INTEGRATION DISCOURSE: MODERN AND POSTMODERN

Psychologists and theologians are culture bound beings whose construals take place within history such that traces of the social context flow into their scholarly dialogue. The authors argue for the legitimacy of diverse voices--modern and postmodern--as they emerge in a sample of theologies and psychologies. It is proposed that conscious and unconscious precommitments to modern and postmodern assumptions shape the dialogue between psychologists and theologians. Three criteria will be used to differentiate discourses: epistemological foundationalism, autonomous individuality and the universality of scientific knowledge. While each discourse may limit the way spirituality is expressed, the authors argue that the differences in discourse should be recognized and explored. ********** The relationship between culture and language is complex. We learn language within culture and so the grammar of a culture's values is reflected in discourse. Societies that value gender equality also value gendered discourse. Conversely, language shapes the contours of culture as well (Whorf, 1956). As psychologists and theologians we are culture-bound and culture-creating beings. Whether the subject of our reflection is the God beyond history or the mystery of the human psyche, our thinking takes place within history, tradition and language. Traces of the social and linguistic context flow into our construals. Hence our creations are principally interpretable from within traditions. Gadamer (1975/2000) reminded us that to understand requires a horizon within which our perceptions and interpretations can take on meaning. MacIntyre (1988) has similarly maintained that meaning emerges in the context of traditions. It is an act of scholarly humility to recognize the finite nature of our efforts, the limits of language and the historical containment of imagination. The enterprise of integrating faith and psychology often appears ahistorical, a matter of relating the content of two disciplines without regard to the implicit ways the disciplines have been culturally shaped. Quite apart from the issue of which psychology can be correlated with which theology (Bouma-Prediger, 1990), there is a deeper question of what cultures are shaping the discourse within each scholarly community and between communities. While the categories are too broad, the definitions often conflicted and the time-lines vague, nonetheless pre-modernity, modernity and postmodernity are useful markers of larger socio-cultural movements. We speak of 'movements' because neither modernity nor postmodernity are monolithic cultures (Tanner, 1997). Postmodernity, in particular, lacks consistency and at times appears to be primarily a reaction to modernity. In any case, to the extent that each achieves a measure of coherence as a culture or subculture, our discourse may unconsciously be influenced. Furthermore, in a self-conscious manner, we may seek to communicate to individuals within and across any one of these cultures. For example, a modern therapist may seek to communicate with a person from premodern or postmodern cultures. We will argue for the legitimacy of voices in modern and postmodern register as they emerge in a sample of theologies and psychologies. We propose that conscious and unconscious precommitments to modern and postmodern assumptions shape the dialogue between psychologists and theologians. While each discourse may limit the way spirituality is expressed, we will argue that the differences in discourse should be recognized and explored. We will not argue that at this point we must choose between the versions presented of modern or postmodern cultures and their correlative integration discourses. We would affirm both realist and constructivist discourses, both individual and community orientations, both particular and universal perspectives. For several reasons our concern is not which integration discourse is right, ideal or theologically correct. …