In the months since I wrote on participation I’ve had to actually grapple with the consequences of my choice to avoid all animal products derived from factory farming practices; to play through my intuitions in the real world. I’d reread it to reinforce why it was I made these choices; what my conclusions were, and they were a bit messy, but clear (as to be expected in such a vague, notebook blog):
- I kept a growing skepticism towards endless abstractions that separated human beings from full encounter with the Other;
- I observed and cited a conception of ‘animalisation’ that numbed subjects into sets of compartmentalised
need -> fulfillmentloops; - I observed how these two concepts spread outward in a sort of fabric that, for the lack of a better term, alienates us from any referent, process, or origin; and in turn encourages us to alienate ourselves from other people and perpetuate
need -> fulfillmentloops in terms of our relationships with others
What makes me upset is that I gesture at methexis but I don’t really build it out at all. I think of participation as a relationship with the logoi, the divine idea, attributed to other beings – and as above all participation in Love that demands my full encounter with others, to dare to withstand the rejection, alienation, foolishness, of abiding by this sort of belief system – to believe in our interdependent relations as having effects that can’t be measured easily, and can’t be optimised or made ‘efficient’. That said, I don’t think I systematised this well. They remained as disconnected intuitions.
So, here I want to articulate some gaps that I want to pursue in terms of my learning, and clarify some other aspects of my thinking.
Participation isn’t about unclean things
A naive participatory theology looks like ‘purity law’ – a set of unclean things and unclean peoples one must avoid in order to stay clean. Obviously, Christ himself notes this isn’t the case in Mark 7:14-19 – we aren’t meant to follow Laws, but to follow the Spirit. What defiles me is not thinking about this at all. What defiles me is not keeping a loving orientation to the world.
My idea isn’t that I “become woke” or judge people because they touch unclean stuff. It’s a personal relationship, a striving towards God, to participate in His nature; the more I love others, the closer I am to God across the brief blip of linear time allotted to me. The thing is that this love is not just for other human beings, but all sentient beings; they too have divine ideas, intentions God has for them. There is a participation in God that implies a specific relationship I’m supposed to have with animals.
Likewise, there is a participatory process that I engage in when I simply eat what’s given to me without fully being aware of how it got here, what it literally is. I think of that as participating in some other god; therefore, it becomes a form of idolatry where what God wants isn’t being put first. I think this is pretty ‘creative’, though, and my priest would probably think I’m starting to go off the rails, here.
Participation isn’t about economic signals
My goal is not to send the right signals in consumption to change the world. Acts of witness anticipate the coming Kingdom by acting as though it is already here. It is something you do even when it looks futile, even when nothing changes, even when it doesn’t make sense. Again – the goal is not to worship Efficiency (or Technique or Leverage). It is about my personal relationship with God, through a closer relationship to our final love.
This makes things more vague. Am I trying to change other people’s consumption patterns? No, I’m not trying to change anyone; I don’t judge them by stating what I’ll do or not do, eat or not eat. But to love someone is to allow them to encounter me, and that includes not hiding, tamping down or elliding over what is fundamentally an act of religious witness. At the same time, it means to meet people where they are. Above all, I should be loving. This means that while I develop mindful provenance in terms of where my food comes from – to be grateful for it, and for where it came from, and how it came to nourish me – I also should develop a mindfulness of how I am closing myself off from others if I am too absolute.
The system isn’t a reformable thing; it isn’t changed through resistant participation as a single person, but by subsuming myself fully into the fabric; to participate in things in order that the Spirit might transform them.
Revisiting the party scene
I think this is the point of conflict I pointed at with this hypothetical party in my previous post; there is a path in which I am present with people by ignoring myself and my own convictions; there is a path in which I withdraw entirely, and so withdraw from others; but there is a way in which I draw myself closer to others by confiding in them, by not being afraid of them.
I am afraid of others, in showing a part of myself to others, but it’s a part that can’t be easily explained, a part that just looks foolish and naive and old-fashioned; and yet I have to love them, in order to even fulfill my own beliefs. It is truly a strange situation.
Further reading
I’ve read almost nothing but theology this year, so I’m a bit hesitant to just … keep reading theology, but I sort of feel like I’m overdue on developing participatory theology more broadly. I’d appreciate any books or references on participation; participative energies; maybe Gregory of Nyssa or other Platonic thinkers. Truthfully, I was just walking home and wanted to expound on this a little more, since I don’t believe I built it out enough.