U8 - Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Ethics: Psychoanalysis, Deconstruction, and the Call to Care

Course Description

This course explores how, in the “wild spaces” of human experience, an ethic of care emerges as both a fragile necessity and a profound challenge. While we will encounter theological ideas and terms along the way, this is not a theology course; rather, our inquiry centers on how establishing an ethic of care so often demands an appeal—explicitly or implicitly—to metaphysical or near-metaphysical assumptions. That is, we will see how care resists neat reduction to either a purely rational calculus or a purely sociological phenomenon. Instead, we ask: In the absence of stable doctrinal foundations, can we still speak of care as “non-negotiable,” or must we accept its radical precarity?

Building on the insights from the blog post “Dancing with Care in Wild Spaces: Olthuis, Radical Atheism, and the Embodied Ethic,” we will examine the tensions between psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and various philosophical stances that engage (or avoid) metaphysical grounding. We draw on Jim Olthuis’s Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Love to see how love and care can be reframed as improvisational “dances” enacted in unpredictable contexts, even as we also consider the sobering critique of “radical atheism” (e.g., Martin Hägglund) and its suspicion toward any transcendent reference. Our guiding questions include: What if metaphysical language is precisely what ensures that care remains more than a fleeting sentiment? Conversely, does invoking any kind of metaphysical “foundation” risk undermining the fluid, open-ended posture of deconstruction?

Throughout the semester, students will explore a spectrum of thinkers—from psychoanalysts who emphasize the embodied and affective dimensions of care, to philosophers and theologians who argue (sometimes reluctantly) that genuine ethical responsibility is difficult to ground without invoking something beyond strict materialism. We will therefore address the paradox that the impetus for care might require some recourse to metaphysical or quasi-metaphysical commitments, whether framed as “theopoetics,” “hospitality,” or “the call of the Other.” Ultimately, this course asks whether the wild spaces of ethics are rendered more vibrant, or more tenuous, when care is positioned as both indispensable and impossible to reduce to a self-contained, purely secular discourse.

Course Logistics

• Course Number: REL/PHIL 314 (Undergraduate Level)

• Meeting Times: Tuesdays & Thursdays, 2:00 pm – 3:15 pm

• Location: Humanities Building, Room 306

• Instructor: Dr. [Your Name]

• Office Hours: Tuesdays 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm and by appointment

• Contact: [Your Email Address]

Required Texts & Readings

1. Primary Catalyst Reading

   • “Dancing with Care in Wild Spaces: Olthuis, Radical Atheism, and the Embodied Ethic” (Blog post)

     
     

     →\rightarrow A succinct overview of how Jim Olthuis’s perspective on love and care intersects (and sometimes clashes) with radical atheism and the ethic of embodied responsibility.

2. Primary Texts

   • Olthuis, Jim. Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Love: A Theopoetics of Gift and Call, Risk and Promise.

   • Hägglund, Martin. Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life. Stanford University Press, 2008.

   • Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity (excerpts). Duquesne University Press, 1969.

   • Freud, Sigmund (selected case studies, focusing on early clinical ethics and the “talking cure”).

3. Supplementary Texts

   • Short selections from Jacques Derrida, especially on hospitality and undecidability.

   • Relevant essays on psychoanalysis, metaphysics, and the ethics of care, provided as PDFs.

Course Objectives

1. Map the Tensions: Recognize the main arguments for and against grounding an ethic of care in metaphysical or quasi-transcendent terms.

2. Analyze Embodiment: Investigate how psychoanalysis frames care as embodied—involving risk, affect, and vulnerable presence—while deconstruction problematizes any final “center” from which such care might flow.

3. Engage with “Wild Spaces”: Critique Olthuis’s notion of “dancing in wild spaces” as an improvisational metaphor for ethics, and interrogate whether radical atheism (Hägglund) can accommodate or dismiss such metaphors without trivializing care.

4. Theorize Metaphysical Appeals: Compare Levinasian responsibility to psychoanalytic practice, examining whether or not a “first philosophy” (like Levinas’s face-to-face) is inevitably metaphysical.

5. Articulate a Personal Position: Develop a nuanced stance on whether care can stand on its own as a secular principle or must implicitly rely on metaphysical commitments.

Course Schedule

Week 1: Introducing the “Wild Spaces”

• Overview of the course aims and its emphasis on ethics, not theology.

• Reading: “Dancing with Care in Wild Spaces: Olthuis, Radical Atheism, and the Embodied Ethic.”

• Discussion: In what ways does an ethic of care implicitly rely on metaphysical or near-metaphysical language?

Week 2: Psychoanalysis and the Ambiguity of “Ground”

• Sigmund Freud’s early cases (excerpts).

• Lecture: Freud’s relational ethics—was it grounded in science, or does it harbor a moral impetus?

Week 3: Olthuis I—Theopoetics of Love

• Reading: Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Love, chapters 1–2.

• Emphasis on love as improvisational dance; can we imagine care absent a transcendent dimension?

Week 4: Olthuis II—Gift, Call, and Risk

• Reading: Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Love, chapters 3–5.

• Group seminar: “Gift” vs. “Commandment”—Where might metaphysics sneak back in?

Week 5: Radical Atheism I—The Case Against Transcendence

• Reading: Hägglund, Radical Atheism, introduction and chapter 1.

• Debate: Does a purely mortal horizon suffice to ground an ethic of care, or does radical atheism risk flattening the depth of ethical experience?

Week 6: Radical Atheism II—Time, Life, and Ethics

• Reading: Hägglund, selected chapters; Derrida on temporality (handouts).

• In-class discussion: Chaos, finitude, and whether a “messy ethic” can remain stable without metaphysical recourse.

Week 7: Levinas—Ethics as First Philosophy

• Reading: Levinas, Totality and Infinity (excerpts).

• Exploring how Levinas’s “face” might demand transcendence, or a beyond-linguistic “ground,” for responsibility.

Week 8: Midterm Synthesis

• Students submit short reflection papers comparing Olthuis’s “wild spaces” with Levinas’s or Hägglund’s frameworks.

• Classroom workshop: Tensions between “the call” and “no stable ground.”

Week 9: Embodiment, Clinical Encounter, and Metaphysical Hints

• Reading: Psychoanalytic essays on empathy and care as “uncanny.”

• Seminar: In what ways do real clinical or relational encounters hint at a metaphysical dimension, even if tacit?

Week 10: Derrida—Hospitality Without Ground?

• Selected readings on hospitality, “the gift,” and undecidability.

• Group discussion: Is Derrida’s “radical hospitality” functionally reliant on an ethic resembling theology, even while it denies it?

Week 11: Practical Case Studies—Wild Spaces of Care

• Students bring real or hypothetical ethical scenarios.

• Workshop: Apply Olthuis, Hägglund, Levinas, and Derrida to these “messy” situations, asking whether “foundation” is invoked.

Week 12: The Tech Frontier—AI, Ethics, and Metaphysics

• Debate on how SFI-inspired views on complexity may or may not account for intangible aspects of ethical responsibility.

• Reading: Short articles on AI-driven mental health apps.

Week 13: Presentations

• Students present final paper/project ideas.

• Peer feedback: Does your argument hinge on an unspoken metaphysic?

Week 14: Revisiting the Blog Post

• Return to the catalyst reading. Has our understanding of “wild spaces” of ethics evolved?

• Collective reflection on the metaphysical (or non-metaphysical) underpinnings of care.

Week 15: Final Projects & Conclusion

• Final papers/projects due.

• Concluding roundtable: Where do we stand on the question of care’s grounding?

Assignments & Evaluation

1. Weekly Reading Responses (20%)

   • Brief but thoughtful posts (300–400 words) that engage the assigned texts, paying particular attention to whether each thinker presupposes (or rejects) a metaphysical basis for ethics.

2. Midterm Reflection Paper (25%)

   • A 5–6-page comparative essay analyzing Olthuis alongside either Levinas or Hägglund. Discuss whether the latter’s stance does or does not allow for a stable ethic of care.

3. Group Presentation—Case Studies in Care (15%)

   • Students form small groups to present a real/hypothetical ethical dilemma. Presentations should highlight whether the resolution presupposes a metaphysical or “beyond” dimension.

4. Final Research Paper/Project (30%)

   • An 8–10-page written paper (or equivalent creative project) exploring how psychoanalysis, deconstruction, or a mixture thereof might ground (or refuse to ground) an ethic of care. Engagement with at least three course sources required.

5. Participation & Discussion (10%)

   • Ongoing in-class engagement, contribution to group discussions, and respectful debate on contested issues.

Course Policies

• Attendance: Students are expected to attend all class sessions. More than three unexcused absences may lower the final grade.

• Late Work: Without prior notice, late assignments incur a penalty of one letter grade per day.

• Academic Integrity: Students must cite all sources properly and refrain from any form of plagiarism.

• Office Hours: Please make use of scheduled hours or email for appointments.

Concluding Vision

Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Ethics: Psychoanalysis, Deconstruction, and the Call to Care is not about instructing students in a particular theology or dogma. Rather, it insists that the question of care—especially in the “messy” contexts of clinical work, interpersonal engagement, and philosophical inquiry—often brings us to the threshold of metaphysical or quasi-metaphysical commitments. As we ask whether care can be purely “groundless” or must appeal to something beyond material flux, we grapple with what it truly means to respond to the call of the other. In this course, we will challenge ourselves to think deeply, argue critically, and remain open to the possibility that, in wrestling with care’s elusive grounding, we might discover new depths in the “wild spaces” of ethical life.