Manufacturing the Debt Republic of America: Mounting Student Loan Debt and Dismantling Its Neoliberal Political Ideology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author poses three questions in the abstract of the article, 1) What are the prospects of and limits of different political approaches to the issue [student debt/student loan forgiveness in the US] 2) What are the structural or ideological backgrounds which have given birth to the crisis and 3) what is the Christian ethical response to the issue and how can it be theologically justified. The author follows the theological section with a reflection on possible public policy reforms regarding student loan debt. 

There were mutliple and serious issues in the argumentation in this article. One question a reader might rightly pose of this piece is : How is Christian theology relevant to the issue of student loan debt and possible forgiveness in the US? The author does not adequately answer this central question. There is no focused reflection on the relevance of confessional Christian theology for a concrete public policy issue in a secular state. This very positioning needs to be justified--the United States is religiously pluralistic with clear seperation between church and state, thus, when theological arguments are brought to bear on public issues, the question of why, how, and to what degree Christian theology matters needs to be answered. 

Secondly, the theological argumentation itself, found on pages 13-15, doesn't quite come off. The author begins with apophatic theology  - citing both classical figures in the discourse like Gregory of Nysa and Pseudo-Dionysius as well as contemporary figures such as Catherine Keller, Jean-Luc Marion and Kathryn Tanner in a discussion on God's unknowability and takes Marion's position that God precedes Being. Keller's metaphorics of God as a gift (which is indebted in part to Derrida, who is not mentioned) is taken as a basis to argue that if God is an unknowable gift then student loan debt can also be understood as a "social gift" which must be paid back. The question that remains in the whole discourse is : how does it follow that if God can be understood as a gift, that student loans should be understood as a social gift? The relevance of the theological discourse to the political debate is never demonstrated, and this is a great weakness in the paper. There is  tenuous connection made through Katherine Tanner's observation that economic metaphors are sometimes used in Christian discourses around God, Christ and salvation. However this is merely an observation, the work isn't done to further substantiate it and the argument for how apophatic theology is relevant to student loan debt never really comes across. Further, it was curious that no discussion of the Levitical mandate of Jubiliee was ever offered in the article. The the mandatory debt forgiveness every seven years found in the Torah is surely relevant to theological conversations around debt forgiveness. Jubilee. In an article in this topical area at least some discussion of it is absolutely necessary. 

Section four closed with some policy observations and comparisions of the US student loan system with that of other countries. The author ultimately recommends that student debt should be understood as social gift to future generations and that interest rates should be kept low on student loans to ensure that they are repayable. The policy recommendations were not very concrete nor were they clearly stated. The author seems to be arguing that no change should be made in the area of student loan debt, rather than a potential lowering of interest rates. This position seems at odds with the purportedly activist tone of the writing and again, the theological connection is missing. How does this conclusion, that there should be little to no changes in US-student loan policy, follow from the previous theological discussions? 

One note on the policy discussion, there is a significant false parallel made in the comparison  between the German Bildungskredit/BAföG and the US-student loan system. The author argues that if interest rates of US Student loans were brought to the German level, then the US would have a sustainable system comparable to that of the German. However the author failed to take the question of tuition into account. Tuition at German public universities is consistently less than 500 Euros (roughly 540 USD) per semester. US tuition, as noted by the author, is upwards of 60,000 USD per year. The Bildungskredit and BAföG are generally applied to the living expenses of the student whereas the majority of US-student loans go towards tuition exclusively (i.e. Federal Perkins). Thus the amount of debt that a typical US-student is approx. tenfold that of the average German student in gross terms. A slight adjustment of the interest rates will not change that fact, and it is innacurate to compare the financial situation of students in these two contexts without taking into account the gross differential in tuition rates. 

There were a few stylistic issues in the paper. The numbering of the sections needs corrected on Line 52, Lines 586-590 were written in boldtype, which seems to be a typo. The references are double-spaced while the body text is single-spaced. Finally, the tone of some sections didn't quite match with the conventions of an academic paper, instead making direct appeals to the reader using rhetoric like "we the people" on lines 662 and 669.  This rhetoric can also be found in the abstract (lines 10-11) "it is time now for American society to recon with the neoliberal economy of debt that has relentlessly undertaken every aspect of our social and political lives,". These kinds of appeals and imperatives, given on a nationalist register, aren't fitting for an academic article in an international journal. 

Author Response

Dear Editors of Religions:

Thank you for giving me a chance to revise the paper. I read the reviewers' comments with much interest and care. Given that most of the critical comments come from reviewer 1, I will respond to his/her remarks in this response.  

              First, the reviewer criticized that “there is no focused reflection on the relevance of confessional Christian theology for a concrete public policy, issue in a secular state.” He/she then goes on to say, “when theological arguments are brought to bear on public issues, the question of why, how, and to what degree Christian theology matters needs to be answered.” The reviewer justifies his/her questioning by laying out his/her political-theological stance that “the United States is religiously pluralistic with a clear separation between church and state.” To sum up his/her comments, Christian theologians are not supposed to say anything about the structural injustices of this world because such issues are secular, and thus should be addressed by the state. I respectfully disagree with this narrow political-theological perspective for several reasons. First off, if the reviewer’s comment is right, then the church should never address such issues as ‘immigration justice,’ ‘gun violence,’ or ‘environmental racism’ because they are certainly “secular” problems. Also, if the reviewer’s perspective is upheld, then the Black Church’s participation in the civil rights movement would be theologically condemned! Given that Christian ethicists’ main job is to address social, political, and economic issues of our world from a theological perspective, the reviewer’s narrow political-theological opinion cannot be widely ratified by most Christian ethicists. I am saying this based on some of the major contemporary political-theological works such as William Cavanaugh, Luke Bretherton, and Adam Kotsko. My point is that the reviewer’s theological concern has been already answered by other scholars, and introducing/summarizing their theological views is not the purpose of my paper.

Second, the reviewer writes that “the theological argumentation itself, found on pages 13-15 doesn’t quite come off.” According to the reviewer, my theological argument begins with apophatic theology. I respectfully object to this statement because the theological argument does not begin with apophatic theology; it begins with anthropological discoveries made by such anthropologists as Marcel Mauss, Marshall Sahlins, David Graeber, and others found on pages 10-13. Unlike reviewer 1, reviewer 2 appreciates this connection between anthropology and theology with his/her short yet critical statement, “I particularly like the connections drawn between anthropology and theology.” By ignoring this critical connection, reviewer 1 fails to capture the key anthropological-theological thrust which I laid out on pages 10-15, not 13-15. Unfortunately, the reviewer not only completely ignores the anthropological-theological connection but also entirely disregards the major theological source (Stephen Webb) that provides me with a key theological insight. On pages 14 and 15, for instance, I introduced Webb’s trinitarian understanding of gifting God, and Webb exactly answers the reviewer’s question: “how does it follow that if God can be understood as a gift, that student loans should be understood as a social gift?” Strangely enough, the reviewer never mentioned Webb’s name when he/she was referring to all the names of contemporary theologians whom I discussed. Intentional or not, by failing to address Webb’s critical theological insight, the reviewer not only fails to correctly read my paper but also mischaracterizes God as a “gift,” not a “giver.” This is not a small mistake. I have never argued in my paper that God is a gift; instead, I have consistently argued God as a gift-giving giver. Again, the reviewer’s mistake has something to do with the reviewer’s complete disregard of Webb, who writes, “In the end, what God gives (as a giver) is the power of giving itself, the possibility that we can all participate in the movement of giving with the hope that such generosity will be enhanced, organized, and consummated in God very own becoming.” This critical sentence sums up my fundamental theological stance on the proposed ethics of student debt.

Third, the reviewer criticizes my policy recommendations which I laid out in the fourth section. In formulating his critique, the reviewer writes, “The author seems to be arguing that no change should be made in the area of student loan debt, rather than a potential lowering of interest rates.” This is a grave misreading. On pages 15 and 16, I clearly put forward three (not one) specific policy recommendations (“getting student loan interest tuned to the inflation rate,” “making it eligible for student loan borrowers to declare bankruptcy,” and “letting income-based repayment be universal for all student loan borrowers”). I would like to ask my reviewer if these policy recommendations are not specific enough, what is your criterion for being specific? For some reason, the reviewer completely ignores my second and third recommendations, as if they were not addressed in my paper. Even more so, the reviewer made a false statement by writing, “US tuition, as noted by the author, is upwards of 60,000 USD per year.” First off, I never noted that number in my paper. Where did he get the number $60,000? There is no such number in my paper. The reviewer just made up the number and referred it to me by saying, “as noted by the author.” The reviewer’s number is also wrong. According to “Education Data” (https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-state), “the average college tuition in the US is $9,349 for in-state students and $27,023 for out-of-state students at public 4-year institutions.” I wonder why reviewer 1 makes up this baseless number by referring it to me.

Lastly, the reviewer commented on the “tone” of some sections by pointing out two specific phraseologies: “we the people” (page 17) and “it is time now for American society to reckon with the neoliberal economy of debt (page 1). According to the reviewer, these terms register “nationalist” ethos. I respectfully disagree with this charge. First, calling out “American society” is commonly used in many academic articles and books. If the reviewer would have read sociologist Wendy Brown’s Undoing the Demos or economist Joseph Stiglitz’s Freefall, he/she would acknowledge that it is quite ubiquitous for public intellectuals to incorporate such generic terms like “American society.” Second, when I adopt the word, “we the people,” it was supposed to be contrasted with the office of “President,” not about invoking “nationalist” ethos at all. By decontextualizing the use of these terms, the reviewer attempts to mislead his/her leaders as if I tried to appeal to nationalist ideology. This is a brazen mischaracterization of my work. I am against all types of nationalist ideology. Strangely, the reviewer ignores the fact that I use the word, “we the people” interchangeably with the other term, “citizens.” (Page 17) Let me cite the exact sentence regarding how I use the words “we the people” and “citizens” interchangeably. “Without a doubt, the student loan crisis is the citizens’ social task. For that reason, we the people should first own the problems.” I don’t see how this sentence represents a “nationalist” spirit?

As one can see, my responses specifically refer to the reviewer’s own words, not my own interpretation or imagination. Despite my rebuttals above, I accept the reviewer’s comment on the lack of the concept of “jubilee” in my paper. The reviewer wrote, “it was curious that no discussion of the Levitical mandate of Jubilee was ever offered in the article.” I decided to accept the reviewer’s comments on “jubilee”; so, I added a short paragraph about the Levitical concept of jubilee on page 3. There are minor revisions made on page 16. Thank you again for giving me a chance to revise the paper. As one can see, I read the reviewer’s comments seriously and responded to all of his/her concerns as best as I can.

Respectfully submitted,

Author(s)

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-researched and well-written investigation of the topic. I particularly like the connections drawn between anthropology and theology.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you so much for reviewing my paper. I do appreciate your affirmation. I hope you enjoyed reading it. 

Many thanks,

Ilsup Ahn