Oliver O'Donovan's Critique of Autonomy

Abstract

More than any other contemporary theologian, Oliver O'Donovan has revived political theology as a field of enquiry. Yet O'Donovan has been consistent in his critique of the modern idea of autonomy, judging it to be at odds with the more communitarian idea of covenanted community found in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. He contrasts this modern idea, and its political implications, with the older biblical idea, also adding some basic points from Aristotle's idea of the polis. But unlike many contemporary communitarians, O'Donovan is also able to incorporate the idea of human rights into his political theology. He sees this supposedly modern idea having fuller precedence in the biblical idea of mishpat ("justice"), which he takes to be God's primordial claim on His covenanted community, a claim that sufficiently grounds both individual rights and communal rights and which enables them to function together. However, O'Donovan draws the line when it comes to the modern social contract theory, arguing that it is at odds with biblical teaching that the primary responsibility of rulers is to divine law. While agreeing with O'Donovan's rejection of autonomy and his acceptance of human rights, this paper argues against O'Donovan's theological rejection of social contract theory. Instead, it argues that a social contract is consistent with the doctrine of the covenant; indeed that the very possibility of the social contract is best explained by the doctrine of the covenant, and that this acceptance of the social contract serves the best political interests of covenanted communities (like the Jewish People and the Christian Church) in an otherwise secular world.     

Kim Dae-jung and the Persistence of Anti-Communist Hegemony in South Korea

Existing writings that explore the relationship between inter-Korean relations and the political economy of South Korea stress the role of the ruling ideology of anti-communism in the domestic struggle for power or hegemony. They also consider Kim Dae-jung a member of the hegemonic group because he represented the interests of the bourgeoisie and, thus, they contend that the level of inter-Korean reconciliation during his presidency was a product of the hegemonic group’s accommodation of the people’s nationalist demands. Their arguments are, however, contradictory because, among other things, Kim was one of those most severely damaged by the hegemonic group’s ruling ideology. Drawing on Gramsci’s concepts, such as historical bloc and hegemonic project, I attempt to resolve the contradiction by arguing that Kim was not a member of the hegemonic group, but a leader of the counter-hegemonic liberal nationalists. Accordingly, this article demonstrates Kim’s stance on the chaebol-centred economic structure and his abortive attempt to change it. By the same token, it argues that the inter-Korean reconciliation was a hegemonic project to realise the liberal nationalists’ vision of peaceful unification through a liberal approach and to undermine the anti-communism with which the hegemonic group had exercised ideological leadership for decades.