BOOK REVIEW:
Karl Barth's Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought. By Daniel J. Price.  Grand Rapid, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002. v + 322 pp. ISBN: 0802847269. 

At the outset of his book, Daniel Price makes his intentions clear: “I explore Barth’s theological understanding of the person, and conclude that his anthropology not only provides guidance for theological views of the human being, but serves surprisingly well as a springboard for theological anthropology to dialogue with the anthropologies of other sciences” (p. 5).  More specifically, Price’s goal is point out “certain intriguing similarities” between Barth’s anthropology and “the anthropology of modern object relations psychology” (p. 9)

In the first two chapters of the book, Price surveys the development of anthropology in modern thought.  Price begins by examining the anthropologies of Kant and Hegel, interacting critically with their positions through the lens of Barth’s Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century.  He continues the survey with Schleiermacher (whose theology Barth rejected) and Kierkegaard (who had a more positive impact on Barth’s thinking).

In the central chapter, Price elucidates “The Core of Barth’s Theological Anthropology” as developed in Church Dogmatics III/2.  For Price, the key to Barth’s anthropology is “the human being as a being in encounter with God and others.”  Price also highlights Barth’s dynamic anthropology (human being understood as history rather than as essence) and Barth’s ability to overcome the soul-body dualism in classic theology through his definition of humanity as “an embodied soul and a besouled body.”  Throughout, Price argues for a less Christocentric reading of Barth’s view of humanity and for more emphasis upon Barth’s grounding of anthropology in the relations-full doctrine of the Trinity. 

Having surveyed anthropology from Kant through Barth, Price then picks up the story from the point of view of psychology.  An extensive summary of Freud’s thought is provided, followed by an exposition of the work of the Scottish psychologist R.D.W. Fairbairn and object relations psychology.  Price points to Fairbairn’s contribution in moving the psychological understanding of humanity away from Freud’s individualism, incorporating the determinative impact of key human interactions with others in the development of the person.

In the culminating chapter, Price highlights parallels and similarities in the understanding of humanity from these two different perspectives: Barth the systematic theologian and Fairbairn the secular psychologist.  For Price, the key parallels are “the interpersonal element”, “the dynamic concept of the person”, “the whole person as a dynamic unity.”

In the end, the book’s weaknesses outweigh its contributions.  First, the book’s origin as a Ph.D. dissertation adds unnecessary length to the book—the extensive summaries of Kant, Freud, et al. add little to the understanding of Barth’s anthropology or how Barth’s views and those of object relations psychology intersect.

Second, Price’s writing style suffers from an awkward “authorial self-consciousness.”  Again and again, we read sentences like these: “The reader might wish that I omit this section” (p. 146); “I discuss the relation of soul and body briefly here, and expand on it in chapter six” (p. 161); and “In this section I suggest some more parallels between Barth’s anthropology and Fairbairn’s object relations” (p. 257).

Third, Price’s argument is weak when he elevates the “I-Thou” schema to central importance in Barth’s anthropology.  While man as a “being in encounter” is part of Barth’s teaching, Price seizes on this schema with an enthusiasm reminiscent of Emil Brunner, who also failed to grasp Barth’s anthropology (see his 1951 article, “The New Barth”).  In fact, Price’s whole enterprise—to establish a dialogue between theology and psychology and to uncover similarities and analogies in their findings—is much closer to Brunner’s theological agenda than to Barth’s.

Fourth, and most tellingly, the question remains whether Price achieves his intentions.  Does Barth’s Christ-centered anthropology really lend itself easily to a dialogue with secular social scientists?  Are the parallels that Price highlights particularly insightful or rather somewhat obvious?  Would Barth himself encourage this kind of natural theology, these parallel insights into the nature of humanity that can be discovered outside of faith and without regard to God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ (see Church Dogmatics, III/2, 75f.)?  I think the answer to all three questions is “No.” For Barth, humanity is first and foremost, ontologically and epistemologically, none other than “the creature of God.” 

The Rev. Dr. John W. Hart
Co-Pastor, The Presbyterian Church of Upper Montclair
Upper Montclair, NJ 

PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE FOR REFORMED THEOLOGY, SPRING/SUMMER 2003, VOL. 3, #2.