Deep Symbols: Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation

Deep Symbols: Their Postmodern Effacement and Reclamation. By Edward Farley. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. xii + 145 pp. $16.00 (paper).

Edward Farley, Professor of Theology at Vanderbilt University, applies his phenomenological expertise to several of what he terms "deep symbols." These are "god-terms" or "power words" that "are the values by which a community understands itself, from which it takes its aims, and to which it appeals as canons of cultural criticism" (p. 3). The symbols he chooses are tradition, obligation, reality, law, and hope.

His concern is whether the postmodern age is also a postsymbolic age. Certainly there is atrophy; is there also a possibility of recovery? In the case of each of the symbols that he analyzes, he probes their diminishment and their continuing vitality. What he discerns is that they are deeply rooted in the experiential interworld of human life and cannot totally be evaded. His strength is uncovering this persistent presence, at least the residues, of deep symbols; he is less convincing when it comes to proposals for recovery.

For example, the chapter on reality is especially strong, where Farley deftly analyzes reasons for the loss of a sense of reality in secular and religious life and yet shows the way in which reference to the real is manifested in a postmodern context. It is not at all clear, however, how one moves beyond description to change. Farley himself underscores the difficulty: "To rethink the deep symbols is to find ways to remember the mystery and give it expression in the face of what appear to be overwhelming discreditations and displacements" (p. 26).

He points out in the concluding chapter how these symbols are interdependent-such as the way obligation, tradition, and law interrelate. He makes a strong case for approaching the symbols in the terms of their basis in the interhuman rather than through ontology, contrasting his approach with Paul Tillich's Love, Power, and Justice. The reference to Tillich's work, however, raises the question of: why these particular symbols? He illuminates the ones he chose, but Tillich's symbols seem already more resonant than "law" or "obligation." Farley nevertheless highlights the issue of deep symbols and provides a helpful framework for reflecting on them.

This is a concise work, full of insight and wisdom, that communicates to a broad audience. The argument appeals to contemporary experience and is not laced with jargon. The documentation is not extensive and is largely relegated to the notes. In other words, he is not writing for other professionals in his field but for all those who are affected by deep symbols.

DAN R. STIVER

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Louisville, Kentucky

Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Spring 1998
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved