tion of the deconstructiveprinciple of indeterminacy.Herein lies the signifi-cance of Rayment-Pickard's itle: Is Derridean indeterminacy heology'simpossibleGod?One could argue,as the authordoes, that it is.With its cleardiscussions of Husserl,Heidegger,and Derrida and its reas-sessmentof philosophical mpossibilitythroughthe lens of theology,ImpossibleGod s an importantaddition to currentdiscussions n religioustheory.doi:10.1093/jaarel/1fj037 VictorE.TaylorAdvance ccess ublicationanuary9,2006 York College of Pennsylvania andThe JohnsHopkins University

TheInventionof WorldReligions:Or,How EuropeanUniversalismWasPreservedin the Language ofPluralism. By Tomoko Masuzawa. Universityof Chicago Press, 2005. 359 pages. $19.00.In this ambitious work on the nineteenth-century science of religionsTomoko Masuzawamakes the theworldreligionsdiscourse partof the criticaltheorist'sanatomytheater(xiv). On the surfacethe patient might look healthyenough-the inherited talk of ten to twelve world religions no more than anhonest attemptto reckonwith the globalpluralityof faiths.But the anatomistknows better, and the knife will expose the malignancieswithin the discourse,the hidden racialand imperialpresumptionsof European universality.Some-times the demonstration proves spectacular, the current epistemic regimeexposed, if not excised (xii); at other times the exhibition proves painful towatchin its blunt execution.Masuzawapositionsher work within the larger urntowardhistoricalanaly-sis of the discoursesthat haveshapedthe studyof religionfrom the seventeenth


Documents

Journal of the American Academy of Religion Volume 74 Issue 1 2006 [Doi 10.2307%2F4094096] Review by- Victor E. Taylor -- On the Future of the Study of Religion in the Academy Impossible