Politics - What is it good for?

This topic has been going around and around in my head for the last two months, and despite numerous attempts I haven't managed to complete a blog post. This has mainly been because of the breadth of the topic. A topic I will continue to explore and expand on further as I work through my studies (in Psych, Socio, and Theo). Therefore it's not going disappear off my radar, nor is it going to be exhausted in this post. The topic is Christian involvement in politics.

This area is often met with responses including: great angst, anger, and apathy. The focus of my own angst and anger is toward the latter group. Before I explain why, I'll address some of the concerns of this group.

One of the main concerns is that there should be a separation of church and state. This maxim isn't often heard in New Zealand, although it is in the United States. In NZ it is expected we will never again see a Christian political party enter parliament for two main reasons. The first being the fall out after the Christian Heritage Party fell out of grace. The second being the reality that NZ is now a post-Christian nation. This however is not yet true of the US, where religion is still an embedded in politics. In fact one of the primary objections to Christian's in the States is that they are 'too political'. This point is raised in the research of David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons in 'Unchristian'. They note this as a legitimate concern, however they also note these judgments are based on observations of conservative Christian's, who are primarily more extreme evangelicals and fundamentalists. These individuals conflate their political leanings with their (botched) theology and consequently the public conflates the two as well. Although I have a myriad of reservations related to their beliefs (and their biblical basis), I do endorse the fact that they are political. However, as I will explore in a later post, I do not endorse they're current political involvement.

This takes me to my second concern, what Christian's - or in reality most citizens - understand by the word politics. The word, just like its subject matter, is contested. Most people associate politics with elections or political parties (and their disagreements) or with interference and injustice by authorities. I think a better definition is provided by the University of Auckland, Politics department: Political studies is about relationships that involve power, authority, influence, conflict, co-operation, selfishness and altruism. In other words it's the study of social relations - of people.

This point is precisely why politics is important. It's the ongoing story of our society. Politics is history in action. A history which impacts on us, but which also should be influenced by us. The word politics comes from the Greek word polis. The polis was the city and every citizen (excluding women, children, and slaves) participated in the running of the city in an active way. They made up the demos - we get democracy from this Greek word - the populace of that city. This was early democracy where all the citizens would all meet together and all have equal opportunity to have their say. But also with equal opportunity to fulfill their duty to be a good citizen, part of which meant potentially being called to manage the affairs of the city. Therefore in the polis, politics was not the high life of the few, but the everyday life of the many (albeit with many exclusions).

This no longer holds true for modern society, since we are in a post-democratic era. The term post-democratic is also contentious, however it generally means that contemporary participation in political life is limited or restrained. So for instance political participation for most people is limited to: voting every 3 years (and even then many opt not to); filling out Census forms every 5 years; occasionally signing a petition or referendum; watching or reading the news; and a bit of a debate at parties. Given this superficial participation the general populace can be forgiven for seeing politics as irrelevant or elitist, and believing it to be beyond their control.

The thing is they're right, as it often is out of their control. Recent examples of this have been the ignoring of referenda, such as the anti-smacking legislation or the sales of state assets, or in more recent times the passing of the 'GCSB Bill'. As a consequence for many politics seems fruitless; it has nothing to offer them and any resistance is routinely overlooked. This is part of the reason why voting turn outs are so poor, as many don't see the point - due to indifference or past disappointment. These past experiences are ever present and these concerns very real - however lack of political involvement achieves very little.

Some sociologists would disagree with me on this point, noting that refusal; that is defying the system has merits. I acknowledge where they're coming from, but I disagree. Despite being sick of slogans like be the change you want to see in the world or change comes from the inside out, I recognise the need for citizens to be proactive. To be active participants in society; to be a prosumers. That is I recognise our responsibility to be more than consumers.

There is a need be aware consumers. There is a need to produce culture, instead of being purely a product of culture. There is a need to be active in culture, instead of passive.

There is a need for culture making.

[Look out for Part 2 of this post  in the near future]

“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference”

I was trawling through Facebook last night when a status caught my attention. The status was from a school friend, about three tranies he has seen ‘twerking’ at his local supermarket. After checking Google search to investigate what ‘twerking’ was – a sexual dance – I returned to the status and scrolled down his comments. One comment disturbed me. This comment asserted that those who did not conform to typical female and male sexual identities were ‘filth.’ This position had then been supported by the individual who made the status.  The comments that followed these statements strongly disagreed with this statement.

One individual noted how surprised they were that such statements could be made after the passing of the Marriage Equality Bill on the 17^th of April. But why were they surprised? Did we expect that the passing of the bill was going to result in a change in public opinion, or a change in public discourse? I expect some of us did. I however did not, for as Thomas Reed, the former US politician once noted, ‘One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in the world are to be cured by legislation.’ The Facebook debate proved this point, the passing of the bill did not change the public perception. In this regard National MP, Jonathon Young spoke truthfully when he noted on the 17^th the bill “is not as clear as many people think ... I believe our society is more divided than this house is on this issue.”

I agree with this position, since I have seen little consensus in the circles I am part of, especially in those with a Christian influence. This is not surprising given that Christians have been consistently critical of any legislation legitimating the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Queer/Questioning) community. To frame it another way Christians have consistently been against any move which gives rights to LGBTQ individuals. That being said, there have been some local churches that have supported the LGBTQ. Although this has often been due to having LGBTQ individuals in their congregation, i.e. the (in)famous St. Matthews. The majority of supporters though are youth with a Jesus complex and a mentality of ‘WWJD?’ (What Would Jesus Do?). Such a position amounts to little when there is no action accompanying the slogan.

Despite there being vocal Christians on both sides, the majority are silent. Christians are conservative about being conservative. Although this is preferable to the traditional tactics of calling down fire and brimstone on God’s behalf, and employing outdated dictums phrases – such as ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’. There is no doubt though that these approaches are still inadequate. As Green MP, Kevin Hague said shortly during the third reading of the Marriage Equality Bill, ‘There is no room for nuance and middle ground. What history will record is whether you voted for inclusivity ... or against.’

These words mirror Desmond Tutu’s (former Anglican Bishop) during Apartheid, ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’ I bring up this challenging quote, since many individuals see parallels between the oppression of blacks and of sexual minorities. However, not everyone agrees, nor likes the comparison between the two.

This was evident in the Facebook debate mentioned earlier. Since the person who posted the status and called LGBTQ individuals ‘filth’ had African heritage. They noted that they would confront anyone who referred to them as ‘filth’. Yet, they saw no double-standard in this position. Despite the fact that African’s and African-American’s have been subjected to similar and sometimes worse labels, they were still unable to recognise, let alone sympathise with the oppression of the LGBTQ community.

Research into the oppression of the LGBTQ community is a relatively new field. In 1999, Town identified three practices which serve to undermine and oppress homosexuals in school settings. These being: silence; pathologisation (treating homosexuality as a disease); and group behaviour. All of these practices have been evident in the marriage equality debates.

Pathologisation is seen in the Facebook comment describing LGBTQ individuals as ‘filth’. The connotations of this description are of these individuals being dirty and deviant. Research done by Matthew Ripley in 2011, found that most heterosexual individuals conflate, that is combine, sexual practice and sexual orientation. In other words homosexuals are defined by their homosexual acts.

In sociological terms they are ‘marked’, in other words distinguished or discriminated from the rest of society. This makes it ‘us’ and ‘them’. Proof of this thinking is seen in how LGBTQ individuals are seen as ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal’. While heterosexuals are (seen without question as being) ‘natural’ and ‘normal’. Sexual binaries like this are not only unhelpful and untrue, but deeply offensive to the LGBTQ community.

In the Facebook debate mentioned earlier, conflation and sexual binaries were both used by those against the LGBTQ community. I am sure that if you as a reader think back to the conversations you have on this topic you will find both tactics being used. I encourage you as a reader to look out for these tactics in the future, and to challenge them. The use of these tactics calls for new discourses, meaning new ways of talking about and with sexual minorities.

New discourses though will need to be informed by these sexual minorities. For discourses which do not consult with these minorities will risk misleading the public and misrepresenting these individuals. Therefore what is needed is for the public to not only tolerate, nor to just accept the LGBTQ community, but to relate with them. This will start to work on the root problem – our attitudes. This problem comes back to the title of this piece, which is a statement made by Winston Churchill. This statement recognises the impact our attitude makes, for our attitudes inform our thoughts, which in turn inform our speech with others. Our speech however also impacts on how we relate with others. This leads us to Town’s third practice whether oppression against homosexuals, is done through ‘group behaviour’.

Group behaviour is influenced and informed by the current discourses or lack of discourses. This is witnessed  in Town’s two other practices of homosexual oppression; silence, and pathologies of homosexuals. This relates to research undertaken by DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson in 2010. They noted that group behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals is influenced by institutional homophobia and therefore nothing but institutional policy will change public sexual discourse and policy. This policy they assert would have to be made into legislation.

Now as I said earlier, legislation is inadequate to change public discourses and mindsets. So let me explain myself in this supposed contradiction. Laws such as the Marriage Equality Act are inadequate by themself, but when combined with governmental education, enforcement and intervention they can be successful in effecting change. In relation to this point DePalma refers to the success of the racism campaign that followed the murder of the British black male, Stephen Lawrence in 1993. They suggest that if homophobia was confronted through education, as racism was, that homophobia could be dealt with.

DePalma believes that the education of children in the correct discourses and the (re)education of adults in appropriate discourses will bring about a ‘conceptual shift’. By conceptual shift they mean  a change in the way society thinks about the LGBTQ community. This point was also stated by Chris Auchinvole on the 17^th shortly before the vote was cast. Where Auchinvole alleged that public discussion would be the ‘beginning of a change process’.

I agree with Auchinvole, but I believe this process must not only be discussed in ‘our homes’ and ‘our churches’ as he puts it, but also in our institutions, which includes schools and businesses, and throughout the nation. But also I assert that the discussion must not only include the LGBTQ community into the discussions, but that the discussions must be informed and chaired by them. This will need to initiated and funded by the government, and must make use of the media, through the use of radio talk nations, current affairs TV shows, advertising campaigns and public meetings. This will help remove the entrenched homophobic discourses in society and the resulting stigmas attached to LGBTQ identities.

Therefore, although the Marriage Equality is a good start, further policy and legislation is needed to educate the public. Only intervention at the institutional level will bring about change at a societal level. But don’t forget you are part of society, you can choose to be informed by and to inform society. To paraphrase Churchill, your attitude is a little thing that can make a big difference. Your attitude matters.