Sub Ratione Dei

God the Politician (Part II)

Part One Part Two ... The Politics of God Lehmann's concept of the political does not centre, as does Mouffe's, on the inherent and necessary hegemony of the political but like Mouffe Lehmann does emphasise the community. Mouffe's idea of the political is empirical in that it is based on discerning how plural groups act: the assertion that politics is hegemonic is at in large based on the experience of such oppresive tactics. This is not Lehmann's method (or rather, this is not what Lehmann says is his method):

[The] use of the word 'politics' may seem initially to be arbitrary, a semantic tour de force. Nor is it usual to think politically about God at all. The images which come immediately to mind when talking about the "God of politics" are the images of rulers and states , of government structures and policies, and in any neighborhood of the United States of the ward committeeman. These images, although they are indirectly and ultimately also related to the political character of the divine activity, they do not give the primary and direct sense of what the phrase "God of politics" means. God may be a mathematician, as has been suggested, but he is certainly not a ward politician. The present adoption of the word "politics" as applied to the activity of God has to do, not with these pragmatic and passing manifestations of political behavior, but with that to which the word "politics" fundamentally and centrally refers ((Lehmann, Ethics, 83)).

Following Aristotle (in Nicomachean Ethics) Lehmann defines politics "as the study or theory of the political community ... the science of the polis" ((Lehmann, Ethics, 84, 85)). While the definition of politics may be Aristotle's the description of the the political is reliant the biblical record of historical record of God's movement on behalf of humanity that simultaously identifies humans as creatures, sinners, and believers ((Nancy J Duff, Humanization and the Politics of God: The Koinonia Ethics of Paul Lehmann, Eerdmans, 1992, 23)). In summarising Lehmann's idea of politics Nancy Duff writes that the "story of God's movement in Jesus Christ on behalf of creation defines who we are and what we are to do. Lehmann's understanding of this political activity of God grounds theology in Christology and leads him to describe his ethic as an "ethic of messianism". ((Duff, Humanization, 24)). Lehmann uses the language of politics to describe the divine movement of God on behalf of humanity is becuase this is the language the biblical narrative is political - and for Lehmann the bible's narrativity is a key consideration. For example, the formative images of of God's activity in both testaments are political ("slavery", "covenant", "laws", "judges", "prophets", "kings", "Messiah", "New Age", "Kingdom of God", "principalities and powers", etc). These political signs cannot be taken in abstraction, it is only as narrative that these are signposts to God's activity in the world:

Only in their narrative form do these political images illuminate God's action in the world. The biblical narration of God's political activity describes the constancy of God's movement on behalf of creation. The biblical story is "political" in the fundamental sense of the word because it describes that action which creates humanizing relationships in human community [as in Aristotle's definition of politics] ((Duff, Humanization, 23.))

Constitutional Dictator in Waiting

Sanford Levinson (author of the brilliant Wrestling with Diversity) offers a sombre warning concerning US-Iran relations post Bush II:

In any event, one should take special note of Hillary Clinton's remarkable statement to ABC News, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." This is the statement of someone running for constitutional dictatorship, not for a "republican form of government" presidency who might have said, for example, "as President, I will certainly urge the Congress to declare war on Iran should Iran attack Israel"--though one might wonder exactly why, since the brutal truth is that an attack on Israel, however egregious, would not constitute a serious security threat to the United States (which is why Israel very wisely has constructed its own nuclear deterrent instead of relying on the US and the vagaries of American domestic politics)--"though I recognize that that decision is ultimately for Congress to make." Unfortunately, Obama, for reasons of domestic politics, cannot offer any criticism of this extraordinary truculent threat, lest he be viewed as soft on Iran or insufficiently supportive of Israel. And McCain, of course, has also exhibited a certain "irrational exuberance" with regard to the prospect of attacking Iran. So I guess it's just the case that in electing our next president/commander-in-chief/constitutional dictator, we are doing exactly what Congress did when passing the egregious "authorization" giving George W. Bush a blank check to go to war in Iraq.

Jesus the Blogger

Kyle highlights some breaking news in the blogosphere, Jesus now has a blog (or rather, is a contributing writer) The fake comments are genius.

God the Politician (Part i)

We are accustomed to hearing that God is Love, that God is Just and the like but I must admit reading earlier today Paul Lehmann's claim that above all else, God is a politician was a novel experience. Lehmann writes:

it is possible to say that God, if he is denotable by one phrase more characteristically than by another, is a 'politician'. (( Paul Lehmann, Ethics in a Christian Context, SCM, 1963, 83))

To call God political is disconcerting in part because of my own recent reading of Chantal Mouffe's idea of the political reliant as it is on the earlier philosophy of Carl Schmitt:

For Schmitt, the political is concerned with the relations of friend and enemy, it deals with the creation of a "we" opposed to a "them"; it is the realm of "decision" not free discussion. Its subject matter is conflict and antagonism and these indicate precisely the limits of rational consensus, the fact that every consensus is by necessity based on acts of exclusion ... Liberalism believes that by confining the divisive issues to the private, agreement on procedural rules should be enough to regulate the plurality of interests in society. But this liberal attempt to annihilate the political is bound to fail. The political can never be domesticated or eradicated since, as Schmitt indicates, it can derive its energy from the most varied human endeavors: 'Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong enough to group human beings effectively according to friend or enemy'. ((Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political, Verso, (1993), 111; The citation from Schmitt in this quote is from The Concept of the Political.))

Clearly this conflictual understanding of politics could on the face of it be problematic for any understanding of God as Politician but on reflection and reading around the edges of Lehmann's quote I am not sure they are as opposed as they may first appear. Mouffe is not in fact aiming at an increase of conflict in politics. Instead she argues that conflict is already there but the politics of consensus (epitomised in "third way" politics of Giddens et al) does violence to the full diversity of opinion in allowing only a pre-arranged middle ground to not only hold sway but even be allowed, as Laclau and Mouffe write elsewhere "it is vital for democratic politics to acknowledge that any form of consensus is the result of hegemonic articulation, and that it always has an 'outside' that impedes its full realization". ((Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd Ed. Verso, 2001, xviii)) Mouffe does not advocate a complete egalitarianism (some opinions are prohibited - hence all politics is hegemonic) but as she (together with Laclau) write the task is to to take the present order and deepen it "in the direction of a radical and plural democracy" ((Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, 176)) For Laclau and Mouffe politics must consist of a concerted (albeit partial) inclusion of the Other into the demos; while there will always be the friend/enemy distinction the emphasis on agonistic pluralism aims to minimise this ((Mouffe describes the development of the Schmittian antagonism to her agonism as follows:

Introducing the category of the 'adversary' requires complexifying the notion of antagonism and distinguishing two different forms in which it can emerge, antagonism properly speaking and agonism. Antagonism is struggle between enemies, while agonism is struggle between adversaries. We can therefore reformulate our problem by saying that envisaged from the perspective of 'agonistic pluralism' the aim of democratic politics is to transform antagonism into agonism. This requires providing channels through which collective passions will be given ways to express themselves over issues which, while allowing enough room for identification, will not construct the opponent as an enemy but as an adversary. Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, Verso, 2000, 102-103)) For Mouffe agonism is a democratic move that incorporates the conflict inherent in all social groupings towards constructive ends: namely maximal incorporation of plural identities into a common endeavour; however, since the us/they tension is integral to the idea of the political there is not utopian hope for a post-political era, it is here that Lehmann's identification of God as politician is useful.

The Key to a Happy Life

They say experience is a great teacher so please indulge me as I pass on my experience to you all ...

 

If leaving the house, make sure you have the key with you. This is best remembered by the following little rule of thumb: Try to ensure one's house keys are the same side of the door as you!

 

£45.00 just to get into my own bloody house!!

Mimetic Nationalism

Review of Trevor Parry-Giles and Shawn J Parry-Giles, The Prime-Time Presidency: The West Wing and U.S. Nationalism, University of Illinois Press, (2006).

In large part the reason for the success of the television show The West Wing (hereafter TWW) is its capacity to present a realistic although still idealistic vision of politics, argue Trevor and Shawn Parry Giles. Both of the authors who are based in the Department of Communication at University of Maryland rely in The Prime Time Presidency on Thomas Farrell's argument that "rhetoric is the only art responsible for the imitation and expression of public thought" (p. 3). The strength of the West Wing lay in the way in the way it promoted a certain national identity that has sufficient rhetorical resemblance to both the institution of the presidency as it is (TWW intersected both the Clinton and Bush II administrations) with a view of how it could be. TWW so it is argued is an exercise in mimesis in that it portrays an approximate reality "of the presidency that is persuasive and credible" (p. 4) while at the same time offering a "compelling and ideologically relevant reflection" (p. 5). I hope to post on TWW's mimetic appeal from an audience and production perspective soon so will not emphasise the point but this background is essential for seeing what the authors are trying to do. TWW is not just a television show viewed in abstraction from the political climate; albeit fictionalised TWW is a representational drama, to take one example Bartlet's deception over his MS is analogous to Clinton's infidelities and the (bizarre) crisis of the presidency that ensued from this. In its nationalistic narrative TWW offers what is sometimes an ideologically progressive vision of the presidency but more often than not one in which cultural modes of oppression remain uncriticised and Bartlet is firmly within the mainstay of US public opinion (what the authors earlier referred to as mainstreaming); the heroic president, for Shawn and Trevor Parry-Giles is often the lesser of two evils (and I'll confess I am sympathetic to the claim). For this reason they conclude the book with these words portraying the presidential ordinariness of Bartlet:

Despite its backstage view, even with its physically infirm, self-doubting president, TWW is largely a duplication of the American presidency and the nation's dominant vision of itself (p. 171).

In order to substantiate the foregoing comment the authors focus on three facets of contemporary US culture and its bearing on national identity: race, gender and the military. For each face, which is allocated a chapter each in the book the authors analyse TWW's treatment of the issue as evidenced in Bartlet's first term of office as president (the first four seasons). In at least one - the issue of gender - and also to a lesser extent their discussion of race the authors' point are stretched. This is not to say however that the issues they raise are not real. The strength of the book, particularly as the third and fourth season deal with the post 9/11 America, is the way it does promote a US global hegemony as a positive ideal - as Josh labels it in one episode (I think in season 5 and therefore outside the scope of this book) as "mother Theresa with first-strike capability". Associated with with this exporting of global justice is the way the book - in a way I had not really picked up watching the series - ascribes to Bartlet, albeit in nuanced form the iconic lone heroe status that has been so prevalent as a US myth (see Robert Jewett, The Myth of the American Superhero, 2002; Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence, Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, 2003). Bartlet may be an unconventional hero; he is after all suffering with MS and, as is pointed out frequently, although Commander in Chief he has no military experience but what we do see in TWW is an anti-political and anti-bureaucratic message. For example, try as I might I can't think of a point when congress (rather than individuals who run against the grain) is presented in a positive light. The authors are, I think, on to something when Bartlet's frequent "screw congress and established protocols" and "let's get the job done - aka 'what's next' is only a refined version of the lone ranger fighting off the evil outside on his own; in short, Americans like their heroes - and leaders - to be arrogant, stubborn, and most of all independent.

The Prime-Time President is an excellent glimpse into US politics - not so much the politics of TWW itself (although fans will find this interesting) but of the US intelligent culture to whom the TWW is aimed (as a commercial enterprise). If the authors' underlying thesis regarding the power of TWW's presidential mimesis is to be accepted then this book is an interesting expose of the hopes and more pertinently, the prejudices that drive this hope. Jed Bartlet may not be the ideal President, but he is a realistic one.