Symbolic Acts: Assessing the Effectiveness and Nature of Art and Gesture

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a dimly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
He will not grow faint or be crushed
until he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his teaching…

…to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
    from the prison those who sit in darkness. 

I am the Lord, that is my name;
    my glory I give to no other,
    nor my praise to idols.
 See, the former things have come to pass,
    and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth,
    I tell you of them.

(Isaiah 42:1-4, 7-9 NRSV)

            Pope Francis, in his first visit to the Holy Land, made an extremely provocative gesture on his way to Bethlehem,  by stopping at Israel’s “separation wall”, in particular at a spot that read in graffiti “Bethlehem look like Warsaw ghetto. Free Palestine”, to pray against this symbol of conflict and apartheid. The immense amount of power captured in this gesture, encapsulated many messages from a subtle hint against the US’s recent failed attempts at a peace process, to comparing the suffering of Palestinians to the suffering of those in the Warsaw ghetto, to even implying that the realm of “sensitive politics” was a religious issue.* However, as a good friend, Jared A. Walker** has said, “What happens when an infallible Pope meets an unmovable object…” Indeed, it is the key question to see what happens as a result of this loaded gesture. In fact, it may be instructive to compare this gesture alongside of another instance of symbolic protest, that of the Vodka boycott against Russia’s stance on homosexuality.*** The goal of many bars across North America essentially with this boycott is to protest Russia’s ‘anti-gay’ laws+ that have been enacted recently, as a form of cutting off one of Russia’s main exports in the hopes that the laws will change, though as Robert Joseph Greene notes, the boycott is “mainly symbolic”. Alongside of other forms of symbolic protest such as Pyotr Pavlensky nailing his own scrotum in Moscow’s Red Square, it is thought that drawing attention to what are seen as socially oppressive laws, will not only show the solidarity of the LGBT community around the world, but perhaps even force Vladimir Putin’s hand.

            The boycott of vodka and Pavlensky’s actions are also loaded symbolic acts that encapsulate messages arranging from the willingness of the LGBT to abstain from a beverage as a way of ‘voting with their dollars’ and identify with the sufferings of those like them around the world, to even denying that sexuality is the key issue in Russian discrimination and instead highlighting that the key issue is the denial of the humanity of those of the LGBT community. In either of these cases, that of Pope’s Francis in Palestine and of bars across North America, there can be no question about their effectiveness as a means of spreadings particular messages against the particular powers that be. What can be questioned however is their effectiveness as a means of protest. In line with a previous essay concerning a return to politically radical theocracy, it may be asked as to how such a perspective can contribute to an understanding of effective protest. Symbolic acts are frequently found throughout the Christian tradition, such as the incident of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, but an important question to ask in our times of turbulence and social upheavals is what are the elements of an effective protest? Furthermore, if we should find that symbolic acts are not an effective means of protest, then what is the use of symbolic actions? For whom are the messages embedded in the gestures for, if not the powers whom they are against?

            The first thing to notice about both Pope Francis’ and the LGBT community’s actions is that neither of them had an major impact.++ As Daniel Levy of the European Council on Foreign Relations has said, the meeting that Pope Francis’ hopes to arrange between the different leaders would “mean nothing in big-picture terms”, and as David Horovitz, editor of the Times of Israel has also pointed out that while psychologically the meeting would be helpful, it would be politically insignificant. In parallel then, it can also be pointed out that Pavlensky’s actions effected no political change, and as Mark Lawrence Schrad has noted, “…the Kremlin’s historic reliance on vodka revenues is largely over…” as many of the companies serving vodka in the United States are made and branded outside of Russia, thus making the boycott effectively futile. If we want to bring this much closer to the Christian tradition, what did Jesus’ cleansing of the temple actually accomplish other than creating a mess, giving his opponents an excuse for his death, and making it look like Jesus’ has an anger problem? In all of these symbolic acts and gestures then we must remember that they are symbolic actions, not concrete actions. One of the great confusions for many in our times is quite clearly not only the substitution for, but the confusion of, symbolic acts and gestures for literal actions. As a result our culture of protest creates various contradictions such as people who protest the destruction of forestry by holding signs made of paper, or protesting capitalism by buying communist memorabilia, or even people who protest religion by going to church. It is these forms of powerfully symbolic but materially ineffective forms of protest that drive us back to our two questions of (i) what makes an effective protest? and (ii) what then is the use of symbolic acts and gesture?

            Without much argumentation for sake of brevity, we can note that effective protests protest not only the messages and beliefs embedded in oppressive actions, but that the matrix and means that make these oppressive actions possible. For a simple example, how might one wish to materially and effectively protest abortion if one wished to do so?+++ Often it is thought that one should change the laws to outlaw abortion, or even violently eliminate abortion clinics and doctors to protest abortion materially and effectively. Of the first, however we may question how many fetuses would be rescued by such a procedure, and the answer is not necessarily any because abortion will then be accessed in much more dangerous ways outside of government regulation. The change of the law then would be a ineffective symbolic action meant to express the political change of opinion concerning the morality of abortion, nothing more. What of the second? As for the second, is it not an embodiment of the very ideology they wish to oppose- “You get rid of your problem by killing it”? Neither of these options actually protest the matrix and means that make what they perceive to be a societal evil possible. An effective, non-symbolic, concrete protest against abortion would be inaugurated perhaps by an alleviation of the poverty many women are trapped in that drives them to get an abortion in the first place, or perhaps by massive campaigns at adoptions for the mothers who cannot raise the fetuses they are carrying. Neither of these means of protest are symbolic, nor do they exist within the matrix within which abortion is carried out or participate in the means by which it is carried out. Rather either of these means would be literal actions in protest of abortion because they would not merely send a message against the societal evil, but try effectively to see its decline in society.

            Having then given one brief example of what an effective, non-symbolic, concrete protest would be in the face of a societal evil, and left with the project of creating others in the face of other oppressive powers and societal evil~, we are still left then with the question of what then is the use of symbolic acts and gesture? Should symbolic actions like Pope’s Francis’, like the LGBT community’s, like Jesus’ simply be abandoned in favour of further dedication to concrete protest? If then symbolic acts are ineffective as protest, then the potential for them may be found in the messages they carry, as a form of proclamation. The proclamation is a means to send a message not only to the enemy but to the community itself, to remind one another of one’s own mission and formation. Proclamation is not a materially effective form of protest against any power, but it is a wonderful trumpet to announce, “This is who we are and this is what we’re about”, which is as much to warn an enemy as it is to rejuvenate the base. Pope Francis’ action reminded Catholics around the world that the Church is the ministry of reconciliation, the LGBT community’s boycott reminded the community and others that it was not alcohol or sex that defined the problem but the stake of humanity itself, and Jesus’ action in the temple was to remind Israel that the temple was the refuge, not the institution of exploitation.

            Protest then is the synonym for alternative action, and proclamation the synonym for symbolic action. One should never confuse creating a piece of art or a symbolic gesture for actual protest, as much as one should never dismiss the need for symbolic action out of zealousness for concrete action, and it is this point on which we shall end. Quite often there is a dismal of philosophy, in parallel with the dismissal of symbolic action or performance art, as a cheap elitist non-sense showing our culture’s lack of ability to address materially and concretely. As Jonathan Jones has said with regard to Milo Moiré’s ‘performance art’ in Germany, where she pushed eggs filled with paint out her vagina in the nude to show the power of the creative feminine, “If performance art did not exist, bile-filled commentators on the modern world would have to invent it. For what else so perfectly captures the cultural inanity of our time?” Perhaps for the example of Moiré we could dismiss it as a piece of art, not for the fact that it is symbolic action however, but for the fact that it is actually a terrible symbolic action in that it embodies the exact opposite of that which it wishes to proclaim, the creative feminine. Symbolic action, for any community of a different social order is necessary, alongside of protest, in order to constantly remind others and itself of its vision of justice against all attempts that would wish to distort it for the community. In religious discourse symbolic action is called ritual, and it is ritual paradoxically that is necessary to keep a community away from the abstract vision of justice as defined by the social order, namely ‘the real, the everyday etc…’ As Slavoj Žižek has rightly written,

“…the highest form of ideology lies not in getting caught up in ideological spectrality, forgetting about its foundations in real people and their relations, but precisely in overlooking this Real of spectrality, and pretending to address directly ‘real people with their real worries’. Visitors to the London Stock Exchange are given a free leaflet which explains to them that the stock market is not about some mysterious fluctuations, but about real people and their products- this is ideology as its purest.” (The Fragile Absolute, 16)

Ritual/Symbolic action, then is necessary for constant reminder of a community’s vision of justice, though it itself does not enact this justice (for this is the job of concrete protest), because visions of justice can be derailed and distorted by other visions constructed by the very ones one wishes to protest against.

            At the beginning of this exploration, the prophet Isaiah prophesies that God’s servant while not making loud his voice in the streets like an activist, still “faithfully brings forth justice”. God’s servant will not confuse the bringing forth of justice in concrete protest in the healing of the blind and the freeing of the prisons, with the proclamation of “his teaching”.  In perfect harmony with recognition of how to faithfully bring forth justice, is the proclamation and remembrance act as to who defines this vision of justice, which while is a gesture of a non-concrete nature is vitally necessary for the community to remember in their pursuit of this God’s vision of justice, and furthermore to remind the powers which the community is protesting against as to who this community follows exclusively. Thus is the vision of justice in protest and proclamation, word and deed, focused in the politically radical theocratic perspective.

* Many news reports confuse Pope Francis’ statements about his visit to the Holy Land to be “purely religious” to be misleading, while missing the fact that for Pope Francis it was a perfectly accurate statement because the politics of peace and conflict are for him “religious” issues. For such an example:  Cole, Juan. “Pope Francis Prays at Apartheid Wall, Calls for Palestinian State.” Alternative news Site. Truthdig, May 26, 2014. http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/pope_francis_calls_for_palestinian_state_prays_at_apartheid_wall_20140526.

** His work to be accessed here: http://jaredawalker.com/blog/

*** Branson-Potts, Hailey. “Vodka boycott spreads to protest Russian anti-gays laws.” Toronto Star, July 31, 2013, sec. News/World. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/07/31/vodka_boycott_spreads_to_protest_russian_antigay_laws.html.

+ For an interesting examination of which see, Brian M. Heiss’ report, found and summarized helpfully here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btAUWI0rYJg&safe=active

++ Of course the verdict is still out on both of these cases, but in of and themselves, neither of them had huge impact and arguably in all probability, neither of them will lead to any great impact. However f0r an argument that Pope’s Francis’ actions will lead to political change see:  Vallely, Paul. “For the First Time, the Holy Land Will Witness a Fearless Pope.” The Guardian, May 22, 2014, sec. Comment is free. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/pope-francis-holy-land-two-state-palestinians?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2.

+++ For another one of Mr. Upton’s essays concerning abortion see: 

The New Abortion: Solemn Reflections

~ Veganism may be an excellent example of such a protest against the food industry and animal cruelty.

Misunderstanding God(dess)

            Recently in a casual theological conversation concerning the topic of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology, it was rightly pointed out that, often, because the Holy Spirit is referred to as an ‘it’, we subconsciously forget that the Holy Spirit is a personal being, not an impersonal force, and so we should  call the Holy Spirit ‘He/Him’. Those with the ‘ear to hear’ will know where this argumentation will lead Christian theology to inevitably, and indeed already has. If we wish to avoid impersonal pronouns when describing God, can we not use the pronoun ‘she’? The amount of opposition to this proposal from Christian women no less would surprise anyone not raised in or around Christian contexts.

            What will be argued here is that a very simple case can be made for using feminine pronouns/images when talking about God in Christian theological contexts on the basis of two very fundamental and basic ‘orthodox’ premises. It will be further be speculated upon as to why there is opposition to this, despite the obvious conclusion from basic ‘orthodox’ premises, and then finally some radical proposals for not only talking about ‘God’ but even specifically Jesus, with language that defies gender categorization will be proposed.

            Initial opposition to the proposal, which is usually disguised as a question, of using feminine language when talking about God, comes almost universally in two forms: (1) ‘Well that issue is not really important because the ultimate point is that God is beyond gender and beyond humanity! And should we not bask in God’s transcendence?’, or (2) ‘The Bible never talks about God as mother or in any feminine language and to stick to the tradition and Biblical principles we should use the pronouns and images it uses to talk about God, when we talk about God’.

            To deal with these in reverse order. One should not dismiss the second form of initial opposition as ‘too conservative’ or ‘too strict’, for one should not conceive the desire to stay with tradition or to stick to one’s roots as a perverted desire of people scared of change. Often going back to old tradition is a new change. Even more often, tradition contains some of the most radical proposals for social change and “progress” that can be implemented. Nor is changing tradition, though perceived as “progressive”, always moral which is the most important feature of good traditions. In fact what is more worrying than those who wish to stridently stick to tradition, are those who claim to do so but secretly mean stridently stick with the status quo. It is true as may reasonably be estimated, that in most Christian contexts,  primarily masculine language and images are used of God, but sadly those who claim to stick to the authority of the Christian Bible, are often those who know it the least. For while the feminine images of God are sparse in the Christian Bible, they are not wholly absent. The theme of God as a humanly motherly figure of comfort is well noted in Isaiah 49:15; 66:13, the later of which reads

As a mother comforts her child,
So I will comfort you;
You shall be comforted in Jerusalem

The reason ‘humanly’ is mentioned is because sometimes God herself is even compared to a female animal with the same theme of comfort and protection such as the eagle (Deut. 32:11-12;  Matt. 23:37). Bizarrely there is even an instance of God as a mother bear who violently devours those who stole her cubs (Hosea 13:8), in case one think that the female images are used only with respect to passivity or the like. Passages like these and more* should show that even if one wishes to appeal to the Bible or tradition for theological sanction for the use of not only female images and language but even animal images and language when talking about God, it can be found there.

            Speaking of God using animal images and language then nicely brings us to the second initial form of opposition to speaking of God using female pronouns and images, ‘Is it not somewhat idolatrous to speak of God using such human terms? Should we not focus then on God transcending gender?’ It is here where the subconscious prejudice, of which we shall delve into more, is most clearly seen. For here, the doctrine of God’s transcendence is used precisely as a shield to deny it.  If the doctrine of God’s transcendence is going be used to say that we should not speak of God as female, it should also be used to say that we should not speak of God as male either, and an ineffable God is not only useless but heretical to the entire Christian tradition. In other terms, it is precisely because of God’s transcendence of the binary of gender** that it should not matter what images and pronouns we use when talking about God, for we confess doctrinally that ultimately our language is an attempt to understand God in our terms whether male or female. Instead however, the doctrine of God’s transcendence of human gender is used to deny or push aside the suggestion that we can (or maybe even should, God forbid!) use feminine pronouns and images when talking about God, but leaves intact our ability to use masculine pronouns and images, as if it were not anthropomorphic, or human language by which to talk about God.

            We have seen then that even these two initial seemingly reasonable forms of opposition to using feminine pronouns and images when talking about God are not formidable enough, even by the ‘orthodox’ standards of Biblical usage and the doctrine of transcendence, to withstand. If you held to either of these, the following will appear harsh. Whether conscious or subconscious, the reflexive reaction of disapproval to feminine language and images being used of God can really only come from a notion of maleness as divine, and femaleness as not. As if God did not make females in her image too (Gen. 1:26-27). The struggle of much of the Christian tradition to deal with including the female in the character of the divine has well been exploited for controversy both legitimate and illegitimate. Briefly, a good legitimate good argument in this regard is that Catholicism on the whole arguably has been much better to women spiritually than Protestantism both for having the quasi-goddess cult of the Virgin Mary but also for the openness of some within its mystical and monastic traditions of depicting God as mother such as in Julian of Norwich. While protestantism, in a strong well-intentioned desire to eliminate idolatry in Christian practice, got rid of veneration of the Virgin Mary, and in its reformulation of the goodness of family and procreation radically reduced female authority in monastic and mystical contexts. If you are a man or woman who has felt the absence of a female descriptions of  the divine nature, this would be a good example of why your grievance is justified.

            In addition however to this legitimate concern for female expression, it must be fairly said, there is equally (and perhaps may be more so) illegitimate controversy raised by the lack of female pronouns and images when discussing God in the Christian tradition. In no way should re-emphasizing the female aspect of the divine be used to depict God ‘the father’ as a brutal patriarchal tyrant that needs to be eliminated, but from outside of the Christian tradition, the absence of a female descriptions of  the divine nature has been used to call for an embrace not just a ‘female’ God, which is just as blasphemous as the ‘male’ God discussed earlier, but even for another God such as mother earth or the like. Against such proposals not too thinly masked in James Cameron’s Avatar for instance, the Vatican rightly condemned such nature worship recognizing that Mother Nature can be as cruel and as enslaving as Father God. In addition as Slavoj Žižek has pointed out with respect to the film Zero Dark Thirty, it is quite possible to have violent oppressive societies that were in some sense ‘post-patriarchal’ and lead by feminine heroines.*** So then the appeal to describe God with female pronouns and images should not be construed to suggest that ‘Father’ God is oppressive and mean whereas ‘Mother’ earth is liberating and nice, when the standards for violence and oppressive, for comfort and care are not in anyway tied to gender constructions.

            Having then argued a very simple case for using feminine pronouns/images when talking about God in Christian theological contexts and suggesting reasonable speculations upon as to why there is opposition to this, we will end with talking about Jesus specifically. At the University of Toronto’s Emmanuel College, there is on display Almuth Lutkenhaus’s sculpture of the “Crucified Woman”,

Initially, one may wonder whether such a depiction can be taken serious, for after all, ‘while its all well and good to talk about God as transcending gender binaries, surely Jesus was a man!’ Indeed so, but controversially it will be suggested that only in a Christian theological framework can Jesus, the Son of God be portrayed as a role model and ideal figure for revolutionary women, and that secular ideology in particular is completely unable to do so. Consider for a moment the proposition that Jesus was not god and was merely like any other man, most likely probably having sexual urges and desires, and the associated argument that Mary Magdalene was his wife of some sort. In secular contexts, the implications of this sort of argumentation for women were almost entirely missed. Would not, under this revised history of early Christianity which is total hog-wash historically speaking, women be merely  subordinated to the role of wife or secret mistress? In the desire to de-throne Christ, the result was even of devaluing women, not just in later centuries as the Church most certainly did, but within Jesus’ own ministry!

            Now, consider the opposite. If Jesus, as Christian ‘orthodoxy’ has always stated, was not only incarnationally 100% man, but also 100% God, and therefore of the same substance as God the ‘father’, therefore also transcending gender binary, would this not open up the possibility of understanding Jesus as divinely beyond gender? Could not women also, as women (unlike the Gospel of Thomas in 114), aspire to be conformed to the image of Christ? As Lutkenhaus has portrayed in her sculpture, Christ suffered as a human, not merely just as a man. It is not as if the role model for Christian men to aspire to is Christ, whereas for Christian women its the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene. On the contrary, the image of Christ is the aspiration for all persons to aspire to. It is this issue, that is exact and precisely why, seemingly theoretical questions about referring to a non-gendered deity using female pronouns and images is so damn important. In leaving women out of the picture and description of the divine, we have not only misunderstood God(dess) but we have let the Christ of the new humanity be segregated to the male gender thereby leaving men and women who have felt the absence of the entirety of humanity in the image of God(dess) to be left to paganism and secularism for enslavement to ‘nature’ and oppressive patriarchs without recourse to refuge in the divine.

________________________________________________________

*Note for further research: Here is an excellent introductory article to the Biblical material: “Feminine Images for God: What Does the Bible Say?”- Dr. Margo G. Houts http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm 

**What it says in Christian theology to talk about God as a person and yet of no particular gender or sex should be an initial hint as to a theological engagement and response to transgender persons.

*** For more on this one should see Rosa Brooks piece, “Women Are from Mars too” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/08/women_are_from_mars_too

The Nativity Retold

            Inspired by Slavoj Žižek’s ‘translation’ of Ephesians 6:12 as “Our Struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it” (Living in the End Times, xv), the below is a retelling of the Nativity story, leading into the rest of the Christ-narrative. The purpose of the retelling is to encourage the Christian church to continue at its attempt to reform the Christmas holiday, with the belief that along with a reform of praxis we need to reform our tellings of foundational narrative for the birth of Christ based in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
______________________________________________________________

            Hey, you wanna hear a story about a middle eastern man born under the under the reign of a puppet ruler by the installation of the dominant Global super power, to a teenage girl whose fiancé knows the child is not his. This person was born at a time when there were mass social upheavals of insurrectionists striving to over-throw Roman occupation. His birth was attended by a bunch guys, who probably stole things because their job was cleaning up after sheep poop, and foreigners from an enemy territory who followed the irrational signs of the stars. He was born in a stable home, though hardly the kind of stable we would hope for. He was quite literally raised in a barn, and it was probably the reason for like lack of manners toward those in authority. The puppet ruler was having none of this and massacred the children in this middle eastern village where the child was born (which is now a Palestinian territory), so as to make sure that he stayed in power, and he also probably suspected these foreigners of backing the rebels to overthrow him as a challenge to the dominant Global Super power. Well the child escaped to Egypt (ya, cause there’s the place to go if you want peace!), which incidentally is exactly where some of his ancestors were massacred and expelled from, so you can imagine how  uncomfortable it was given the ethnic tension. Eventually, once the puppet ruler had died, and his three sons were given separate parts of the kingdom, according to the dictates of the dominant Global Super power…the child returned to his homeland, to hangout in a little nothing ghetto to do the same job his father did. Often he would travel to the ‘big city’, Sepphoris, and get a glimpse of the lives of the wealthy and exotic. Education opportunities were rare, so there was no real way to come up in the world, so he probably just hungout with his family and all the same people he had grown up with for years. In fact, he even had a cousin, John, who was a rowdy political activist with a strange meatless diet, and known for causing trouble for the puppet ruler (calling him out on his terrible marriage ethics).

           Despite being a great student this child would probably just be counted among all the other gangsters from his neighbourhood. After all…the Global dominant Super Power thought to itself…”He’s from the same class and ethnicity whose land we raped for taxes and natural resources, he’s probably not gonna like us very much, and in fact we better parade his death out in public just so the rest of the world knows not to mess with us.” Well sure enough, this child would grow up to protest the ruling class of his country as essentially being no better than being children of the devil, to protest the financial order as essentially robbing the people, and hangout with all the people they expected him too [you know, those hookers, homeless people, and drunks]. He told stories about the coming collapse of the social-political order, that the end of history had not come with the spread of the peace of the Caesars or the local powers that had catered to them, but instead would come with the arrival of the ‘Son of Man’….whatever that meant. He by-passed all the self-help gurus and tricksters when he healed people, and demand no insurance, or even recognition, if you can believe it. He performed many other ‘signs’ like spreading the wealth so that everyone could eat, or raising the dead. So they put him to death (because you know, we can’t have that happening!!!), and in a shameless manner paraded how they thought he was so righteous, without fault, though they were his executioners. They mocked him, and even sold off his possessions. They gave him the death penalty and advertised it to all. Oh, and one last thing, his followers afterward didn’t look for a successor to the movement, because [they claimed] he was still alive, and in fact reigned in the sphere of reality that really determines how things are really going to run. They celebrated this in underground cities over a good meal, wine, and a bath. Guess they wanted to start something everyone could be a part of. Guess who this was?*

_________________________________________

* Hopefully readers will catch all the present day political allusions and subversions 😉

Laughing at Our Old Idols: Slavoj Žižek’s Progressive Racism

            Often one will find that the most intriguing arguments and ideas emerge from the most seemingly random tangents. Some readers of Slavoj Žižek wonder whether his entire body of work is one large random tangent synthesizing bits of culture for the sake of appearing intelligent. Other readers of his work think that his use of examples from popular culture are a much needed antidote to the unintelligible slews of philosophical abstract thought that normally emerge from the philosophical enterprise. But to write in the spirit of one of his works, what is intended to be presented here may appear to some to be In Defence of Lost Causes (Verso: 2009). Žižek, in his 2010 lecture at Wilson College of Princeton University, titled “Why Only an Atheist Can be a True Christian” (i), shockingly to some, answered an audience member’s question with a long tangent, in which he suggested that the way to fight racism was with, what he termed, ‘progressive racism’.

            At this point one can see that obviously he likes to phrase ideas a certain way so as to shock and upset, with the hopes that one will listen. What Žižek points out, particularly from a Balkan perspective, is that jokes that use ethnic and racial stereotypes, whether assumed or explicated, can function as a form of social solidarity and that because they function this way they are not racist. Though it is of course recognized that racist jokes can supply social solidarity between those who share the common racial/ethnic assumptions about the other (the in-group) but would in no way supply social solidarity between those who are the targets of the jokes (the out-group) and the ones making them. But, to use one of Žižek’s almost compulsive phrase, ‘I claim that…’ there is more to the notion of ‘racist’ jokes as a form of social solidarity than merely that they can be used to enforce racist ideas within an ingroup, but rather that they can also point to the absurdity of racism itself, where it is not a particular racial/ethnic group that is the target, but rather racism itself.

            A prime example is Russell Peters, the canadian comedian who has arguably based his entire career off making so called ‘racist’ jokes. Now, the problem with Peters is not so much that he continued with the routine in extended form, thus perpetuating racism in the eyes of some, but precisely because it wasn’t funny any more. Apart from that side note though, if one watches Russell Peters, one can notice how he uses ethnicity and race to actually bring different people groups together. One can watch as he blends many different ethnicities together by their stereotypes so as to promoted greater unity in a sea of laughter at shared amusement.

            Compare this with two other proposed solutions to the problem of racism, namely 1-denial in silence and 2-fear of emergence. As for the first, consider Morgan Freeman’s 2005 interview with Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes, where he suggests that the way to stop racism is ‘to stop talking about it’ (ii). If only the problems of our world could be solved so easily as to just keep silent about them and they’ll go away. We cannot pretend the past did not exist as much as we would like to, as we await the great day when remembrance of former things will be no more (Isaiah 65:17), for alas we live in the time before that day. The second can be seen in the way Chevy Chase was ousted as being ‘racist’ because he used the ‘n-word’ on the set of Community (2009-present), with almost no attention to the original context of what he said and why. Chase was protesting the racist nature of his character and showing his concern about the direction that the writers were taking! (iii) One can see though how even the very mention of the word can cause dread, fear, and to ostracizing someone, ironically giving racism all the more power through great fear of it.

            The first approach then is too idealistic and takes the risk of us not being prepared to see racism when it does appear, while the second unwittingly gives racism a power through our fear and dread that it does not necessarily deserve. In danger then of throwing one other complicated philosopher into our discussion, Friedrich Nietzsche’s work Thus Spoke Zarathustra, at one point lays out that the real way to move beyond a dark past, is not by pretending that it doesn’t exist nor by treating it through dread and fear, but by defusing it through laughter.

“I no longer feel as you do: this cloud which I see beneath me, this blackness and gravity at which I laugh- this is your thundercloud. You look up when you feel the need for elevation. And I look down because I am elevated. Who among you can laugh and be elevated at the same time? Whoever climbs the highest mountains laughs at all tragic plays and tragic seriousness…(On Reading and Writing, Part one)”

            The suggestion here is that when once is ‘elevated’, whatever that may mean, one can perceive the thundercloud that others fear as something that can be laughed at, for one is above it. The serious tragedies, which they were in no doubt were when one was under them, become objects of amusement for now you can see them for what they were. Žižek’s argument that ‘racist’ jokes can function as a tool for social solidarity must not be construed as an attempt to redeem racism or to validate stereotypes (obviously these need to be fought), but rather as an acknowledgement that laughing at our failures as humanity is a true sign that we have moved beyond them. You may of course object to the crude nature of many of these jokes, but the fact that their use of racist stereotypes functions as a way to laugh at racism rather than because of racism, is a redeeming quality indeed.

______________________________

(i) Žižek, Slavoj. “Why Only an Atheist can be a True Christian” Oct. 12th, 2010. Accessed at:

< http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/videos/why-only-an-atheist-can-be-a-true-christian/ >

(ii) Wallace, Mike. “Freeman on Black History Month”. 60 Minutes. June 14th, 2006. Accessed at:

< http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n >

Transcript can be accessed at:

< http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blackhistory.asp >

(iii) Thorton, Cedric. “Is Chevy Chase Really Racist?” Black Enterprise. June 21, 2013. Accessed at:

< http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/is-chevy-chase-really-racist/ >