On New Religiosity and the Conspiracy of the Dead Against the Living
Aleksandr Filonenko / Photo from personal archive
SHORT PROFILE
Name: Oleksandr Semenovych Filonenko
Date of birth: 18 October 1968
Profession: Ukrainian Orthodox theologian, public intellectual, Doctor of Philosophy
Why does the modern world need theology? Orthodox theologian and Doctor of Philosophy Aleksandr Filonenko believes that at the historical point toward which humanity is heading, theology is indispensable. Before our very eyes, a new religiosity is being born — one that will change everything: science, art, education… With this publication, Huxley opens a series of interviews with the outstanding Ukrainian theologian.
THEOLOGY RETURNS
T
heology, undoubtedly, was unthinkable in both Soviet and post-Soviet history. And yet, I am a person of the post-Soviet era who discovered Christianity. The source of my interest in theology lies in England. One day, I made a discovery: in every European country, in many universities, there are faculties of theology that play a significant role in science and culture.
It seems to me that in the post-Soviet space, something important is still being missed, as people persist in the mistaken belief that theology has nothing to do with knowledge and, therefore, shouldn’t be taught at the university level. Ukraine, however, has overcome this misconception. Academic theology is developing in the country. But theology is not just returning — it is returning in new forms.
For centuries, we’ve grown accustomed to the idea that academic theology is confessional. It is seen as necessary to help a person define their confessional identity. But for me, another aspect is more important — academic theology can serve as a universal mediator between all disciplines: art, science, the humanities, politics, economics…
THE POVERTY OF POSTMODERNISM
Theology opens and structures the space of interdisciplinary dialogue in such a way that the human being appears at the center of the university «cosmos». And without theology, it is difficult to understand the human being. The crisis of the modern university is, above all, a crisis of unity: fragmented knowledge no longer relates to any kind of overarching structure. The principle of unity is anthropological — in theology, it is realized through the contemplation of the vertical dimension.
I believe that this contemplation cannot be stopped or replaced by anything else. Even Nietzsche’s idea that «God is dead» couldn’t bring it to an end. Sometime later, in Paris, they came up with a continuation of the story: «Nietzsche is dead! Signed: God». Woody Allen also offered a witty remark: «God is dead, Nietzsche is dead, Marx is dead. And I’m not feeling so well myself…»
As soon as we deny theology the right to knowledge, the human being disappears from the picture of the world. And the human being starts «not feeling so well» because, without theology, it’s unclear who we even are. That is exactly what happened in postmodernism. I believe that with the realization of its poverty — which began to emerge in the late 1990s — I began to take shape as a philosopher. It seems to me that humanity is entering a new era where religion and theology will become uniquely important as disciplines that «gather the fragments» of unified knowledge.
METAMODERNISM: THE REHABILITATION OF THE VERTICAL
The point toward which we are all moving is often carelessly referred to as metamodernism — that which comes after postmodernism. But what matters here are not the terms but the meanings. For example, at this point, it would be very difficult to find an atheist. Even now, in my own circle, it’s hard to find someone who completely denies the existence of a «vertical».
To speak metaphorically, I think we’re all just a bit tired of the postmodern «flat world». Rumors of the total secularization of modern society have been greatly exaggerated. Sociologist Peter Berger, who actually coined the theory of secularization, was eventually forced to apologize for it. Because there is no evidence of secularization as a global trend on planet Earth.
Yes, religion and religiosity are taking new forms. But that is not secularization! It seems to me that at the exit from postmodernism, theological language serves as a medium that creates a space for dialogue between disciplines that currently have no contact with each other.
«THE THIRD CULTURE» AND NEW RELIGIOSITY
I’m very fond of the American John Brockman. This «literary producer» put forward the idea of the so-called «third culture». He proposed a way to bridge the gap between the «two cultures» — the physical and mathematical sciences and the humanities — which began to diverge more and more after World War II. This division was notably pointed out by British scientist Charles Percy Snow.
Now, Brockman didn’t just talk about the «third culture» — he actively created it. Thanks to this great science popularizer, names like Hawking, Pinker, and Penrose became widely known. For Brockman, the «third culture» is almost sacred — but religion, for him, does not exist.
That’s where Brockman and I part ways. I believe that the «third culture» is unfolding as a culture of new religiosity. And it is both fascinating and important to understand, describe, and reflect on it — because human beings have a need for religion. Once again, this is more about anthropology than about denominations.
In the recent past, being religious primarily meant being confessional. But the modern individual discovers the religious before discovering a confession. Today, we see many religious people who cannot say to which confession they belong. Some simply can’t decide. Others don’t understand why they would need to choose one at all.
MUSEUMIFICATION OF MODERNITY
When speaking about the problem of contemporary confessionalism, an analogy can be drawn with contemporary art. The Saatchi Gallery in London emerged in 1985 out of a rejection of the museumification of the artist — as a space alternative to the museum. It was stated that the name Tate Modern — one of the world’s largest art galleries — sounds like a contradiction. Because modernus in Latin means «modern». But what does it mean to «museumify modernity»? A modern museum is, in fact, a complete absurdity!
As a result, Saatchi created an alternative space to demonstrate that art, if it is alive, is fundamentally not subject to museumification. It’s worth noting that the debate between these two London galleries was quite originally — though unintentionally — resolved by Ukrainian artist Borys Mikhailov. In the same year, he held two exhibitions: one at Saatchi and the other at Tate Modern. Thus, there appeared the figure of a contemporary artist for whom this opposition no longer applies.
I understand people who call themselves metamodernists, even though I don’t find the term itself particularly successful. What they are doing closely resembles the work Mikhailov did — they are drawing culture not from opposition or polarity, but from some third point — the «third culture». The modern individual encounters living life before the museum. They are innately religious — and only afterward, confessional.
TIME TO BRING THE MUSES BACK TO MUSEUMS
Continuing on the topic of museums, it must be said that this is a very Ukrainian issue. When the war began, many museums in Ukraine closed. To preserve their collections, they resorted to «conservation» — a terrible word! A paradox emerged: during wartime, art should fulfill its primary function — to inspire — but instead, it is «under conservation». It turned out that museum professionals were quite content with this. After all, the concept of the museum is described by three words: preserve, research, popularize.
This is exactly what all modern museums do. But whom are they «preserving» art from — and why? The museum acts as a service for safeguarding art, protecting it from the living in the name of the dead. As a result, both the living and future generations lose out. How do we break this conspiracy of the dead against the living? Is there even room for the living in current museum concepts? It turns out — there isn’t.
And so, together with those Kyiv museum professionals who recognized this problem, we began to reflect: what is a modern museum really? And of course, we returned to the beginning — to the word muses. Originally, a museum was a dwelling place of the muses. A space where a person awakens their hunger for the fullness of life. The museum should be a source of inspiration! But if the muses don’t live in the museum — then it is not a modern museum.
Metamodernist projects of today’s cultural spaces are precisely about bringing the muses back to the museum. And in doing so, they also restore to such spaces a genuine, profound religiosity.