Banksy and the Co-optation of Everything
October 14, 2010
Most readers have probably already seen and/or heard about the “controversial” Simpsons opening, which was (apparently) created by the British street artist Banksy. If not, here it is:
Banksy, an internationally known artist whose vaguely anarchist, certainly anti-consumerist, and possibly pacifist politics are present in much of his art, seems in his Simpsons piece to be making a statement about the prevalence of capitalist exploitation of the 3rd world. Since the animation for the Simpsons is indeed outsourced to South Korea, he seems to be chiding the Simpsons for participating in these crimes of oppression. The irony of course is that his statement becomes a part of the Simpsons, presumably animated in the same South Korean sweatshop(???) as the rest of the show. Banksy, a celebrity artist of resistance becomes co-opted by the show (and really by Satan himself: FOX CORP.) for entertainment value (and publicity value for both the show and the artist), and thereby participates in the very oppression his piece decries.
This perfectly illustrates humanities’ inability to break out of paradigms of coercion, violence and oppression; or, in theological terms, humanities’ inability to break free of the bondage of sin. But here, in contrast to pietistic concern for personal bondage and personal freedom, we are dealing with the bondage produced by systemic sin–the kingdoms of this world that hold us all in thrall collectively. Those who try to subvert or resist these systems are always eventually co-opted by them. This is the human condition, and the source of our deepest and most tragic irony.
This is why charity and humanitarian efforts fail, because the good work they do is co-opted, assimilated into the systems of evil that pervade the world. The World Bank and World Food Organization perpetuate the economic misery they were created to eradicate. The most well-intentioned and principled politician quickly becomes an instrument of corruption. The fight against terrorism begins to look precisely like the very thing it meant to end.
The only thing that has ever truly broken this cycle, and successfully withstood becoming co-opted into the evil systems of this world is the Christ-event. Christ effectively withstood and subverted all the evil systems of this world, including the ultimate and most powerful, death. In following after Him, we might have moments of true resistance, true subversion of the kingdom of this world, moments when the Kingdom of God break in; but, Church History’s main lesson should be that we so often fail at the outcome we want desperately to achieve, and our message, like that of Banksy, makes that ironic turn toward saying the opposite of what it was intended to say. The most insidious part of co-optation is that perceiving our own guilt, our own complicity, may be harder than repentance itself.
Which Comes First, the Religio-Ethical Chicken, or the Geo-Political Egg: An Inner Dialogue
April 22, 2010
What follows is a sort of dialogue with myself. In italics you will find the words of James the citizen of the United States, and in bold (because it’s more important) you’ll find the words of James the citizen of the Kingdom of God. This is not an attempt, of course, to speak definitively the words of the Kingdom, or even the proper opinions of a US citizen, rather this is a first attempt to disambiguate for myself where my opinions are coming from, and what foundation they ultimately have.
One of the things I am trying to work out here is whether my citizenship in the Kingdom of God actually determines my behavior as a citizen of the US, or whether it is the other way around. I am working off the premise that my committment to the Christian tradition and Christian ethics SHOULD determine my behavior always and in every way, and that any allegiance to a place, or that places’ history, culture and politics is ONLY important as much as it lines up with my commitment to Christ (A more controversial corollary is that all the things that make up the citizenship of any earthly kingdom SHOULD be held with a certain amount of detachment, if not suspicion by citizens of God’s Kingdom).
Again,
Italics= James, Citizen of the United States
Bold= James, Citizen of the Kingdom of God
– — – — –
I can think of two reasons why I am interested in politics and engaged in political discourse. 1. Self-interest. 2. I honestly believe that following Jesus demands I speak out and act for and against certain social issues that inevitably have a political element.
If anyone wants to be a member of the Kingdom of God, they must die to self.
President Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. Far from breaking with Bush’s flawed and misguided (if not evil and totally corrupt) administration, the Obama administration seems to be a continuation of it. The warmongering continues. The torturing continues. The wholesale disregard of the common good for the sake of profit and power continues. In fact, the essence of the American presidency hasn’t fundamentally changed since…well, maybe it never has: democrat, republican, or whig, Catholic, or Protestant, the President of the United States has presided over atrocity after atrocity: the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment, the Atomic Bomb, wars or covert actions in the following places: Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, El Salvador, Mexico again (I’m talking about NAFTA), many other Central and South American countries, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, now Yemen, maybe Iran…and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Christians are not to put their trust in earthly rulers, but in God alone. Christians do not believe in revenge. Christians do not believe that overcoming evil with evil is even possible, much less pleasing to God.
I almost sympathize with the Tea Party crowd. I say almost, because, if they are successful, they are going to put into place leaders whose moral compass will not be fundamentally different than either Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or…Nixon… or Roosevelt (take your pick)…or Jackson…or Jefferson…or…
I do not believe that any of these men had the best of interest of EVERY member of their country in mind when they made the most important and far-reaching decisions of the terms. I believe every one of them put power and money before the common good when making many history altering decisions.
There are ultimately several other reasons why I don’t quite line up with the Tea Party crowd.
In I Samuel 8, God warns the Israelites that if they get a king he will not have the common good of the people in mind. Even the best Israelite kings commit atrocities.
I, like the conservative faction of the US, am not a big fan of the healthcare bill as a matter of principle. However, to call it socialism is ridiculous and confusing (I am suspicious and at some level, somewhere, someone desires this confusion). The bill that creates billions of dollars in debt so that the government can subsidize millions of private insurance policies, thus enriching the very companies the politicians claim they want to change, is the essence of FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, par excellence (to borrow Zizek’s favorite way of saying things).
Our government is not seeking and has never sought to bring capital and the means of production under its control. On the contrary, Capital has been in the process of bringing our government under control since the Industrial Revolution.
Jesus came and in direct defiance of Caesar Augustus claimed to be the Son of God. His early followers defied the empire by refusing to worship the emperor, and instead giving Jesus titles that by decree were only to be used by the Roman ruler: Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
You cannot serve both God and Money.
I, like the majority of the conservative faction of the US, claim to take a PRO-LIFE ethical stance. However, pro-life means more to me than anti-abortion. I feel like you have to be pro-ALL-LIFE in order to use the term without becoming a hypocrite.
The Tea Party loses credibility when they a) complain about the national debt, then b) claim to be pro-life, then c) support war efforts that are costing our country 3 TRILLION dollars.
Jesus says, ”Love your enemy.”
I recognize that under secular political philosophy dating back to the Greeks, a government by definition has the right and the power to violently punish crime, and violently protect its own interest.
Paul recognizes the “power of the sword” in Romans 13. But, how can a Christian honestly adhere to the injunctions of Romans 12–do not take revenge, overcome evil by doing good, live at peace with all people, etc.–and still participate in earthly governments as described in Romans 13?
I’m not a Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, or a Libertarian. I am a Distributivistic, Anarcho-Liber-Agrarian Localist.
My association with Christ and His Church is really the only one that matters. I desire to follow Jesus in the world, awaiting His return to reconcile all Creation to Himself. I suck at it.
– — – — –
Discussion questions:
1. Do my religious views, including my hermeneutic(s), determine my political philosophy or is it the other way around?
2. How would one go about determining which comes first political views or religious ones?
3. How are my political views in my self-interest?
4. How are my religious views in my self-interest?
5. Whatever else anyone wants to ask or comment on.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
