Reframing Vulnerability through an Embodied Theological Lens: Towards Ethical Engagement in a Globalized Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text deals with a very important category, that of vulnerability, and quotes pertinent literature. The connection established between "corporeal experiences, affective states, and ethical considerations" is adequate and promising. To see vulnerability not as an accident or something to avoid - even if it implies risk and suffered violence -, but as a "fundamental fact" of life (line 187) is profound and (relatively) innovative. The text specifically refers to Latin America (I did miss, however, some authors from there, like Jon Sobrino S.J. with whom S. Stalsett works a lot, as well as Érico Hammes) and to the Catholic Church and theology, which might be given even more emphasis already in the abstract, as this, even within a globalized world, would better situate the article and its author.

I find the title appealing, but not quite true to the text, namely the subtitle, and I suggest to either simply leave that out or exchange it for another. After all, this is really about the concept of vulnerability, not so much its following engagement, as I read it. It would also be helpful to clarify the research methodology at the outset, especially how the selection of references was made.

Some statements are very clear, but would benefit from some explanation or referencing, like the one lines 45-47: "Globalization has also implied the imposition of neoliberal hegemony and the universalization of exacerbated vulnerability, favoring the weakening of bonds..." - how so, exactly? As to the rightly emphasized "exhausting personal task" (line 73) of the individual, to have to perform constantly and construct themselves, Peter Berger's early reflections on heresy and Richard Sennett's works would be an additional asset.

In not only formal terms, the reader conduction could be considerably enhanced if there were less paragraphs and longer thoughts. It sometimes reads a bit like only loosely connected notes, which can be tiresome.

Also, sometimes the author uses for him- or herself "I" (line 143), but also "we" (line 151). Otherwise, "we" or "us" is frequent for "humanity", "humans" or "believers", which in fact I suggest to be substituted for something in the latter line. It makes the subject clearer. May I also suggest to use "Godself" rather than "Himself" when referring to God, avoiding unnecessary gendering. 

I also suggest, in connection with what is mentioned from John Paul II (line 881ff.), to make reference to (theological) feminist notions of the body and a gender-sensitive understanding embodiment. 

Line 169: What did Kant do in 1785? Would be good to explicate.

LIne 183: the distinction between "descriptive, normative, and moral" and then still "guide to action" (line 185) to vulnerability could be made clearer in their specific method and content, as well as their interconnection.

LIne 403: a rather bold statement: "In Sacred Scripture, God is not the Greek immutable divinity" - with which I agree, but don't see it well sustained; I would also suggest to rather formulate "God is portrayed not as...". After all, centuries of theology have precisely understood God to be immutable. Biblical exegesis does support the author's statement, but should/could be mentioned - i.e. from Feldmeier/Spieckermann, The God of the Living.

Line 532: What is APA? Please explain.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is good, obviously a non-native speaker's, but would benefit from a moderate revision of style and expression.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author deploys eloquent and elegant phrasing in this article. For example, “our planet is intricately implicated within networks of interdependence” (21-22),  “Globalization has also implied the imposition of neoliberal hegemony and the universalization of exacerbated vulnerability” (45-46), and “I will advocate that human vulnerability embodies the fundamental state of openness inherent to human existence, positioned between the finite and the transcendent, thereby subject to the inscrutable subjectivities-both internal and external-and reliant on others for the shaping of identity and the pursuit of autonomous agency” (143-146).  The problem is that lines like these need several more lines of decompression and unpacking.  What is meant by “neoliberal hegemony” and “inscrutable subjectivities,” for example? Prosaic and elegant phrasing has its place, but too much of it obscures the argument that the author presents. Several places in this article feature sentences that are long and run-on; eloquent and elegant, Yes! But too lumbering.  The author should scale back the florid language and provide shorter and sharper sentences for a more straightforward, accessible, and clear development of the thesis. The author achieves a more straightforward and accessible presentation in most of the article.  It would be good to carry this achievement throughout the whole article.  The author is an excellent writer and makes a highly nuanced argument.  Nevertheless, some would recognize the article as a work of theological, ethical, and hermeneutical revisionism. This is not a reason to deny a platform for the presentation, but it may elicit severe critique. The author argues that vulnerability is the normative principle in Christian ethics, but this leaves the question of truth in ethics unaddressed. Are all forms of vulnerability equal? Are there certain kinds of vulnerability that impede striving for wholeness? The author seems to feel that culture has more to do with gender identity than biology, and that the body is a social construct.  There is also the question, is the body a central aspect of human subjectivity or is human subjectivity a central aspect of the body?  The author assumes the former, and in this article it goes no further than an assumption. However, addressing these and other issues is not a condition for this review.  These are issues that belong to the ongoing debate in Christian ethics. In such debate disagreement can bring more clarity than agreement.  The author makes a strong contribution to that debate. The only issue I would raise for a response is the grammatical one. The language of the article needs to be less ornate in places.  Run-on sentences should be broken-up into shorter ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The only issue I would raise for a response is the grammatical one. The language of the article needs to be less ornate in places.  Run-on sentences should be broken-up into shorter ones.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf