Zizek, the cultural political theorist, teaches us there is no point in confronting an ideological field head on. The person who is firmly subjectified by the discourse, where his or her identity is so interwoven within its coordinates, can not hear the objection. They will simply say “well, you don’t understand.” Or they will compensate with a gesture that maintains the same problem but makes it look like they care. And nothing will change.
Likewise, when we confront injustice. If justice remains defined within the frame of the prevailing ideology, every time someone claims “injustice!”, he or she is merely reinforcing the prevailing ideology’s sense of self-righteousness, because one will always hear “injustice!” in the terms of the ideology in which he or she resides. The person must become dislodged from the ideology for anything to change.
Often these dynamics lead to violence. The “revolutionary” sees no other way out. We turn angry, we turn violent. Our words seek to destroy. Yet this is not the way of Christ. And, in reality, violence only reifies the two sides and creates more violence. No lasting change can happen built on violence.
Another approach is humor. Zizek often alludes to the power of a certain kind of humor. Instead of direct attack, we winsomly narrate an absurdity, and talk about how funny it is. We do not get cynical, instead out of a sense of integrity, we talk about an accepted truth within the ideological field, carry it to its absurdity and laugh at it. “Hah! Can you believe that?” The humor disarms the person long enough for them to see another side. It leaves that person dislodged from within the field/way of living able now to question its accepted truth. The person caught in the ideological field is now asking serious questions. This kind of humor comes from someone’s life experience. It comes in handy when you find yourself a minority living within a hegemonic ideology.
As an example of this tactic I offer below the interview with Muhammed Ali in 1970. Here Ali reveals the reality of white hegemony in America, its injustice, and the way it has harmed the black people of America. He helps us white people see the complete failure within the church to see its own complicity with racism. It’s worth watching for that. But for me, as I said on FB earlier this week, the most compelling part of this interview is the way Ali delivers the message. In this case (I know not others), he delivers the message with humor, not anger, provocation not confrontation, description vs. demand, it undercuts every defense every white person wants to put up. It’s genius.
Can Christians learn from this? Can we be in the world in such a peaceful manner, owning our own lives and experience so calmly, that we can use humor to reveal the lacuna’s we see in our culture’s narratives/ideologies, our own Christendom church ideologies?
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.