Rethinking Radicality Political Theologies in an Age of Crisis
On October 22, Jayne Svenungsson delivered a thought-provoking lecture titled “Political Theologies at the End of the World” at CAPAS in Heidelberg. The distinguished Swedish researcher explored philosophical responses to our current era of overlapping global crises, often described as a "polycrisis". Throughout her lecture, she provided a comprehensive overview of how philosophers have engaged with apocalyptic themes in light of specific geopolitical contexts, and raised crucial questions about how we conceptualize and respond to the seemingly insurmountable global challenges that we face today.
Jayne Svenungsson’s lecture focused on the work of Thomas Lynch, a former CAPAS fellow and Svenungsson's long-time collaborator. She outlined two primary philosophical responses to the world's current predicament, as identified by Lynch in his book “Apocalyptic Political Theology. Hegel, Taubes and Malabou” (2019). The first approach focuses on reforming and transforming the world through sustainable practices and social justice efforts. However, this method is criticized for potentially reinforcing existing structures. The second, more radical “apocalyptic” response, advocated by Lynch, acknowledges the world's inherent injustices and calls for its end.
Prof. Svenungsson emphasized that Lynch's apocalyptic approach is not rooted in traditional theological ideas of rejecting this world for another, but rather in an immanent rejection of the world itself. This "plastic apocalypticism," as Thomas Lynch terms it, focuses on the negative essence of apocalyptic thought without proposing new beginnings.
While sharing Lynch's concerns about the state of the world as well as his diagnosis “that violence and tragedy is inherent to the world and not anything that will be overcome if we only trust in democratic processes and new forms of technology”, Jayne Svenungsson highlighted differences between their approaches. Referring to her 2016 book "Divining History," she drew on Gershom Scholem's distinction between "restorative" and "apocalyptic" tendencies in messianic thinking. Restorative messianism emphasizes continuity and gradual transformation, while apocalyptic messianism envisions a cataclysmic rupture in history.
Prof. Svenungsson traced these tendencies through Jewish and Christian traditions, before applying them to contemporary political philosophy. She identified a shift from more moderate, "restorative" approaches in the late 20th century to more radical, "apocalyptic" ones in the early 21st century. As examples of the apocalyptic turn, she examined the work of philosophers Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou, and Slavoj Žižek, who share a belief that the current world order must be entirely overturned. However, Jayne Svenungsson critiqued these approaches for lacking plausible alternatives to parliamentary democracy and failing to address questions of authority and legitimacy in a post-judicial society: “My fear is that such a posture, in its unwillingness to engage with concrete political options and alternatives, risks playing the most dangerous authoritarian forces into their hands. Also, in relation to climate emergency, I find disinvestment wanting. At a moment in history when there are crucial measures still to be taken to prevent bad to get worse, we no longer have the luxury of indulging in the rhetoric of disinvestment and refusal characteristic of the radical philosophies that set the tone in the wake of 9/11.”
In contrast—and contradicting Thomas Lynch's position—Jayne Svenungsson advocated for more "restorative" forms of political messianism, as proposed by Jacques Derrida. In her view, these approaches are better suited to address today's complex political realities. While no less radical in their critique, they recognize that real change requires time and continuity. However, given the challenges humanity is facing at this moment in history, Prof. Svenungsson acknowledged in her lecture that there are limits to believing in piecemeal adjustments to the existing order. And she asked: “If it’s true that we are facing challenges of apocalyptic proportions, challenges that call for more radical responses, this also raises the question of what radicalitymeans in terms of a thinking that is able to generate effective change. Are the only options at hand disinvestment versus endless deferral, or is this a dichotomy that precludes other ways of thinking what radical commitment could entail?”
Radicality at the End of the World
Subsequently, Jayne Svenungsson presented a compelling argument for a new approach to radical thinking in the face of global crises. She urged listeners to move beyond the dichotomy of endless deferral and disinvestment, proposing instead a return to historical traditions of radicality. Hence, she called for a rediscovery of radicality's roots, tracing a lineage through thinkers such as Heine, Marx, and Luxemburg, and argued that true radicality is not mere disruption but “it has a social goal with an inclusive plan and is tightly connected to discourses of justice”. Svenungsson drew connections between this radical tradition and biblical prophetism, suggesting that modern radicalism could be seen as a secularization of prophetic ideals with their commitment to the weak and the vulnerable.
In proposing a fresh approach to political theology, Prof. Svenungsson highlighted the work of Daniel Bensaïd, a Jewish Marxist thinker. Bensaïd's ideas, she argued, offer a way to transcend the divide between deferral and disinvestment, emphasizing persistence and hope in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. Rather than pure negation or disruption, radicality becomes a matter of endurance and perseverance. Jayne Svenungsson cited examples of this "slow revolutionary practice," including local political engagement, using art to raise awareness about ecological crises, and legal strategies to address urgent global issues.
In conclusion, Jayne Svenungsson distinguished her "prophetic" concept of the world from apocalyptic thinking. While acknowledging the inherent violence and tragedy in the current political order, she rejected the notion of a perfect world beyond our own. Instead, she advocated for a view of redemption as an ever-present “possibility and a calling in every moment to make this only world a little less tragic, a little less violent”.
Jayne Svenungsson is Professor of Systematic Theology at Lund University, Sweden. Her research focuses on philosophy of history and political theology, including the ways in which apocalyptic and messianic motifs play a role in modern Western philosophy and political thought. She is currently principal investigator of the research program “At the End of the World: A Transdisciplinary Approach to the Apocalyptic Imaginary in the Present and Past”.
