Author: Francois Maritz

Posted on

Stephen Seminar Number 2: Frank Nieuwenhuizen on ‘How Social Structures Influence Formal Organizations’

This week the second of the Stephen Seminars took place on the campus of the University of the Freestate.


As I rushed passed our Main Building on my way to the Seminar I saw several youth rioting for some unknown cause. In class it was assumed that the rioters was part of the ANC Youth League demanding something unknown from Jonathan Jansen.




With that in the background as campus politics the Seminar started. Frank Nieuwenhuizen talked about social structures within society and how the methods of effective communication is shifting.


He took Albania as the playground for his argument posing the question whether the ‘Top Down’ way of communicating was still effective given the environment of non profit organizations within Albania, versus a myriad of networks without structure, for effective implementation of a given cause.


In it all it came out that Frank is very much for the idea of something like Facebook and the ‘Virtual Office’, ideas which has not been winning ground in Albania. This must be seen in the context that until 1992 Albania was still a communistic state and anything outside of the ‘institution’ is looked upon with eyes of skepticism.


A good metaphor that he employed was that of an ice cube. He said that the environment should be like an ice cube in that it should have structure but that structure should have the ability to flow as well and change into new ideas and adopt different forms, but it still remains water. Thales would have liked this.


He then posed the question whether these to types of communication can be merged into something effective? The rigid top down structure of the old together with the loose flowing network of the Facebook phenomenon.


This was left open.


The internet has only been around for roughly the last thirty years and it is still becoming something unknown and expanding evermore, with this in mind, it should be seen as something reletively new and to adopt that into ways of official communication will be a mean feat to say the least.


Cheque needed signature,
Debit card require pin code.


Will the Ice Cube flow?

Posted on

Theology of Trauma by Prof. Dr. Ruard Ganzevoort

Prof. Dr. Ruard Ganzevoort.
 On Friday the 5th of August Prof. Ruard Ganzevoort honoured the Faculty of Theology of the University of the Freestate with his presence in presenting a seminar on ‘The Theology of Trauma’. This was a very new and interesting way for me in approaching the Bible. 


He started of by saying that a line of trauma runs through the Bible and we don’t often take notice of it, we tend to focus on the other side of the story, the easy side. 
To name a few of these traumatic events;
  • Cain and Abel
  • Abraham and Isaac
  • Joseph and his brothers
  • The Exodus 
  • David and Batseba
  • The Crucifixion
  • The list goes on…
The above mentioned are all symbols of trauma, but why do we tend to look away from within the Reformation’s perspective? Within the Reformation’s perspective we tend to focus on the sinners side, but what about the victims perspective?
Are we reluctant to acknowledge the widespread reality of evil? Why do we focus on the powerful sinners rather than the weak victims? Are we reluctant to acknowledge the critique of religious messages?

Prof. Ganzevoort goes on to say that in looking away there are consequences;
  • Victims of traumatic experiences are once more marginalised. 
  • The healing potential of the Gospel is not made fruitful.
  • We protect God and ourselves at the expense of the victim.
With a strong emphasize on the evil, bad, traumatic, suffering being highlighted above there can be seen that there is a relationship between suffering and religion. Suffering may well be the strongest impetus (driving force) for religion and also its largest stumbling block. Suffering is ambivalent, contingent, and transcendent. Religion may well be the Wisdom to negotiate suffering. Then the question comes to mind; May suffering be the origin of religion?
Prof. then highlights the psychological aspects of trauma in order to understand trauma. Some of the symptoms he points out are; intrusive memories, avoidance, and hyper alertness. The process behind trauma is much more complex and within the brain there are two main areas; the Amygdala and the Neocortex. When experiencing trauma the Amygdala takes over from the Neocortex hence no control over the experience. 
In short he sums op trauma as life being taken over by an outside power.

Within trauma the dynamics of guilt plays an important role because guilt gives a sense of control. This is problematic within a Calvinistic perspective because guilt is a major focus within that paradigm. The traumatised victim needs to release him/herself from that guilt in order to deal with the trauma. The same goes for the dynamics of submission and isolation.
In Theology, Theodicy comes to mind when talking about trauma because it attempts to reconcile stories of God with problematic experiences. Job is a good example of this with three main focuses;
  • God is all powerful.
  • God is all good.
  • This is the best possible world.
Within Psychology it correlates;
  • The world is meaningful and coherent.
  • The world is benevolent (good).
  • I am worthy of care and respect.
With this illustration in mind it should be noted that theological content can be used in coping with trauma. Another important point is that research regarding trauma should be located in stories of real suffering. Narrative plays an important role in coping.

In building a Victim Theology Ruard proposes some of the blocks towards a solid foundation for dealing with trauma from a Biblical perspective;
  • Lament – Taking experiences seriously.
  • Silence – Allowing the unspeakable.
  • Prophecy – Critiquing the status quo.
  • Waiting – Hope for eternal judgement.
  • Resistance – Evil can’t be accepted, ever.
  • Exorcism – Bringing out the persons identity (Marc 5).
  • Remembering – The Lord’s supper as acknowledgement of our torture.
With all the above in mind I am surely grateful for academics that allow open space for communicating about pressing issues in this world. Trauma being a multifaceted subject it is not only applicable for the harsh post-apartheid situations in South Africa, but also for the drought stricken Horn of Africa.
Trauma is real and that should be acknowledged!

Posted on

Stephen Seminar Number 1: Richard Chemaly on ‘Facts and Moral Landscape’

Richard Chemaly

In this following number of weeks I will be blogging about a new Series of Seminars that the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Freestate will host. They are called the “Stephen Seminars” in memoriam of Stephen Pitchers that passed away in the Winter holidays. Stephen was a junior lecturer at the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Freestate and to everybody who knew him Stephen was synonymous with philosophy, hence the name “Stephen Seminars”.


With the first Stephen Seminar that took place today (2011/08/03) at 14h00 in the FGG377 lecture hall Richard Chemaly was introduced as the guest speaker talking on ‘Facts and Moral Landscape’, and with that discussion started.

Cracking open a Castle Light, mainly because of nervousness, Richard asked whether it is morally correct to drink in public even it is not allowed on the Campus of the University of the Freestate? Is it?

With this introductory illustration he started and went further by asking three fundamental questions; 
1. What is morality? 
2. What is morally correct?
3. How practical is morality?

On what morality is consensus was reached that it is a guiding factor to what is good. Fairly simple on the face of it, but coming to the next question sparks started to fly. On what is morally correct Richard pointed out that morality differs for everybody because everybody was brought up differently with different influences from Sociological right through to Theological perspectives. This contributes to the ‘correctness’ of each persons morality and thus what is morally correct will differ from one to another. Moreover he also established that there can be no field of expertise in Morality as there can be in the Medical field, for where the medical is scientific and specific the moral is subjective and open to change. On the practicality of morality there was said that morals is a very practical thing and society needs it to function in an orderly manner. 

With the stage set Richard opened a can of worms when he uttered that he believes that there can and should be a universal entity/value out there that would be applicable to all moral values, i.e. a universal morality. He connected this universal theme to human flourishing.  

So for him human flourishing is a universally accepted guiding principal behind morality. If one flourishes, it can then be said that one is moral. 

With this statement I cant agree. What is the means in order to flourish aren’t present? How would a person. then be able to live morally? And maybe more importantly, by what standard is this ‘flourishing’ being measured? 

Say for instance you are perfectly content with your circumstances as they are and you have no need to improve or move forward, according to Richard you would then live immoral. 

With all the discussion that took place one thing stood out for me in order to live a moral life, and that was choice. If you take away a persons choice in any matter you take  away that persons morality and you could justify that person as a mere puppet of your hand. So looking back to a universal guiding factor for morality I would reject ‘human flourishing’ and rather propose ‘choice’ as a guiding factor in order to live a moral life.