How could one re-image the central idea of Liberation Theologies in light of An Archaeology of the Fall? Some sort of fusion of the idea of the “sin of the world” and the concept of the Fall appears attractive.
I do not speak as a theologian, merely as the fictional entity that I regard myself.
A transition from hand-speech talk to speech-alone talk entailed a change in semiotic characteristics in the way we talk. The human Lebenswelt changed from a world when talk seemed referential to a world where talk created referentiality. Rather than naming “things” or “patterns” that you could point to (with hand-speech talk), humans created “symbolic orders or systems of names” that generated “social constructions” (with speech-alone talk).
To me, this transition recalls the same sensibility expressed by Liberation theologians in regards to Original SinME (Original Sin in context of the modern era) as Social Sin.
The sensibility can be expressed in terms of nestedness.
The transition created the possibility for the production of symbolic orders that (as in chapter 12C of An Archaeology …) inspired social constructions of “what they name”.
These social structures promoted personal sin, instituted injustice, and created a field of biases that directed the individual away from God (and toward the social constructions of that particular symbolic order).
What puts the situations containing these social constructions into context?
Answer: The Doctrine of Original SinME.
Thus, the transition in our Lebenswelt may be portrayed as a nested set:
“What puts these into context”(social constructions(transition to speech-alone))
Expressed in terms of Liberation Theology:
Original SinME(personal and social sin(Bible texts describing ‘sin of the world’))