Peace, one and all…
In his interesting history of the Christian concept of love (Agape and Eros), Anders Nygren sets out his purpose in the following manner:
‘first, to investigate the meaning of the Christian idea of love; and secondly, to illustrate the main changes it has gone through in the course of history’ (p. 27)
During the introductory chapter, he attempts to differentiate between agape and eros as forms or theories of love, saying effectively that there is no original conceptual relationship between the two:
‘first, that in Eros and Agape we have two conceptions which have originally nothing whatsoever to do with one another; and, second, that in the course of history they have none the less become so thoroughly bound up and interwoven with one another that it is hardly possible for us to speak of either without our thoughts being drawn to the other. Any attempt to draw a clear and essential distinction between Eros and Agape, therefore, can easily look like a violent and artificial separation of things that by nature belong together’ (p.30-31)
He explores this apparent relationship further, arguing that in origin they represent radically different approaches to spirituality and the spiritual life:
‘When we speak of Eros and Agape, therefore, we are thinking of them all the time in this sense – that is, as ‘fundamental motifs’ (p.34)
Erose and Agae are thus conceptual motifs and should be studied as such. How then to explore such ideas? Nygren differentiates between ‘historical-genetic research’ and ‘motif-research’:
‘As distinct from historical-genetic research, motif-research is concerned less with the historical connections and origins of motifs than with their characteristic content and typical manifestations’ (p. 35).
Oddly, as it struck me, immediately prior to this he makes the following observation:
‘What such an idea, or belief, or sentiment really means, can only be decided in the light of its own historical context’ (p. 35)
Although, admittedly, I have only just begun to explore this very interesting work, such an approach seems limited. If the book’s aim is to explore the content of the Christian love-motif, how can that be done without constant reference to issues of context? To speak of a concept through history is to speak of how it is deployed by people and the social environments they inhabit. Moreover, to speak of ‘characteristic content and typical manifestations’ runs the risk of privileging one historically-located reading over all others. That is, it opens up the possibility of making one form the only form, which would be strange indeed in a work of history. Is there even a ‘characteristic’ form, that might be manifested in ‘typical’ (and presumably, therefore, atypical) ways? Is typical manifestation somehow distinct from contextual manifestation?
Perhaps, reducing this argument/method to its essentials, Nygren’s argument is suggesting the existence of an ‘essence’, of an always true form of love-motif that has appeared throughout Christian history in either its ‘pure’ or ‘adulterated’ form? In other words, is this merely another aspect of the much wider nature vs nurture debate?
For my part, I have no clearly worked out answer (indeed, this blog is part of my attempts to work through such large questions, bit by bit). I do not see this issue in terms of absolutes: a thing must have some kind of essential quality in order for it to be distinguished from other things. Yet, this world of time and space, of context and environment, plays an absolutely fundamental role in how we as humans approach questions of meaning and existence – or else, how would we explain differences within religious traditions (both in terms of culture and in terms of time)?
Allah! Yet more questions without immediate answers!
Ma’as salama,
Abdur Rahman
