Dooyeweerd consultation - II

Most of our discussions took place at the Holiday Inn. We began friday morning by going round the table and introducing ourselves and our work. Among other things, I noted that Roel Kuiper and I share an interest in authority and sovereignty, so he is one person with whom I will wish to remain in contact. Kuiper is associated with the Free University and the Reformed University, Zwolle/Christian University, Ede. I was also interested to know that David van Heemst, of Olivet Nazarene University, is working on a revision of Bob Goudzwaard's Idols of Our Time, a small but significant book published two decades ago which had an influence on the shape of my own book. I look forward to seeing what comes of this effort.

In the second session Jonathan Chaplin gave an excellent presentation on "Dooyeweerd's Contribution to an Understanding of 'Civil Society' in a Changing Global Context." (This was the title on his printed outline.) Jonathan is putting the finishing touches on a monograph on Dooyeweerd's political philosophy which I anticipate reading once it is published.

After this we all went to the BWI train station and took a MARC commuter train into Union Station, Washington. From there we took the subway to DuPont Circle and then walked to the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, where we heard Prof. Johan van der Vyver speak.


School of Law, Emory University

Johan van der Vyver

Van der Vyver once taught at Potchefstroom University, near Johannesburg, South Africa. He was dismissed from there in 1978 due to his stance in opposition to apartheid. After that he taught at the University of the Witwatersrand until he received a full-time position at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Somewhat ironically, Potchefstroom would eventually grant him an honorary doctorate following the end of the apartheid régime.

Van der Vyver's address was a very learned polemic sharply critical of the United States' continual refusal to ratify and adhere to a variety of international legal instruments, such as the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court. Prof. Ruth Wedgwood of SAIS chaired the session and also responded at some length to van der Vyver's paper. In contrast to van der Vyver's support for US participation in the ICC and similar institutions, Wedgwood is rather more sceptical of the efficacy of such enterprises. A lively discussion followed.

That evening, after dinner, we walked down as far as the security perimeter surrounding the Capitol building. From there we could also see the darkened outline of the Washington Monument off in the distance. Among the other buildings of interest we saw during our time in Washington were the embassies of Chile, Peru, the Philippines, Hungary and (possibly) Uzbekistan; the National Geographic Society, Planned Parenthood, the American Enterprise Institute and the Congressional Black Caucus.


Pearson/Prentice Hall

Capitol Building

The following morning I presented my own work on political ideologies, outlining the basic thesis of my book and the debt owed to Dooyeweerd's political theory, as well as to Goudzwaard. This sparked another animated discussion, two features of which stand out for me. First, the conversation turned to the influence of radical islamism and the extent to which it represents either a reaffirmation of the original islamic faith or an ideologization of that faith. (This is something on which I am not altogether certain. I can see validity in both interpretations.) Second, I was struck by the assertion of our Dutch colleagues that ideologies, as we have come to know them over the past two centuries, are effectively dead, having been replaced by a pragmatic instrumentalism in which technical expertise becomes the primary consideration. To which I say, perhaps, but it all sounds reminiscent of Daniel Bell's "end of ideology" thesis of nearly half a century ago in the United States. His ringing of the death knell turned out to be terribly premature, given the subsequent developments of the 1960s. Still, perhaps I should consider taking on pragmatism itself at some point.

From here we heard from Roy Clouser on the religious roots of theory. This moved us into a presentation by David Caudill on the similarities between Dooyeweerd's legal theory and Critical Legal Studies. Alan Cameron was less persuaded of this affinity, but, as Caudill had to leave early, we were unable to hear an exchange between the two on the subject.

On saturday evening those of us remaining went down to the inner harbour in Baltimore and had dinner together. I returned to Hamilton yesterday. Whether we will be meeting again in another year or two is still to be determined. It was a good weekend, all in all.