Marginalized voices and generational consequences

When we, and in particular the "we" I am referring to are those who enjoy a great degree of cultural, social and economic privilege, are confronted with the voices of those "others": the marginalized, the disenfranchised, the less privileged (and this is a very wide spectrum, cutting across a number of groups), what are we supposed to do?

It is soon told...
__________________________________________________________________________________

A very long time ago, in Ireland, there lived a man of great means, and his name was Cruinniuc. Now Cruinniuc had been married, but his wife had died unexpectedly, leaving him a widower to raise his children alone. One night, also quite unexpectedly, a woman arrived at Cruinniuc's house and took to performing the same duties as his wife would have, all without saying a word. That same night, they laid down together and she was with him ever after that. Her name was Macha, and so long as she dwelt within Cruinniuc's home, he flourished and became even wealthier.

Now, after this arrangement had gone on for some time, Macha was with child, and it came to pass that a great meeting of the people of Ulster was called. Cruinniuc informed Macha, now his wife, that he had every intention of going. Now she spoke against his going, but upon his insistence she relented, only cautioning him to not speak of her to anyone. The day was as boisterous and splendid as any fair had been, with races, games, combats and other tournaments; the horses on display were as fair as the people themselves.

As the day drew on, Conchobar, the king of Ulster, had his own magnificent chariot brought forward, with his two swift steeds pulling it along. Now the uproar from the assemblage was fierce, and the crowd exclaimed that, "never before, nor ever after shall there be two horses who were swifter of foot or splendid in appearance!" Cruinniuc exclaimed, "My wife is faster!"

The king demanded that Cruinniuc be held, and his wife be summoned to race against his own horses. Messengers were dispatched to Cruinniuc's household and made demands of her to attend to the king and the assembly. Macha protested that her husband had made an unwise boast, and that she was yet with child, due at any moment; but the messengers told her that if she would not attend her husband would be put to death. So she went with the messengers.

Despite her condition, Macha was paraded in front of the assembly and once more told, that despite her protests of being ready to deliver her child, if she refused to compete against the kings horses, her husband would be put to death. Conchobar had his men draw their swords and began to advance upon Cruinniuc. Desperate, Macha at last appealed to the crowd, exclaiming, "Help Me! For a mother has borne each of you! Give me but a short respite, that I may have my child, and I shall compete for you!" But Conchobar would not relent, and so Macha made ready to race the horses, ere her labour pains came upon her.

Macha admonished the assembly, crying, "Shame upon you all, who show so little regard to me. Infamy shall you have for your pitiless deeds!" Conchobar asked her what her name was, and she replied "Macha! And so this plain shall so be named ever after!" With that the race began and Macha beat the horses of the king so swiftly, that with a cry she delivered a son and a daughter, ere Conchobar's horses cross the line. And so to this day that place is named Emain Macha.

Now, all who were present at the assembly were assailed by her cries, each growing as weak as a woman in labour. Macha then cried out to the assembly a final time, "For your pitiless deeds, and the dishonour shown me, whenever your people are in dire need, these pangs shall come upon you for five days and four nights, and weak and helpless as a woman in labour shall you be, for nine generations hence!" Ere Macha died, and her children were given to Cruinniuc, who for his stupidity was now twice widowed, and much aggrieved.

Thus it was, until the time of Forc, son of Dallan, son of Mainech, son of Lugaid, whenever the people of Ulster were at their greatest need, the pangs came upon them. So were the people made to suffer for the indignities suffered upon Macha.

___________________________________________________________________________________

This tale is known as Noínden Uliad, or "The Debility of the Ulstermen", and often appears as a pre-tale (remscela) of the Táin Bó Cúailnge. As a pre-tale, the primary function of the tale is to provide an explanation as to how the Ulstermen came to suffer the "curse of Macha", setting a very dire and dramatic context for CúChulain to single handedly stymie the invasion of the united provinces of Ireland under Medb and Ailill, as the men of Ulster suffer through the curse.

The wonderful thing about stories, however, is that they can certainly have more than one function or interpretation. The greatest of stories will have the ability to produce within an audience, even one removed from the original context by centuries, emotions and pathos. Myths matter because they are windows into the periods and cultures they spring from yet have the power to be meaningful to us in the present day.

Contained within this fairly short story, is a dearth of meaning, and several moral lessons. Macha is generally held to be from the otherworld, if not a personification of the goddess of the same name (though this depends on how one looks at it). Her odd mannerisms and ability also belie an origin in the otherworld or from the sidhe, so we are made aware that she has some power behind her warnings and threats. Yet she remains a victim; she remains marginalized because those she encounters do not have the "gods eye view" of the events in the story, and so she is to them but a pregnant woman. Her protestations go unheeded and her cries for help fall upon deaf ears, yet because of the love she has for her husband, she continues on knowing that she will suffer because of it. Cruinniuc is almost a non-entity in the story, but he is the catalyst which drives the action, and it is his carelessness which starts the tragic chain of events.  Conchobar, as a figure in Irish myth is rather enigmatic, and a lot more complex than he seems at first blush, but in this story he is simply the king who feels his honour is being sullied, and so because the dictates of the law and society (the crowds at the assembly) demand it, he forces the events to unfold as they will.

So we have the King, the wealthy landowner, the gathered people of Ulster, Macha, a tragic series of events and finally an unforeseen outcome which reverberates for nine generations. So why did this happen? It happened because no one who had any power listened to Macha. Her husband failed to heed her warnings, because his pride got the better of him and he was careless. The King dismissed her calls for delay, because he had to enforce "the law". The crowd ignored her pleas for mercy, because they did not want to second guess the king. No one listened, and everyone suffered because of it. Not one voice among them asked for pity, called for mercy or tried to understand; rather they utterly ignored Macha's circumstances, or knew but did not care. Yet these actions did not just effect those involved, but remained in effect for generations afterwards.

I think of all the arguments I've heard explaining away all the anger and fear which is today being expressed, and I can't help but see parallels to Macha's circumstances.

• Macha's husband broke the law, if he hadn't spoken out of turn, none of this would have happened.
• Macha should have made a better choice when it came to husbands.
• Conchobar had the right and the duty to uphold the law, even if that law unfavourably effected Macha more so than other people.
• Having a pregnant woman race against the kings horses was an appropriate response, we weren't there so we can't "armchair" quarterback the kings decisions.
• Conchobar's job was really stressful, we need to understand he felt his sovereignty was threatened.
• The problem wasn't that forcing a pregnant woman to race against horses was horrible, but that Macha's husband made poor choices.
• The crowd had no obligation to listen to Macha's pleas, because she chose to associate with a law breaker.
• Macha's curse was unjustified, her anger not merited, because she brought these events on herself.
• Macha's anger and screaming did nothing to solve the problem.
• The Ultonians can't understand why she would curse her own community, but because she did, have no obligation to take her cries seriously.
• It was the Ultonians who were the real victims here.

When those of us who find ourselves in positions of power, of privilege and influence are confronted with the voices and protestations of those who are less so, of those who are marginalized, we need to listen. We need to hold our tongues, open our ears and really listen to what it is being told to us, even if it makes us uncomfortable. We need to hold our tongues because while we may "think" we have an idea why things that happen are, why people may be angry or upset, we need to listen and try our best to understand. We need to avoid making pronouncements which are informed by how we believe things are while simultaneously ignoring what is being said to us. We need to acknowledge that we who are privileged have a responsibility to do what we can, especially if we make proclamations extolling justice and morality. We need to understand that law is not the same thing as ethics, and unjust laws or laws that unfavourably target marginalized communities are unethical.

This is necessary because events do not happen in a vacuum, and unforeseen consequences can have a lasting impact far greater than we can even imagine. If we fail to stand up for what is just, for what is right, how can we claim to speak about justice? If we do not try and heal the hurts which have been passed on and systemically reinforced for generations, how can healing occur?. If we turn yet another blind eye and deaf ear to the injustice which occurs right in front of us, then nothing will ever change.

"Our" Values: Subversion, Paradigms and the need to change them

My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral
Knows everybody's disapproval
I should've worshiped her sooner

If the heavens ever did speak
She's the last true mouthpiece
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week

'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes.
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

If I'm a pagan of the good times
My lover's the sunlight
To keep the Goddess on my side
She demands a sacrifice

Drain the whole sea
Get something shiny
Something meaty for the main course
That's a fine looking high horse
What you got in the stable?
We've a lot of starving faithful

That looks tasty
That looks plenty
This is hungry work

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife
Offer me my deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

No Masters or Kings
When the Ritual begins
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
Only then I am Human
Only then I am Clean
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

Above are the lyrics to the song "Take me to church" by the artist Hozier. Presently, in my city anyway, it is getting a lot of radio play; to its credit it is a rather catchy song and Hozier is a skilled lyricist and vocalist...

So what does this have to do with anything?

Recently some folks who either read this blog, my tumblr , and a host of other related blogs and tumblrs, have been talking about developing resources to help those who are now polytheists identify and address theological baggage from their days as monotheists. The goal being to help them more fully adopt a polytheistic world view. I intend to help as much as I can.

So in this effort I thought it would be useful to examine a [currently] popular song which is steeped in religious imagery, and to illustrate just how ingrained and pervasive certain theological concepts are in our culture. First, though, a little background on the artist and the song.

Hozier

Andrew Hozier-Byrne (aka Hozier) is an Irish musician from Bray in Co. Wicklow, and "Take me to Church" is his debut single from his first album. The song itself, according to Hozier:

“If I was to speak candidly about it,” he said, of how a relationship influenced his writing, “I found the experience of falling in love or being in love was death – a death of everything. You kind of watch yourself die in a wonderful way and you experience for the briefest moment – if you do believe somebody and you see for a moment yourself though their eyes – everything you believed about yourself is gone.”(1)

What is missing from this particular statement about the song "Take me to Church", is why he chose to use blatantly [Christian] religious language and imagery in describing these sentiments and emotions. The most obvious would be the often used "sex as a religious experience" trope, which is clearly utilized in the song, but within there is also a very visible degree of subversion and inversion. The themes and common phrases which in a [Christian] religious context would have well defined and understood meanings are turned to double entendre.

In an interview about the music video which was made to promote the song, Hozier had this to say (emphasis my own):

... the video “references the recent increase of organised attacks and torturing of homosexuals in Russia, which is subsequent to a long, hateful, and oppressive political campaign against the LGBT community. The song was always about humanity at its most natural, and how that is undermined ceaselessly by religious organisations and those who would have us believe they act in its interests. What has been seen growing in Russia is no less than nightmarish, I proposed bringing these themes into the story and Brendan liked the idea.”(2)

So a song that was written by a straight man, about his own experiences in heterosexual love/relationships, had lyrical content which when paired with a visual narrative about a homosexual couple facing oppression, blended seamlessly. That's pretty nifty in an of itself, but the sentiment expressed in the visualized version of the song also provides some clarity about why the subversion was so important to the song writer. Hozeir has a rather dim view of organized religion, and the institutions which symbiotically thrive because of it. Returning to the earlier article (again, emphasis mine):

In March of this year, an interviewer in New York Magazine probed whether there was a personal reason that Hozier was outspoken against homophobia, “No, and I don’t think there needs to be,” he answered, “To me, it’s not even a gay issue or a civil rights issue, it’s a human rights issue, and it should offend us all. It’s just simple. Either somebody has equal rights, or they don’t. and certainly in the Irish constitution, marriage is genderless. There’s no mention of a man and a woman. I didn’t even have that many close LGBT friends or anything like that, but I suppose it was growing up and becoming aware of how you are in a cultural landscape that is blatantly homophobic… you turn around and say ‘why did I grow up in a homophobic place? Why did I grow up in a misogynistic place?’ You grow up and recognise that in an educated secular society, there’s no excuse for ignorance. you have to recognise in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it. You owe it to the betterment of society.” (3)

Hozier understood that the social and cultural context within which he grew up prioritized a specific set of values, which were homophobic and misogynistic. One of the chief cultural architects of this perspective, in Hozier's opinion, is the Church (and in this context the Roman Catholic Church). Yet, there is no indication that Hozier himself was particularly devout, so such sentiments and observations are coming from within a society that Hozier understands as being secular, but is nonetheless beholden to cultural and social values which are religious in origin and nature. So the secular constitution, which makes no distinction of who can be legally married, which as Hozier himself says is "genderless", remains beholden to cultural values which originate with the distinctly religious nature of the society in which they developed, and so same sex marriage remains prohibited despite the secular values which are supposed to be guaranteed by such a document.

In protest then, through the recognition of the impact that distinctly religious institutions have upon his own culture, Hozier crafted a song which utilizes the very language of "religion", and subverts it to his own purposes, advocating for the values he feels ought to be argued for: "...you have to recognize in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it."(4) As many musicians before him, subversion of established meaning, was his "weapon of choice". Yet, and here is where my real point begins to emerge, subversion in and of itself necessarily reinforces the existing cultural power structure. That subversion via pop song can happen necessitates that a wide enough segment of the listening population will understand. Subversion needs a hegemony to counter; so while it can act as a critique of the culture it is subverting, it nonetheless reinforces the structural and cultural language it seeks to subvert.

Lyrical Analysis

I'm not going to delve too deeply into analyzing the lyrics of the whole song, nor of explaining how they are visually represented in the music video. I do, however, want to explore some of the lyrical devices which are utilized and their subversive meaning. I begin with the chorus:

Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

So the first line, and the title of the song, really underscores my point in all of this. "It is well understood what "church" is, what "going to church" entails in our culture. The term "church" refers specifically to Christian religious structures, and "going to church" refers of course to attending a service (which elsewhere in the song is Sunday, again relevant to Christian tradition) at such a structure. In the context of the song, however, "take me to church" is used as a double entendre for sexual congress. Worshiping like a dog, denotes a subservient - dominant power dynamic, which could entail whimpering, begging, etc.. The second half is a bit more difficult to interpret with any certainty. There is no indication in the song itself what, precisely, "shrine of your lies" is supposed to represent. On a purely speculative basis, I have no idea. The third line refers to the admission of sin and the expected punitive measures associated with confession/ absolution, again reinforcing the power dynamic already established, with the woman he is singing about acting as the "priestess". The sharpening of the knife likely also corresponds to the following two lines (and some later parts of the song), and the idea of love being a "deathless death", which nonetheless requires a death to occur. Now the final line does refer to "God", except the phrase is used as an exclamation to emphasize the desire of the singer to "give you my life", which again is either about letting him love her, or having sexual congress, as opposed to speaking to the Christian God.

'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes.
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

 These lines precede the first two repetitions of the chorus, but contain a lot of subversion of established concepts and theological principles. "We were born sick, you heard them say it", refers to the theological concept of "original sin" and that man's nature is fallen. The proclamation that his church, "offers no absolutes" is a critical reference to the typical orthodoxy found in Christian churches, and a rejection of that precept. Later on the line "I was born sick, but I love it", again subverts the concept of "being born into sin", to refer to being "love sick".

No Masters or Kings
When the Ritual begins
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
Only then I am Human
Only then I am Clean
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

The juxtaposition of "no sweeter innocence" to "our gentle sin" is of course deliberate, yet retains some sense of the "gentle sin", being sexual congress, as having some degree of depravity. The closing lines are very interesting as they essentially make the case that it is only through these "sins" and associated "rituals" that the singer is in fact absolved of said sin and made fully human, or complete.

Cultural influences



I have no idea of Hozier's education, how much knowledge he has of matters of theology, mythology or cultural studies. From my own analysis, however, there are at least two very interesting parallels that can be made with reference to the song in and of itself, as well as the theme of the song (or one of the themes.)

The idea of sex as a sacred, ritualized and humanizing act is something which is reinforced throughout the song, but particularly towards the end. This concept is rather ancient, and one of the best mythic examples is contained within the narrative of "the Epic of Gilgamesh", where the titular hero's friend, Enkidu, is originally a "wild man", and it is only after he is brought to Shamhat, who engages with him in sexual congress for seven days, that he is finally "civilized", and made fully human. (5) Again, I have no idea if this had any bearing whatsoever on Hozier's writing of the lyrics, but it was too similar to pass up.

In a broader sense, which again ties into the religious themes of the song, the way in which the singer is speaking about his lover is very reminiscent of the "Song of Songs" as found in the Old Testament and Tanakh. The "song of songs" at its core is about a singing dialogue between two lovers, albeit later allegorical interpretations have the content being about God's love for either Israel, or Christ's love for the Church. It would be fitting then for Hozier to have seemingly returned the "Song of Songs" (or a new version of it) to its original meaning. Again, purely speculative on my part, but since this particular bit of Abrahamic scripture would be known  (and much more so than Gilgamesh) to someone who grew up in "the Church", and given the use of subversion, it is not unlikely.

How Subversion reinforces cultural hegemony

Subversion as a means of offering or altering the established cultural or social narrative, seeks to undermine the established meaning of words and symbols through the introduction of alternative meanings of those words or symbols.This can be a very useful and effective tool when it comes to cultural criticism and examination, because it has the ability to be understood within the very cultural context it is in turn critiquing. None the less, its effectiveness to enact change is limited precisely because it relies on the existing structural framework of the culture to make sense and still reach a wide enough audience to have any sort of impact. Let me give an example of what I mean:

There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

This particular element, I would go as far to call it a trope or cliche, is found throughout the lyrics of the song, and it involves the inversion of the concept of "sin". A sin in Christian theology is some action (or thought) that occurs in ignorance, indifference or defiance of the Christian god. In the song the idea of the "sin" or "sickness" being sung about is love and/or sexual congress, which in many Christian doctrines is in and of itself something which can only occur within specific, sanctified, contexts and remains problematic to a large degree. The inherent "dirtiness" of "sex" is something which is very easily observed in a larger Western cultural context. Within the song, however, sexual congress is made into a purifying and holy act, enabling the singer to become "fully human". In this way is the concept of sin subverted. 

The limitation of course is that it necessarily acknowledges the existence of something called "sin", and so is beholden to the worldview where it developed and is promulgated. Which is fine, really, when one seeks to retain that cultural perspective, but perhaps becoming more aware of it. Removing or subverting the cloying prejudices engendered by the structural cultural institutions (like organized religion) to speak to the possibility of a better state of affairs. However, for those who seek to foster and promulgate a different cultural world view, this is not enough.

Change

I would certainly make the case that for polytheism to be presented as a meaningful theological perspective, it necessarily has to be done so from a position which acts as if it is a meaningful perspective. Polytheism cannot be properly understood or defended if the position one comes from is one which (again necessarily) holds polytheism to be impossible, i.e. monotheism. Polytheism has to be understood from within a worldview where the gods are many, otherwise what will be described is some bastardization which will present the gods as something other than gods. They will be reduced (angels, giants, demons), excused (delusions) or ignored (being substituted for money, power, etc.) because they can not logically be existent in a monotheistic context and still be gods. Which is not to say that a monotheist cannot write about polytheism and its gods, because we'd be pretty bankrupt scholastically if this were the case. Rather, you will find that most books of mythology, and the best ones, speak about the gods from the perspective of those who worshiped them, and not the author themselves (albeit this too happens often enough, particularly when issues of folklore and tradition are recorded via more "civilized" [read Victorian] folklorists.)

So, what has to occur is that we need to begin to understand theological concepts through the eyes of a polytheist, and if they can not be, then we need to develop (or restore) additional concepts. We also need to be able to identify those theological "holdovers" which remain from previous perspectives, which again is not to say that everything from the older perspective needs to be discarded. Only those elements which have no place within the new context, and these can range from considerably large theological conceptions: original sin, man's fallen nature (which again may depend on cultural context), Salvation, God/Satan (or other such dichotomies), heaven/hell (also dependent on cultural context), ethical frameworks, etc., to more subtle things: The gestures you use to accompany prayer, which "cuss" words, or "punctuated exclamations" you utilize, cosmological reorientation (if, for example if the realms of the dead are cthonic and not celestial), and other linguistic and symbolic adjustments which no longer make sense.

The goal, ultimately, should be the internalization of the polytheistic worldview, even to the point that if you were to smash your thumb with a hammer, you would automatically shout something other than "God damn it!". It seems rather "small" to focus on something so, well small but it is a necessary development to fully embrace a new world view and leave the old one behind. Which is not to say that you need to then vociferously and zealously reject other peoples own views. I can fully appreciate the pathos and emotion which is conveyed in a song like "take me to church", I can understand what it is the singer is singing about; I simply do not share the same conceptual/theological framework that he does, but what is more I understand why.

When you begin to understand something from your own perspective, then you can begin to appreciate how necessary such a change is.

____________________________________________________________________________

1. "Hozier: An Interview", Irish Times.  http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09 /20/hozier/ (accessed 11/23/2014)

2. "Video Premiere: Hozier - Take Me To Church", State. http://state.ie/features/video-premiere-hozier-take-me-to-church (accessed 11/23/2014)

3. see 1.

4. ibid..

"Our" Values Series

In conjunction with some recent discussion on tumblr, I have taken it upon myself to write a series of blogs which will speak to and about many theological and ethical issues, with a polytheistic outlook in mind.

For anyone who has read this blog, or its companion tumblr, you will be very much aware of the fact that I am a Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheist. My rationalization and understanding of things like ethics and theology are then, necessarily informed by the cultural filters engendered by being a GRP. Keeping this in mind, I have sometimes out of necessity, but more often out of curiosity, researched quite a bit into other polytheistic worldviews: Hellenic, Roman and Heathen in particular. I intend to write as broadly as possible about polytheism as a distinct "system", and while I will have to rely on preexisting theological concepts and terms, I will do my best to speak in general and not cultural terms.

As this will be broad, there will almost certainly be gross generalizations and broad, sweeping claims. I fully acknowledge that there will be a lot of exceptions, be they individual or cultural, to such statements. Yet I do believe that there is enough of a theological framework common among polytheism as a theological position, that such generalizations can be made and still be true, most of the time.

Again, if I do speak to something which seems strange or incorrect based on your own understanding, by all means let me know so it can be addressed.

With that said, I really do think that speaking about "Our" values can be something that is useful, especially as polytheism slowly creeps its way back into the world. Very often the criticism labeled against many in the modern polytheistic (and Pagan) community is that we spend all of our time speaking about what is absent from our religions, rather than what is entailed. Unfortunately, this is something which HAS to happen, because the very language that has developed to discuss theology, has been geared towards monotheism as the default (and in a binary way, default is on, off is atheism).

Many of the following blogs will be discussing precisely these issues, theological concepts, which are part of the discussion of religion and religious identity. These will be addressed, discussed and then shown how they may apply, or are inapplicable, to discussions of polytheism. Showing how much a concept does not fit is as important as showing what concepts do, because it then provides a means to discuss "Our" perspective with those who do not share it. It also allows us to examine and define our own approaches and perspectives.

Wish me luck!

Gorm.