"Our" Values: Mythology, Media and Identity

A few days ago I had a very interesting conversation with a coworker of mine. A few months back we had gotten to talking about the sorts of television shows we both liked, and one of the recommendations I suggested to him was "Vikings". Now, I thoroughly enjoy the show, am particularly cognizant of how the depictions line up with historic accounts as well as the saga's upon which many of the characters are drawn from, and am particularly fond of the fact that the show hints at the reality of the gods, if heavily reliant on a few specific sources. Anyway, he had finally gotten around to watching a few of the episodes; mostly from season 2 as he had caught them during a weekend "Vikings" marathon. He said that he was really liking the show and the only things that sort of bothered him were the few instances that he dubbed "fantastic".

I inquired to what he was talking about, and he mentioned some particular things: that the Seer has no eyes and that a prophecy which had been made in an earlier episode comes to fruition. He argued that these elements pulled him out of the show as they were simply too fantastic for a series based on "history" was supposed to be. He further explained that another show he enjoyed, "Game of Thrones" establishes itself as firmly in the realm of fantasy because in the very first episode a white walker is shown. In "Vikings", these problematic, fantastical bits are interspersed and occasional, and this bothered him. Now, he was able to see past some of the historic inaccuricies (i.e. that Ragnar Lothbrok was not involved in the raid of Lindisfarne), justifying it by creative license, but he was really hung up on the overtly fantastic things.

My first response was to try and explain that the worldview presented in the show is supposed to be reflective of the pre-Christian Norse cultures, and that such things were present in the Saga's, one of the major sources of the show (as well as some particular sources, i.e. Adam of Bremen). These elements were part of the saga literature, and what is more part of the worldview of these people during the period this show is supposed to represent. Still, it was all too "Game of Thronesy", and really shouldn't have been part of something which was supposed to be historical.

So I brought up an example of a historical film to use as a comparison: Braveheart. My associate had no issues with Braveheart, even though a ridiculous degree of artistic licence was taken, particularly the depiction of Princess Isabella. In the film she is portrayed as a rather fetching adult, who among other things sleeps with William Wallace, conceiving the child who would become Edward III. What a great plot twist, and what a way to give Edward longshanks his comeuppance. Except that at the time of Wallace's death, Isabella was nine, and had yet to set foot in England. I came up with another example, this time less an issue of a historians quibble, but rather a popular depiction of a fantastic act within a none the less within the context of a historic film:  Moses parting the Red Sea, as depicted in, lets say "Prince of Egypt". My friend countered with, "well that's part of our perception; that's something which is something everyone grew up with and recognizes."

To conclude this conversation, I made the following case: So you are perfectly fine with awesome miracles being depicted, like a lone person parting a massive body of water, and still understanding the film as historic? You are also fine with egregious artistic licence being taken which significantly alters known history, and still cut the film some slack? But a prophecy being made about a child being born a monster (i.e. having a deformed pupil) and coming true, or a man having no eyes, is beyond the pale of credulity? Yes apparently, and my associate provided the reasoning in his response to my inquiry about cinematic depictions of Moses; he identified that story as "his" or "ours", in a collective sense. The story of Moses is part of "our" collective mythology and purported history. There is good reason that the producers of "The Bible" TV miniseries some years ago had the tagline "The story of all of us" accompany it, they knew it was true, and that it would resonate with their audiences, western TV viewership.

True, at least, in the sense that a considerable majority of people would agree with such an idea. For all the secularist and church-state barriers, culturally "we" are Christian. Or if this is too much of an absolute statement, then it would be more accurate to say that the religious perspective which informs western culture, and what is "normal", is a Christian one. And, you know, birds go tweet. It is a remarkably obvious realization, at least when you are coming at it from outside such a perspective. It isn't as if my associate is particularly devout or pious; he does not attend regular church or religious services, and to top it all of he does not really identify as a Christian. Yet, when confronted with something from outside of established standards of "familiar miracles", even when exceptionally banal in comparison, it has to be removed from the realm of history and relegated to the realm of fantasy, where such depictions are acceptable.

The adage that "my religion is someone else's mythology" is not a new concept, but it remains an apt observation. It is a realization which many who come from a religious perspective outside the mainstream understand early on, but within the mainstream it is a radical concept. It did not, even for a second, occur to my colleague that perhaps this was not a fantastic element added as an embellishment for dramatic flare, but rather an actual historic occurrence. Now, I am absolutely not advocating for either a literalistic interpretation of Saga literature (or any other mythic account) or for the historic veracity of this particular event. I bring this idea up to illustrate the insidious cultural double standard endemic in western thought about religion and myth. Where one perspective is taken at face value, even for granted, but others are weird, oh and probably made up.

I think there is great value in representing the worldview of the given group one is presenting as accurately as possible. Vikings, if nothing else, does this very well for a historical drama in 2015 (not withstanding some sanitizing elements, relating to human sacrifice), and despite my colleagues disapproval, it is something which makes it more, and not less, accurate.

"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..

Theism and popular culture

So I just finished watching an episode of Glee, which I watch with my fiance, but I also enjoy; sarcastic humour has always appealed to me, and I am a sucker for show tunes. However tonight's episode focused on "spirituality." What I (and the shows writers) mean by spirituality, is monotheism.

I'd be naive to say I did not see this coming, in fact I "called it" soon after I read the program description. No, I was not surprised, but still, a slight disappointment did creep out as I watched the episode. For a show that is considerably tolerant with its treatment of minorities and acutely culturally aware (if in a tongue and cheek manner), their treatment of "spirituality" was decidedly homogeneous. The prevailing message of the episode was that "everyone believes in something"; do you hear that atheists, apparently even you believe in "something". Just in case you were wondering, that "something"? Turns out it is the god of monotheism.

The writers were very careful to limit their use of "religion", and so instead they peppered the episode with "spirituality". They were not so careful with the object of spirituality, God. Of course they come at the topic from different religious perspectives: Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism. "Three different religions, so someones prayers had to reach God." Yes, lets all marvel at the lovely interfaith work of people who, while members of different religions, all still manage to worship God. Hooray for inclusiveness! "Spirituality" then, is simply how people learn to express their love and devotion to the god of monotheism, with or without a religious filter. So you're not Jewish, or you're not a Protestant, well you can still believe in God; how lucky you are! It was never stated in the episode itself, but the idea that, "You don't believe in God? Well, He believes in you!" was certainly there in spirit.

So when I constantly talk about the overt cultural dominance of monotheism in every facet of discussion on the subject of religion? When I sigh and wish there was a little more diversity in the discussion of theism? That I get excited when someone who isn't a polytheist, includes polytheism in a discussion of theology? This illustrates why.

Gorm.