Engaging Jens Zimmermann’s Incarnational Humanism from an Integral Perspective

Further reflections on the future of Integral Humanism

Jens Zimmermann

Introduction

The German-Canadian philosopher and theologian Jens Zimmermann's work has had a profound impact on my thinking over the past month, fundamentally enlarging my perspective on several topics. I was initially intrigued by Paul VanderKlay's interview with him, which led me to explore his books. I found "Incarnational Humanism: A Philosophy of Culture for the Church in the World" and “Humanism and Religion: A Call for the Renewal of Western Culture" particularly engaging. Zimmermann offers a powerful diagnosis of what he terms the West's "moral, spiritual and intellectual crisis", arguing compellingly that our contemporary struggles with meaning, identity, and purpose stem from a deep cultural amnesia – a severing of our core values from reason, freedom, and dignity from their historical and Christian grounding in divine revelation and the doctrine of the incarnation.

His critique of the pervasive dualisms that fragment modern thought – faith vs. reason, spirit vs. matter, soul vs. body – resonates profoundly with the aims of my own integral humanism project. However, Zimmermann’s proposal is not theological novelty but a historical and genealogical retrieval, drawing on the rich lineage of Christian Church Fathers through various theological giants like Bonhoeffer among others. His emphasis on the incarnation as the ultimate affirmation of embodiment aligns powerfully with my own theory of integral facticity and enactive fallibilism regarding the centrality of the body in cognition and divine revelation. Furthermore, his analysis taps into the widespread sense that purely secular frameworks are exhausted, a phenomenon I've gestured towards in my piece on "The Return of God" albeit from a post-secular and integral pluralism position. Zimmermann, on the other hand, offers deeply rooted theological narrative—incarnational humanism, culminating in theosis or participation in Christ—as the necessary corrective.

As I delved deeper into Zimmermann's writings, my initial admiration for his profound theological insights and incisive critique of modernity gradually gave way to a sense of unease. While I appreciated the depth of his theological engagement, I began to question the structural coherence of his proposal from an integral perspective. It seemed to me that a more robust and nuanced epistemological methodology was needed to support his claims.

Furthermore, my ongoing engagement with the works of Matt McManus and Jurgen Habermas deepened these concerns. Both scholars have offered insightful critiques of the new conservatism or postmodern conservatism, highlighting its potential pitfalls. Their analyses significantly deepened my apprehension, underscoring the alarming propensity of postmodern conservatism to devolve into a rigid and dogmatic fundamentalism, characterized by a dangerous rejection of objective truth and empirical evidence. This regression often manifests in an unwavering adherence to a narrow and inflexible set of beliefs, a dismissal of dissenting viewpoints, and a hostility towards intellectual inquiry and rigorous analysis and discourse.

In light of these concerns, I felt that Zimmermann's work, while valuable in many respects, needed to be approached with a critical eye. His theological critique of modernity, while insightful, needed to be grounded in a more rigorous epistemological framework. Furthermore, his proposals for a postmodern theological and conservative response to the challenges of modernity needed to be carefully evaluated in light of the potential dangers and limitations of conservative thought highlighted by McManus and Habermas.

It is absolutely crucial to state upfront: applying McManus and Habermas historical and political critique to Zimmermann's theological project is intended as a structural analysis of potential risks and unintended resonances, not as an equation of Zimmermann's motives with the often opportunist and contemporary political actors McManus as identified in his work. Zimmermann's aim is clearly a deep philosophical and theological project, not cheap political power-grabbing. Nevertheless, the way certain arguments are framed, especially in our current socio-political climate, warrants careful scrutiny from an integral perspective committed to avoiding ideological capture.

Postmodern conservatism, as McManus describes, is deeply skeptical of universal reason and objective truth, associating these with distrusted elites. Instead, it elevates specific traditions, identities (often those historically dominant, like nation, ethnicity, or religion), and "common sense" as authoritative. This often results in a resentment-driven politics, fueled by narratives of decline and victimization. Paradoxically, these movements may utilize postmodern rhetorical tactics—like appeals to "alternative facts," dismissal of opposing views as "fake news," and a focus on power over reasoned debate—despite claiming opposition to postmodernism.

From the standpoint of an integral perspective, which seeks to encompass and integrate multiple valid perspectives and methodologies, several structural elements within Zimmermann's incarnational humanism raise concerns about potential, albeit unintentional, alignment with problematic patterns observed in certain strands of postmodern conservative thought. These patterns, while sometimes offering valuable critiques of modernity, can also lead to insular, exclusionary, and potentially regressive social, political, and religious stances.

The Grounding Problem and Risks of Hermeneutical Closure

One of the primary concerns lies in what could be termed the "grounding problem." Incarnational humanism, as articulated by Zimmermann, anchors truth and human flourishing almost exclusively in the specific historical event and theological interpretation of a Christian understanding of divine revelation and incarnation. While this provides immense internal coherence and a rich source of meaning for those within that tradition, it structurally risks mirroring the postmodern conservative shift from universal reason to tradition-specific and identity-based authority and argumentation. If the ultimate appeal for truth and moral value is to a particular revelation, how does this framework engage authentically and respectfully with deep religious pluralism? How does it avoid becoming another closed system, unable to find common ground with those outside its foundational and traditional narrative? This challenge is central to achieving integral pluralism, a theoretical concept I find crucial and draw from Fred Dallmayr.

A potential critique of Incarnational or Christian Humanism lies in its capacity to genuinely integrate diverse viewpoints without ultimately assimilating them into its Christocentric framework. This concern mirrors criticisms of New Natural Law Theory, where the presumed "self-evident" nature of basic goods may not be universally recognized across cultures and religious worldviews. While acknowledging the value of tradition as a source of wisdom (supported by hermeneutic thinkers like Gadamer), the substantial emphasis on revelation and tradition within Christian and incarnational humanism raises the possibility of epistemological and hermeneutical closure, where knowledge and understanding are confined within the boundaries of a specific religious and closed hermeneutical system.

My perspective, rooted in enactive fallibilism, integral facticity, and integral pluralism, recognizes that all understanding—even revealed truths—is inherently limited, situated, embodied, and potentially fallible. This necessitates a humble and open-minded approach to knowledge. Enactive fallibilism emphasizes that knowledge is actively constructed through our engagement with the world and is therefore subject to revision as new experiences and perspectives emerge. Integral pluralism recognizes the multifaceted and complex nature of reality, acknowledging that no single perspective can fully encompass its totality. This emphasizes the value of diverse perspectives and the importance of engaging with them with humility, openness, and psychological flexibility.

Without explicitly acknowledging this epistemological foundation of fallibility and potential problem with a purely hermeneutical approach, any tradition-based religious system risks becoming ideologically rigid, and treating its foundational narrative and symbolic system as unquestionable dogma. This rigidity is structurally similar to the identity-based epistemology criticized by Habermas and McManus, where knowledge is rooted in a particular cultural or religious identity and is used to justify exclusion and marginalization. The potential for isolation and disengagement from broader society also aligns with my critique of "lifestyle enclaves" – communities that risk becoming disconnected from the broader complexities of the world and the diverse perspectives of those outside their own, fostering an "us vs. them" mentality that hinders genuine dialogue and understanding.

Furthermore, the Christocentric framework of incarnational humanism by Zimmermann, while offering a valuable perspective, may inadvertently marginalize or exclude those who do not share its core hermeneutical and symbolic meaning system. The emphasis on Christ as the ultimate source of truth and meaning could be interpreted as a form of hermeneutical authoritarianism, where one symbolic system is imposed on others. This raises questions about the inclusivity and universality of Christian or incarnational humanism's claims, and its ability to engage in a truly open and respectful dialogue with those of different faiths or no faith at all.

The Narrative of Decline and the Lure of the Idealized Past

A significant concern emerges from the narrative of decline that forms the foundation of Zimmermann's critique of modernity. While his observations regarding the fragmentation inherent in modernity and the exhaustion of secular reason hold a substantial degree of truth, they could inadvertently be assimilated into the conservative narrative of civilizational decay. This narrative often romanticizes the past and views the present through a lens of pessimism and decline.

If the primary solution presented to counter these issues is a retrieval of a specifically Christian tradition, it raises questions about potential alignment with the call for a return to an idealized past. This idealized past is frequently associated with a particular form of Christianity and a nostalgic vision of social and political order that may not be applicable or desirable in the contemporary context. Such a focus could inadvertently fuel resentment and division within society, rather than fostering a nuanced engagement with the present and the complex, multifaceted requirements for constructive solutions to the challenges of our time.

Furthermore, the emphasis on a specific religious tradition as the primary solution risks alienating those who do not adhere to that tradition, thereby hindering the potential for collaborative and inclusive dialogue and action. The challenges of modernity are complex and multifaceted, and addressing them necessitates a broad range of perspectives and approaches. While religious traditions can undoubtedly offer valuable insights and guidance, they should not be seen as the sole or exclusive source of solutions.

Catholic Social Teaching and Integral Human Development

The concerns I've raised highlight the potential of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), and specifically its concept of Integral Human Development (IHD), to provide a stronger and more adaptable framework for a Christian or incarnational humanism that is desperately needed today. CST embodies the Church's ongoing commitment to applying Gospel values to the real-world social, political, and economic challenges to the sign of the times.

IHD, defined as the development of the "whole person and all peoples," inherently demands a systemic perspective encompassing personal, social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions. While sharing theological roots with Zimmermann (e.g., the imago Dei basis for human dignity), CST possesses structural features that make it, from my perspective, more aligned with the demands of a truly integral perspective.

Catholic Social Teaching (CST) provides a comprehensive framework for tackling societal challenges. Its focus on transforming social structures and engaging with problems of the political economy, justice, poverty, inequality, or geopolitical concerns offers a solid foundation that is often absent in approaches that are primarily culturally-focused. By addressing systemic issues and advocating for the common good, CST promotes a more robust integral approach to social transformation.

The historical use of natural law reasoning within CST, alongside revelation, offers a "mediating language" for public discourse. Despite the complexities surrounding natural law, its basis in reason allows for a shared understanding and fosters dialogue among diverse perspectives. This approach, grounded in integral pluralism, recognizes the value of different viewpoints while upholding core principles. By engaging with reason and shared values, CST can bridge divides and promote collaboration in the public sphere.

The core principles of CST—solidarity, subsidiarity, the common good, and the preferential option for the poor—call for concrete action to advance social justice. Solidarity emphasizes the interconnectedness of all people and the responsibility to work for the well-being of others. Subsidiarity upholds the importance of local action and decision-making, empowering communities to address their own needs. The common good recognizes the shared interests and responsibilities of all members of society. The preferential option for the poor prioritizes the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalized, advocating for their inclusion and dignity.

These principles demand practical action to promote social justice and collaboration, preventing humanism from becoming overly abstract. By grounding humanism in the task of transforming the world, CST fosters dialogue and counters the clash of cultures and civilizations. It offers a vision of a just and equitable society where all people are treated with dignity and respect.

Conclusion

In summary, while Zimmermann's Incarnational Humanism provides significant theological insights into the nature of the person, Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and its contemporary expression, Integral Human Development (IHD), may offer a more robust framework for understanding the multifaceted dimensions of the person-in-society and addressing the complexities of our shared world.

My aim is not to dismiss Zimmermann's valuable contribution or to uncritically accept CST/IHD. Rather, I propose an integral humanism that draws from both traditions, as well as Fred Dallmayr's integral pluralism and Ken Wilber’s integral methodological pluralism, to support my own theoretical contributions of integral facticity and enactive fallibilism and establish a new form of integral humanism.

This integral humanism must be grounded in the realities of our embodied, situated existence (facticity). It must recognize that knowledge is not passive but an active, interactive, and embodied process (enactivism). It must embrace epistemological humility, acknowledging the limitations of any single framework or tradition (fallibilism). Finally, it must strive for an integral pluralism grounded in a democracy of hope, fostering open dialogue and seeking common ground across differences.

This necessitates continuous, rigorous testing and refinement of our frameworks, whether from Wilber, Zimmermann, CST, or other sources. We must constantly challenge our theoretical constructs with the world's complexity and the ever-present demands for love and justice for all. This commitment ensures that our humanism remains responsive to evolving challenges and the diverse needs of all people.