Chi, X, is
the 22nd letter in the Greek alphabet; its structure seems to suggest a
“crossing,” as it were, or even a physical cross.
Chiasm (or chiasmus) is a rhetorical device
based on this suggestion; it reverses syntax (or various other linguistics
items) for emphasis, for unity, or for other philosophical reasons having
to do with the power of a
perspective shift. The
pattern here is AB/BA. For example, Kennedy used a chiasm when he said,
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country.” Jesus, following the chiastic tradition of Hebrew scripture, used
the device (par excellence!).
For instance, at the compelling end of Luke 7, where Jesus is anointed by
the woman of “ill repute,” we surmise the following truth: love so as to
be forgiven, and, as forgiven, seize the need to love.
Again, note
the POWER of chiasm. It transcends mere artistic ornamentation. RECONCILIATION,
or THE FUSION OF OPPOSITES, always seems to figure into “chiastic
thinking.” The woman who
anointed Jesus may have seemed to some to be beyond hope, too “dirty.” But
along comes Jesus, applying the chi: “The least will be first”... “I have
come not to call the righteous”...etc.
The
philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty goes as far as to say that the higher
purpose of chiasm is to create an “entwining,” a place where irreconcilables meet and touch eachother. He goes on to claim that there is an originary form of
chiastic thinking per se, and that it represents an “incarnate principle”
(this from a thinker who was apparently not even considering the Son of
God in this context). The
goal of such a principle is to “fix things from within” (which sounds like
evangelical “meet people where they are”). Hence, we apply the chi.
Back up a
bit and NOTE HERE the integrative thinking at work with chiasm. First of
all, it takes an integrative mind to transport the device outside of the
realm of mere rhetoric and capitalize upon its broader applications (as
with Merleau-Ponty’s philosophical turn). Thinking from the perspective of
other disciplines helps us realize the fuller import of “crossing things.”
FOR EXAMPLE,
from the perspective of theology, we note how Jesus, as He used chiasm,
reiterated His overarching ministry of reconciliation—His “crossing over” into
the physical realm in order to make the way for our eternal reconciliation
with God (which involved, of course, a physical cross).
As Christians,
we are to apply the “chi of
Jesus” to all of our interdisciplinary border crossings (those between disciplines, those
between classroom and realworld,
and those between head and heart). This means that we are to look for
reversals and perspective shifts (e.g., what it is like to be an atheist),
look inside concepts and thinking patterns which seem to prohibit
individuals from finding God (see below), and, finally, look for paths to
reconciliation (ways of leading people to Christ). In short, all of our thinking
should come per crucem, through
the cross.
Along the
lines of the second item above (looking inside concepts), TEST YOURSELF
and use chiastic thinking to reverse in
an efficacious manner the following statement: “the only constant is
change” (which was found in an advertisement for ice-climbing gear, but is
representative of contemporary thought in general). HINT: start with the AB/BA
reversal: the only change is
constant. Any ideas here?
Second, Do it
Yourself:
One of the
most popular characterizations of interdisciplinarians comes from the
anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. He claims that we are bricoleurs-- jacks of all trades,
to be sure, but also “do it yourself” types who, because we draw from
multiple resources, are inclined toward self-motivation, self-education,
and...well...just getting the job done (often while others are frozen
either by a limited disciplinary perspective or by fear). The fearlessness of a Christian
interdisciplinarian comes from having made so many crosses, so to speak,
and from, then, relying on THE CROSS.
We live in
the age of an increasing emphasis on DIY and its derivatives, not just for
aesthetic purposes (as with Punk or Hip-Hop music) , but in light of
economic and ecosytematic mandates. Therefore we cry “now more than ever”
when it comes to interdisciplinary studies and its tendency toward bricolage, multiple training, and
adaptability.
There is a
one-to-one correspondence between what we learn through our IDS program and
what the world needs right now. To wit, consider the following “derivative”
blurb from IKEA (found in their 2010 catalogue): “It’s still about doing
more with less, challenging convention, being careful with money and not letting
a simple thing go to waste...[Today] you have work harder, adapt your
ideas and do things differently.” To apply the chi to this statement, we agree (looking
inside this claim) that we might have to do a few things differently
today, but we do so in the name of Christ and with the chiastic conviction
that some things never change!
Connect With Us: