One of the key pieces of Slavoj Zizek’s political theory in his foundational book The Sublime Object is his notion of “ideological cynicism.” Subjects of the first world, Zizek says, are too smart to become duped by the political ideologies of Western states. After all, we know it’s just more political spin. Instead, ideology for Zizek, takes on a different form in the so-called “first world.” Here, we are offered ideologies to appease us, to make us feel better about ourselves, so that those in privilege can keep on conserving what it is they really desire. So now, we look at the political ideologies spinning across the political process, and instead of politically observing “they do not know it, but they are doing it,” we observe “they know it, but they are doing it anyway.” In essence, we listen to all the new political speeches and new political options given the electorate and we know nothing will really change. Yet we participate in it anyway, because in essence subconsciously this is what we really want: we wish to protect our own specific pieces of the economic social pie yet feel good about doing it (there’s the classic Freudian split in the subjective consciousness). Political ideology serves a cynical function now, giving us a Big Other to participate in, making us feel better about ourselves (morally), all the while we hope for keeping the status quo in place protecting our own personal pieces of the pie.
When it comes to Christians of my evangelical tradition, I would suggest this “ideological cynicism” could work another way. We participate in National politics, its political ideologies of a more just society, even though we deeply suspect the corporate national machine insures nothing will change. We do this because it is much harder to think of the church itself as a legitimate social political force for God’s justice in the world. It is simply a lot less work to support Barak Obama for president than it is to lead our churches into being living communities of righteousness, justice and God’s Mission in the world.
I know Zizek might appear way too skeptical here for most of us. And there is always the cry “why can we not do both – vote for Obama and be missional communities for justice in our neighborhoods.” Yet (at the risk of being over provocative) I think the question is worth considering: “Are we supporting Obama because it’s easier than being God’s justice in the world ourselves?” Is our participation over here in electoral politics sapping our energy (or worse even assuaging us) from participation in the work of justice as an extension of the church?
Senator Obama is putting out a pleasing message of “Change.” “I’m asking you to believe in Change,” “the Audacity of Hope,” and “A Unified America.” Yet Zizek would call these ideas “signifiers without the signified.” Words that in the end no one knows what they mean or refer to. Zizek would say it is these “words” which allow us to consent to what we know is a lie so that we can avoid the Real: that true justice of God demands we change fundamentally the way we live in relation to each other and the world. I fear these Obama “words” take the place of pres. Bush’s words “Freedom” and “No child left behind,” words that few knew what they actually meant but morphed into a politics of multinational corporate politics the horror of which is hard to believe 8 years later. In a Zizekian way, I have often asked, did we consent to all this (vote for George Bush) as Christians 8 years ago (who by and large elected him) in order to assuage ourselves that we (through our country’s national politics) are contributing to a better world all the while staying comfortable within our protected enclaves.
Final Words: I know some expect me to get on the Obama bandwagon, especially those who know of my criticisms of the current president. Yet I continue to want to press for the church to be the primary political instrument of true justice in the world. The church must be FIRST as initiator for social justice, from which we can then push for governmental cooperation. I have always been concerned about the marginal status given the church as the foundational center for justice in society by my various spokesmen/women/friends of the Emerging Church (I hope to review Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change in this light). I know many fear fundamentalist sectarianism. I fear the democratic capitalist Symbolic Order (ala Foucault) shall subsume us all. More and more however, people like Jim Wallis are seeing the insights of a tempered vision of what is possible in national politics (see The Great Awakening). More and more, people are understanding a new possibility for a Hauerwas radical politics (see for example Mark Van Steenwyk here and here). SO GO AHEAD AND BY ALL MEANS VOTE FOR OBAMA, but do not allow false ideology to sap our energy or distract us from the task of being God’s people, his embodied Kingdom in submission to His Lordship, birthing forth His justice amidst the world that was made possible in His death and resurrection until He comes.
What do you think? Is there a work of “ideological cynicism” at work in Christians supporting Obama? Is the Obama bandwagon a positive or a negative (or neutral) for the church’s role in bringing justice to the nations? Is energy by Christians spent on Obama politics misguided, too hopeful, and misdirected? Is it too easy to just say “you should be doing both, voting for Obama and working for social justice in your local church”?
BTW I shall post a second post on the Bridge Illustration next week.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
You basically have it, but I think you’re confused about what Zizek means when he’s talking aout “the Real”.
also…if you’re a Christian, there’s probably a decent chance that you’re a little prone to irrational belief in the Other anyway..
As some have posted here I too fear Obama’s words and their almost messianic appeal. In fact I fear both what would be unleashed in his losing and his winning.
As I’ve revisited my ana-Baptist roots in my readings, I’ve day by day become more distanced from believing that any material investment of time/energy in the State has a spiritual outcome that is meaningful to the urban Steelton/Mennonite community and its impact in the geographical community that it ministers to.
The embrace of Constantine/Obama (add your favorite) is (in modernist terms) “leverage”, but what are you leveraging?
In front of me today is a woman/man/child who needs something, possibly even local justice, in that justice I can/will open my pocket, talk to her neighbors, be her advocate with her town supervisor whatever. Is there some kind of “big” outcome here, no, not here in this world. But possibly in eternity. I think it is better to be asked “why are you doing this?” then “we’re glad your with us!”.
How many times is the (US) church going to look for a false savior, be left down, before it is awakens to its historic (self) deception, (“the very elect” maybe).
AMY GOODMAN: And now we’re in 2008, and right here in this country, in the midst of this presidential race. I don’t know how long you’ve been in the United States right now, but you are—
SLAVOJ ZIZEK: No, but I follow you [inaudible]. It’s the talk of the world. This may amuse you. It’s going to—when I was asked by a academic journal to say if I were to hold the power for one day as president, what—and I would have kind of absolute power to introduce a law, what law that would have been? My immediate answer was not as some humanist suggested, since United States at least thinks they are a global empire, so let every adult in the world be allowed to vote; my advice would be the opposite one: let’s everybody in the world, except US citizens, be allowed to vote and elect the American government. I think it would have been much better for you, even, because we all outside the United States would project our desires into how you should be. I think it would have been better, so that only non-Americans vote for—I know this is a nightmare from Pat Buchanan or somebody like that, but—
AMY GOODMAN: And who do you think would win?
SLAVOJ ZIZEK: I think there would have been like left of Barack, if I may put it this way, no? It would have been probably not. But going seriously, no, of course, I am—my god, it’s stupid to say—for Barack and so on. But I see a tragedy here, because like let’s say he wins. What will he do? The tragedy of today’s left is what? It’s always the same story. Lula in Brazil, Mandela even. The good guy wins, we are enthusiastic, then you have around two years usually of period of grace, and then you have really to decide—do you play with global capitalism, or do you want to mess with it?
With this, I am not saying it doesn’t matter. Barack Obama can do things. There are many important gestures, like Guantanamo, stop with these waterboarding jokes, open relations with Cuba, recognize this would be incredibly important, recognize the Hague international tribunal.
David,
I’m obviously completely late in responding to your post, and that’s okay. I’m currently writing an essay that sets the missional church and the Obama campaign in dialog. Some online research led me to your post. This has been such a great discussion. Thanks.
Few Things:
Tony, you’re right. The church has always only been somewhat faithful to who We are called to be. That, however, ought not to be a motivation to rely on the story of the State for justice. Instead, this ought to help us imagine with those in the likes of John H. Yoder who declare that existing authentically is the church’s primary call in God’s mission in the world. God is alive and offering grace amidst cultural expressions (“all sphere’s are God’s), but it is the Church’s role to let the world know what God is doing. It is our role to help the world understand that God’s movement in all things in history is the Way of the Cross. We offer a renarration so that even if the world finds a coin with Ceasar’s face in the mouth of a fish, they know Who put it there… why/how (Cross) it was put there…and Who created the fish.
As for voting and such…I am inclined to not vote. And I don’t think Christians in America need to vote. I do, however, have some careful leanings toward voting…
I think the Church is called to INTERACT with government, but not be INVOLVED with it. Change–even though its all over the elections now–will be quite minimal no matter who is elected. However, as the church our concern is the poor and rejected. WE peacefully do anything that can get food, shelter, and community for these people. If a certain vote will make it easier for us to do this, so be it. We can use a vote just as we use a government-printed dollar or a new device of technology–suberversively denouncing its narrative power over our lives and creation. Our role as the Church is to understand the politics of the empire and know how to interact with it for the sake of the poor and rejected. The vote for Obama is risky here simply because his campaign has stolen words of the church to create its own narrative. Denouncing the narrative power will take a lot of work.
Voting for a presidential candidate becomes especially idolatrous when attention is given to politics only on the national level. I admit that I have interacted with politics in this way before. Little attention is given to the local decisions being made for one’s city but when the ultimate leader is up for a vote the mass of people see her/him as the image of change. In such a situation a sort of blind faith is given to the person or political party.
In KC where I work as a non-profit site director and study in seminary…there are several local issues that affect the lives of the poor and rejected–the location of public transportation, the amount of money given to improvement of low-income housing, the limit of fees attached to payday loans, etc. Christians really can make bear witness to the Kingdom by standing for the poor and declaring certain stances on these issues. Sometimes, that declaration happens through a vote. Sometimes it happens through more creative means such as leading congregations to offer short term no-interest loans to the poor and rejected.
I think that in a two-party dominated system that third parties are political outsiders, just like the early Xtns and shd be our preferred location for activism.
I intend to help give third parties foot-holds on power with my project democratic renewal.
This will enable third parties to influence the manner in which the monopoly on legit use of violence is wielded, but we’re not going to capture and need to engage in the statecraft skullduggery to keep the state.
This may not really change things, but it can reduce the influence of $peech, make the main parties more dynamic and civil and most importantly complement our local ministries by giving us opps to form friendships with non-Xtns or liberal Xtns, where we can dialogue about matters of faith.
That was my experience when I volunteered as a graduate employee union organizer at MSU.
I have a comment on whether the church can make a difference in the world or not as pertaining to politics and the human condition as a whole.
First of all, what is the human condition? I would argue that the human condition or root cause of any and all problems in this world is man’s sin nature and the result of it.
We all have inherited the sinful nature passed on from Adam and Eve. I think we can all agree that there is a huge moral decline in our country, not only in the government but also in the church. From lies and empty promises from politicians saying they’re going to “change” the world by bringing “hope” to the watering down of scripture in mega-churches preaching prosperity and health if we just believe, clearly our country is becoming more corrupt.
So what is the answer? Is a born-again Christian president? Is it the church? Well, I would argue neither! How long is America, and I could argue the whole world, going to continue to turn our backs on God and expecting Him to bless us and for everything to be okay. 2 Chronicles says: “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray seek My face and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, THEN I will HEAR from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”(NIV)
So, what is the answer? Well according to scripture, if we repent of our sin and turn to God in faith, then He will bless our land. Then, and only then. If this offends you, then take it up with God, not me.
I think it’s time we get on our faces before God, repent of our wicked ways. We need to pray and intercede for our country. Take a look at Job and how he interceded for his family in Job 1:5.
Our country doesn’t need another politician peddling lies, it needs Jesus. Now when are we going to BE the Body of Christ and tell and show the lost the TRUE source of hope that we have in Jesus Christ!
[...] Family organization all have shown how seductive this temptation is. For my arguments, you can read here and here for instance. I argue that local relationships, both as a church community together under [...]