The Chief Fallacy: A Commentary on Hostility to Hospitality

Abstract

Abstract This commentary takes issue with three central themes contained in Michael and Tracy Balboni’s Hostility to Hospitality: the argument against a ‘spirituality of immanence’ prevalent in biomedicine, the proposal for ‘structural pluralism’ as a model of institutional reform that addresses the alleged deficiencies of immanence, and the role of ‘chief love’ in the conceptualisation of a spirituality suitable to this form of pluralism. Drawing on a brief discussion of spiritualities which do not fit into the hermeneutic of ‘chief love’, we suggest that the Balbonis’ argument contains largely unexamined assumptions coloured by the authors’ own theological commitments. We contend that the success of ‘structural pluralism’ hinges on the extent to which the authors can credibly disentangle particular religious interests from their proposal for institutional reform, and that this requires broad consultation of spiritual experiences beyond ‘chief love’ and the critique of immanence. The World Health Organisation’s cross-cultural methodology employed in the development of a quality of life measure that incorporates “religiousness, spirituality and personal beliefs” (‘WHOQOL-SRPB’) is briefly discussed as an example of such consultation.