The Christian, Cities & Difference

Aristotle once said that “the city is composed of different kinds of men” and that “similar people cannot bring the city into existence”. If he is correct, then it is quite possible that we may be witnessing in post/modernity a kind of erosion in contemporary urban living.
One observation made by the sociologist Richard Sennett in his new book Together: the Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation, is that modern life has seriously eroded the ability of people to communicate generally, with many using their goods as substitutes for proper interpersonal contact. A more specific after effect, Sennett argues is the inability of people to deal with those who are unlike themselves. The project of modernity, which finds its prime manifestation in the state and market, seek unity through sameness, and tries to expunge any appreciation of those that are different. The cultural context of postmodernity has further intensified the inability to live with difference, by shifting the standard of what is “normal” from the level of the group, to the level of the atomised individual. In post/modernity, in other words, unity is found only when everyone becomes like “me”. In an increasingly securitised environment, the pressure to conform is even further applied, since difference has now regarded as an existential threat.
If Aristotle is correct, the continued survival of our cities must be predicated on a new basis on which to deal with difference and Christians, living in the City of Man, are not exempt from this task. But the necessity of this task does not necessarily mean the cheap grace of “tolerance” often called for by advocates of particular lifestyles and cultures, which more often than not plaster over differences rather than further the craft of engaging those differences. At the same time, the Christian must resist two temptations. The first is the notion that faithful discipleship or the extension of the Body of Christ can only be predicated on making everyone the same or by eliminating once and for all any trace of difference (indeed, if faithful Christian discipleship really does involve the rejection of Modernity, it must involve also the rejection of unity via sameness). The second temptation is the notion that the Christian can only come to an appreciation of difference when he renounces his citizenship of  the City of God.
Rather, Christians can make a unique contribution to the City of Man on the matter of engagement with difference because of their simultaneous (and albeit incomplete) belonging to the City of God, not in spite of it. For the City of God is made up by the Body of Christ, and as St. Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 12, the Body of Christ “is made up of many parts”, with different functions that together work towards the building of the whole Body.
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Christian, Cities & Difference

  1. But the Pauline reference is to members of the Mystical Body of Christ.However, the sameness the post – modern society requires is devoid of any spiritual or moral character or sense at all. There is scarcely a point at which the two bodies share common life and this is a growing tendency.As in pagan Rome , Catholics will be seen more and more as subversive elements as the new paganism realises its dominance and seeks to rationalise its position- a tendency already becoming manifest.

    Like

  2. You are right that the paganism of modern society is slowly rendering the Church a subversive element. And you are right that this Pauline reference relates to the Mystical Body of Christ. The thing to add here is that the Mystical Body is the template of a true society, and as Christ in his Passion shows to the world the true template of humanity, the Church will in its version of unity and diversity offers to the world the template of engaging the issue of difference. This is all done for the life and salvation of the world.

    It may probably not succeed in convincing the world, but that is essentially what a sacrament (which “Lumen Gentium” says the Church is) is there for, something that is freely offered that may very well be rejected just as freely.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s