Miroslav Volf’s Theology of Memory in Relation to Zimbabwean Social Narratives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The topic is timely, and the attention to the situation in Zimbabwe is welcome, especially nearly three decades after its economy was devastated by the land takeovers. It is certainly worthy of treatment. The fact that South Africa continues to have this looming in the background gives it relevance outside the immediate Zimbabwean context.

2. That said, the way the subject is presented is confusing. Is this a straightforward review of Volf’s The End of Memory? If so, there in insufficient attention given to careful exposition of the book? Is it a reading of Volf within the Zimbabwean context? If so, there is no stated context at the outset. Indeed, the reader is not certain what exactly has provoked the engagement with Volf. Why Volf? Why him and not someone else? And what _exactly_ happened in Zimbabwe? What are the current issues around memory? Torture in former Yugoslavia and Land “Reform” in Southern Africa… what are the contextual parallels as well as differences in the two situations?

3. The simplest way of doing this sort of thing is to spell out a situation or problem — in this case, “Zimbabweans who witnessed the public tragedies of Gukurahundi, Fast 7 Tracked Land Reform Program, Murambatsvina, election-related conflicts and death” (line 7-8) or more generally “social injustice and land reform” (line 360), suggest and briefly evaluate some possibilities for addressing the situation or problem, including work by other scholars, and then suggest that a particular approach — in this case that of Volf — is worth considering. Strengthening the use of Volf would be a comparison of the two situations, with similarities and differences, and a final evaluation of the contextual relevance of Volf’s work. The argument could go deeper by bringing the situations into genuine dialogue where, for example, the Zimbabwean context speaks critically to Volf’s concerns. Then the original starting point is revisited and reassessed in light of the dialogue.

4. There is at least one problem in the way Volf is used that needs to be addressed, however. When Volf talks about his interrogation under “Captain G” it is very personal — even though he talks about “a public theology of memory” (line 33). How do we get from the personal experience of Volf in former Yugoslavia to “Zimbabwe” as a collective subject of memory (e.g. line 46, 58, 61, 163, 166, 174, 180…)? Or is the article referring to the experiences of “Zimbabweans” — and if so, is there adequate evidence of specific representation?

4. There is something in the tone that is off-putting. It is “preachy,” though it is not certain to whom the “sermon” is addressed. I did two simple searches and they yielded numerous sentences where the church or the state “must” (or “needs” to) do something. What is ment by “the church?” And _which_ church? Who is the audience for this kind of challenge? And more importantly, _why_ should they do what the author is telling them to do? What is the nature of the imperative?

Author Response

Comment 1: The topic is timely, and the attention to the situation in Zimbabwe is welcome, especially nearly three decades after its economy was devastated by the land takeovers. It is certainly worthy of treatment. The fact that South Africa continues to have this looming in the background gives it relevance outside the immediate Zimbabwean context.

Respond 1: I appreciate your recognition that it is a topic worth researching.

Comment 2: That said, the way the subject is presented is confusing. Is this a straightforward review of Volf’s The End of Memory? If so, there in insufficient attention given to careful exposition of the book? Is it a reading of Volf within the Zimbabwean context? If so, there is no stated context at the outset. Indeed, the reader is not certain what exactly has provoked the engagement with Volf. Why Volf? Why him and not someone else? And what _exactly_ happened in Zimbabwe? What are the current issues around memory? Torture in former Yugoslavia and Land “Reform” in Southern Africa… what are the contextual parallels as well as differences in the two situations?

Respond 2 : Thank you for reading my paper, and I acknowledge that your confusion is true and accurate.  I have fixed it in line 4 and stressed it once more in my introduction because I am not only focused on one book of Volf but on his entire body of work. Because of his thematic writings about historical memories that impact people's lives, I have revisited my explanation of why I chose to engage Volf in this study in the introduction, lines 18–31. From lines 32–84, I was able to describe what transpired in Zimbabwe. I additionally highlighted the contemporary concerns with the concept of "memory" in lines 85–143. This study is not just about Volf's experience; it's also about his writings, some of which are included in the article's body. Additionally, check line 510-518 reference section.

Comment 3: The simplest way of doing this sort of thing is to spell out a situation or problem — in this case, “Zimbabweans who witnessed the public tragedies of Gukurahundi, Fast 7 Tracked Land Reform Program, Murambatsvina, election-related conflicts and death” (line 7-8) or more generally “social injustice and land reform” (line 360), suggest and briefly evaluate some possibilities for addressing the situation or problem, including work by other scholars, and then suggest that a particular approach — in this case that of Volf — is worth considering. Strengthening the use of Volf would be a comparison of the two situations, with similarities and differences, and a final evaluation of the contextual relevance of Volf’s work. The argument could go deeper by bringing the situations into genuine dialogue where, for example, the Zimbabwean context speaks critically to Volf’s concerns. Then the original starting point is revisited and reassessed in light of the dialogue.

Respond:3 I appreciate your point of view, which I have taken into careful consideration. I have restructured the entire article as follows:

1. The Zimbabwean situation of violence
2. The challenge of memory
3. The challenge from Miroslav Volf
4. What can Zimbabweans Christians do in light of Volf’s argument

Comment 4: There is at least one problem in the way Volf is used that needs to be addressed, however. When Volf talks about his interrogation under “Captain G” it is very personal — even though he talks about “a public theology of memory” (line 33). How do we get from the personal experience of Volf in former Yugoslavia to “Zimbabwe” as a collective subject of memory (e.g. line 46, 58, 61, 163, 166, 174, 180…)? Or is the article referring to the experiences of “Zimbabweans” — and if so, is there adequate evidence of specific representation?

Respond 4: I corrected the shortcomings in my first paragraph and the introduction.

Comment 5. There is something in the tone that is off-putting. It is “preachy,” though it is not certain to whom the “sermon” is addressed. I did two simple searches and they yielded numerous sentences where the church or the state “must” (or “needs” to) do something. What is meant by “the church?” And _which_ church? Who is the audience for this kind of challenge? And more importantly, _why_ should they do what the author is telling them to do? What is the nature of the imperative?

Respond 5: I appreciate your recognition that it is a topic worth researching.

I revised the entire article and worked on my conclusion and reference again.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A good text, with clear and important information. From the point of view of the structure, the article has a logic and coherence. The only remark would be on the conclusions that must contain only the author's ideas and not quotes from other authors. Also, from the point of view of the layout on the page, the text is presented quite well. Congratulations on the study.

Author Response

Comment 1: A good text, with clear and important information. From the point of view of the structure, the article has a logic and coherence. The only remark would be on the conclusions that must contain only the author's ideas and not quotes from other authors. Also, from the point of view of the layout on the page, the text is presented quite well. Congratulations on the study.

Respond 1: I appreciate your recognition that it is a topic worth researching.

I revised the entire article and worked on my conclusion and reference again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text addresses a current and pertinent topic. However, it seems to me that it has some weaknesses:

1 – The data collected from the field should be more evident, as the author proposes to do

2 – The text has a more apologetic than scientific bias. Now it is a scientific text that is required in Religions.

3 – It is not understood why the conclusion is made up of a set of recommendations for the Christian church in Zimbabwe.

4 – The text presents several flaws in bibliographical references, with the absence in the bibliography of works cited in the text, notably the central work and author, Miroslav Volf.

For all these reasons, it seems to me that the text requires significant reformulations.

Author Response

Comment 1: The text addresses a current and pertinent topic. However, it seems to me that it has some weaknesses

Respond 1: I appreciate your recognition that it is a topic worth researching.

Comment 2: The data collected from the field should be more evident, as the author proposes to do

Respond 2: I appreciate your point of view, which I have taken into careful consideration. I have restructured the entire article as follows: 1.The Zimbabwean situation of violence

2.The challenge of memory

3.The challenge from Miroslav Volf

4.What can Zimbabweans Christians do in light of Volf’s argument

Comment 3:  The text has a more apologetic than scientific bias. Now it is a scientific text that is required in Religions.

Respond 3: I corrected the shortcomings in my first paragraph and the introduction.

Comment 4: It is not understood why the conclusion is made up of a set of recommendations for the Christian church in Zimbabwe.

Respond 4: I revised my conclusion.

Comment 5: The text presents several flaws in bibliographical references, with the absence in the bibliography of works cited in the text, notably the central work and author, Miroslav Volf.

Respond 5: I revised the entire article and worked on my reference again.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made the data collected on the ground more evident and resolved the flaws in the bibliographic references. However, I still do not understand why the conclusion is made up of a set of recommendations for the Christian church in Zimbabwe. On the other hand, the apologetic bias diminishes, but has not disappeared.

Author Response

Comment 1: Apologetic Bias

Respond 1: I was able to read the article and try to fix any spots where the express of been apologia bias seems appeared. In order to accommodate all religious readers, I made an effort to be impartial and inclusive in the study. The goal of the study must try to bring the nation back together rather than employing unconventional approach to problem solving.

Comment 2: Conclusion

Respond 2:  I was able to revise the conclusion as well as recommendations to make them inclusive and universal as well.