david tracy and university of chicago and fragments and form and nietzsche and eliot and kierkegaard

It has been more than 25 years since I last heard David Tracy speak. For those who don't know him, he is the Greeley Distinguished Service Professor of Catholic Studies at the Divinity School at the University of Chicago, where he has taught for more than 30 years. When I last heard him while I was a graduate student in religious studies at Brown, he was a bright and youngish (about 40) theologian, eloquent, charming, and insightful on the theme of the "Blessed Rage for Order." That is, at that time Tracy's most recent work was concerned with the problem of divergent and inconsistent voices within the world of Christian theology as well as in other faith traditions.

When he visited Willamette University tonight under the auspices of the religion department (Prof. Douglas McGaughy had studied with him more than 30 years ago), I received a different but much more nuanced picture of Prof. Tracy. His eloquence, wide reading and impressive learning was still there, as was his commitment to understanding little-heard voices in the shaping of the theological agenda. But what I didn't hear in the late 1970s was his passionate hopefulness, his sympathetic consideration of other thinkers and questioners, and his romantic disposition. In fact, the "spirit" of David Tracy which came across most clearly tonight was that of one smitten by love--love of things divine, of the beauty of the world, of the creativity of the human spirit, of the possibilities for the future. One could tell a generous heart underlies his words.

His Words

Whereas 25 years ago he was concerned with the problem of pluralism, today he was concerned with the fragmentariness of all theological and intellectual endeavors. Gone is the time when master narratives or "totalization" explanations are possible or sufficent. In place of the overarching explanation is the fragment, the shard, the pieces of tradition, the stories we tell. Instead of a dominant explanation which has the goal of either squelching or appropriating the Other, there is the Other, the thing/one who is different from us, who resists all our efforts at control or explanation.

Normally when we hear the word "fragment," we thing of something that has been smashed or shattered. Indeed, that is what has happened to the "totalizing" explanations of the West. But, perhaps because of naturally sanguine disposition, Professor Tracy saw this as only one part of what was meant by a "fragment." Fragments also create new possibilities; they open up alternative explanations; they provide different ways of seeing familiar material. There is both a Gospel of Matthew and a Gospel of Mark. The former seeks to explain the nature of community life and, though not giving a total or complete explanation of this life, seeks to give "rules for engagement" to these new Christians. In contrast, the Gospel of Mark is full of short stories and fragmentary narratives and discontinuous stories. It is the perfect Gospel for a time like ours, filled as it is with fragments.

Combing the Tradition

Tracy, theologian and philosopher of religion that he is, was not content with stating that the intellectual climate of our day is fragmentary; he wanted to give a history of the concept of fragment. He convincingly posited the birth of the fragment in the romantic revolt against the totalizing explanation of life proffered by Enlightenment philosophers. The romantics then were supplemented and supported in their endeavor by the 19th century's two most "modern" thinkers: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Though the former remained a passionate Christian and the latter was equally passionate in his criticism of the Christian tradition, each was aware of the partial, fragmentary nature of our knowledge. "Philosophical Fragments" is the title of one of Kierkegaards' works, and Nietzsche's aphoristic style was suited to a man who knew that any overarching explanation of life by a religious or philosophical tradition was doomed to fail.

But because Tracy wants to read "fragment" as a positive concept, also, he was not fully able to buy T.S. Eliot's conclusion that our world of thought is simply a wasteland. Eliot might posit the existence only of "hints and guesses," and have been distraught by the chaotic and inchoate nature of life, but Tracy saw these hints as liberating and hope-producing. Out of the ashes of despair in the Book of Job emerges hope. Out of the cinders of the last century may be the hope for dialogue, understanding and disclosure of God in the midst of the fragments.

Questions/Critique

My difficulties with Professor Tracy's explanation were twofold. One is a minor quibble and one is a more major methodological disagreement. The minor quibble was his long detour on the concept of "form" in Western art and philosophy. It seemed clear to me that he was trying to introduce another "chapter" of the book he is working on and he simply didn't integrate it well with the material on fragment. His virtual tour of the history of Western philosophy (and some references to Chinese thought) on the issue of form and formlessness was itself without much form.

My more major difficulty was with his method. He, like many of the "progressives" or "liberals" trained in the 1950s and 1960s, is sympathetic in words to the "fragments" of the third world or of long ignored voices, but when he actually speaks, it is only the most traditional 'canon' of the Western thinkers that he brings to bear. Of course, that is what he was trained in more than 40 years ago, and one can tell that he has spent most of a long and productive career developing, refining and interacting with these thinkers. He has a facility with the Western philosophical tradition that is admirable.

But, to put it bluntly, he is completely out of date. He realizes that technology has probably affected our lives in huge ways but he doesn't have a clue as to how it has or what it might mean, either for the form of knowledge that results (even more fragments?) or the way that knowledge is constituted and reconstituted as a result of this technology. In response to my question of whether the idea of the book is obsolete (I believe that is about 80% true now), he thought I was talking about how images/pictures might speak more strongly than words. I tried to clarify. He answered by talking about books he had read on various subjects. My point is that the internet as learning tool and the mini-essay, which I am trying to develop, is really pointing to a new kind of learning, a new take on knowledge, which assumes the reality of "fragments," but puts the world together with these shards, in a new medium.

Conclusion

I couldn't help thinking, however, that I was very glad to have attended his lecture. If I never hear him again, the "final" image I will have of him is of a man desirous of living in faith and love, desirous of reaching to other traditions of the world for wisdom and insight, longing for conversation, dialogue and respect of the Other, whose fragments he believes can contribute to a wonderful symphony of human life and thought.