Toward a Politico-Theology of Relationality: Justice as Solidarity and the Poor in Aristide's Theological Imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article argues that Aristide's theology of the poor should be construed as a robust theology of relationality; it calls for an ethics of participation and collaboration in the plight of the poor. In this sense, we situate Aristide's theological discourse not only in the liberation theology framework but also in the politico-theological and democratic tradition, what Douglass Sturm has termed “a politics of relationality.” A theology of relationality focuses on the horizontal relations between the poor and the theologian-activist. The horizontal aspect defines and shapes the ethics of democratic participation and collaboration by cultivating a dynamic alliance with the poor and fostering a genuine bond between the poor and theologian-activist. Hence, a theology of relationality promotes democratic values, rights, freedom, and the welfare of the oppressed and poor. This participatory approach to theology of liberation might be the zone for active collaboration with the collective poor, oppressive communities, and Third World countries. This article examines the concept of “the poor” in Aristide's theological discourse and explores his theology of relationality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".