I think you’re right. Some of the stuff I’ve done and labeled as TR is probably better accounted for as TD. I have a hunch that it becomes TD when you’re happy to be labelled as a heretic 😂. Let’s chat! I’m not sure if you can DM on here - but if I can find a way I’ll send you my email address.

They both draw on Alfred North Whitehead - which certainly puts them in the same basket. I can’t think of another theological genre that could debate with AR other than PT. But the idea that theopoetics is a ‘lens’ and not an ‘aperture’ is the difference between Theo Ref and Theo Diffraction.

That is exactly where my thinking is currently at!! Here’s where some of my thinking is so far: TR notices resonance - TD notices difference; TR seeks coherence - TD demands interference; TR wants to close off, resolve - TD aims to open up, disrupt … and much more beside!

I wonder if the connection point is with Agential Realism - which process theology could lean into. But I don’t think anyone is doing that sort of work at the moment - not even Keller.

The problem I face with theological reflection is that it is so ingrained in my training and practice - it feels a betrayal to argue against it. But I’ve always known that TR has the potential to confirm my own bias. TD might pursue something different - I’m still trying to work that bit out.

So Haraway started the conversation about ‘diffraction’ being in direct contrast to ‘reflection’ and ‘reflexivity’. Barad runs with it even further in ‘Meeting the Universe …’ Haraway’s concern is that ‘reflection’ just produces something that looks similar. Whereas diffraction maps effect & change.

Hi Ruth - I’ve not done a deep dive on this but I don’t think there’s much on Theological Diffraction out there. Similarly loving Barad (and Haraway’s) work and trying to bring it into conversation with theology. How are you thinking of using ‘diffraction’?