Abstract
In Facing the Other: John Paul II, Levinas, and the Body, Nigel Zimmermann brings these thinkers into conversation with the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion to propose a theology of embodied alterity as a means of cultivating an ethos for willing the good of the Other. After having provided a brief overview of the historical correspondence between John Paul II and Levinas, the author gives a detailed account of their intellectual development and key philosophical insights. Since he is clearly working from the perspective of Catholic theology, he pays much greater attention to the work of the late pontiff and highlights the nuances of his vast corpus of intellectual works, even including some Wojtyła’s often overlooked works for theatre. In his notably less-nuanced reading of Levinas, he identifies embodiment – or for him ‘a disincarnate subject’ – as a problematic aspect of the phenomenological relation to the Other (p. 181). This problem having been identified, he plunges into the account of eros by Marion as a potential solution to this dilemma. Zimmermann argues that Marion’s account of the erotic phenomenon, an occurrence that is not necessarily sexual, enables a conversion of ‘human sexual longing into longing for a divine presence’, thus motivating one to desire ‘what is best for another’ (p. 231). The author then draws a connection between the three phenomenologists with the idea of the ‘gift’. Zimmermann concludes that the idea creates a ‘radical communion’ between two individuals including ‘the giving of flesh, blood, and tears in labor, and paradoxically further opening up their intimate capacity for the other’ (p. 269). While often associated solely with sexuality, bringing these three thinkers into conversation with one another interprets fecundity ‘within a broader logic of self-donation’ (p. 272).
The two main thinkers whom Zimmermann brings together have faced a great deal of criticism. While today recognized as a canonized saint among Roman Catholics, John Paul II’s theology of the body has been critiqued for reifying what has been labelled gender essentialism. Indeed, many individuals, both within and without the Catholic Church, have felt this notion of anthropological complementarity marginalizes the relationality of same-sex couples and the varying identities of transgender individuals. Likewise, Levinas has also faced criticism for his account of the ‘feminine’. Zimmermann remains silent on these issues, and whether he intends to avoid commenting on them or sees them as already settled by proclamations of the Church’s magisterium remains unclear. He does, however, provide a new outlet for thinking about theology of the body that could address the previous criticism of the pontiff’s anthropology. In separating the eros from the sexual act, Zimmermann suggests an encounter with the Other that is fruitful or ‘fecund’ in a way that is not reducible to biological reproduction. By bringing in Levinas, the author may have unintentionally opened a doorway for the validity of queer, non-reproductive love to find its place within the tradition.