In defense of pirates (and orthodox heretics)
At the moment the work of Kester Brewin, and myself, has been under a little criticism in the blog world. All sparked off by Richard Sudworth’s reflection entitled, ‘The Betrayal of Betrayal’.
I will get onto the meat of the criticism shortly, but for now I wish to mention how this article has brought out the feeling from some quarters that Kester and myself go ‘too far’ and that while we ‘need to be listened to’ we ‘push away from orthodoxy too much’ (and this from people who should be on-side!). It seems then that we are being relegated to that horrible place of domestication where people say, ‘lets listen to what they have to say, but turn them down a little’. How I wish we were actually being critiqued for not going far enough!
On top of this a recurrent theme is that our ideas, while well meaning, are ‘half baked’ and/or ‘only half the story’. All of these criticisms I will argue can be shown to be structurally problematic, once one understands the nature of the project that myself and Kester (if I understand him correctly) are propagating.
I want to argue that all of these criticisms fail to understand the properly dialectic nature of our work and thus miss the philosophical and theological import of it. Let us start to unpack this by taking the motif of ‘pirate’ that Kester employs. The point that our critics have failed to see is how Kester is employing the image of the ‘pirate’ precisely because pirates traditionally do not merely transgress the Law (i.e. are not merely criminals) but draw out how the Law itself is a transgression.
Take, for example, the chocolate bars we buy from local shops. Much of this chocolate is made up of coco beans imported from the Ivory Coast, where child slavery is widely used to harvest them. The chocolate that our children eat is thus the direct result of a slave trade employing children of a similar age being forced to work in horrendous circumstances (little pay, rape, beatings, murder etc.). Or take the majority of the clothing we buy, the cars we drive and the meat we consume. Each of these seemingly benign activities belies a dark and horrible reality (sweat shops, environmental destruction, extreme cruelty). The appearance of freedom, order and beauty that our Western ideological system emanates belies the reality of slavery, chaos and ugliness. The pirate is not to be misunderstood as a simple criminal (one who affirms the order they transgress – wanting merely to reconfigure that order so that they have more within it). The pirate, at his or her best, is much more than that – their activity exposes how the Legal System that they transgress is itself a transgression (see Hakim Bay or Zizek for more on these issues).
This leads us to the fundamental problem with Sudworth’s apolitical and insufficient understanding of the situation in Somalia. For instance, he questions Kester’s suggestion that the pirate’s activities may help us to rethink global geopolitics and articulate an alternative vision of where the real problems lie, by using the old reactionary logic of saying,
‘Well, if you ask a poor Somali woman whose children have been killed by the Somali warlords growing rich on the piracy (for that is yet another side of the story), the answer would be a no-brainer. The point is that there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition’.
There are numerous problems with this response. But the main one is that we witness here the old ideological defense of Western Global Capitalism in which there is an ‘apolitical’ (conservative politics hidden as such) concentration on subjective violence (the violence done directly by the pirates – kidnapping, beatings, killings etc.). While awful in and of itself, this strategy masks the political question that these Somali Pirates force us to ask. Yes they are often brutal and violent, but by stealing ships full of Tanks (bound for Kenya) and luxury goods (made often under horrific conditions) we need to go further and make the (non-symmetrical) connection between the subjective violence of the pirates (which should be condemned) and the objective violence of the system that they are directly attacking.
It’s easy to condemn subjective violence because there is someone we can point to, but when attempting to attack the objective violence of the System itself things get difficult because there is no one person or group of people we can blame (who is number one? We are). The problem here is that the Hegelian move has not been made (in which one shifts perspective from seeing a mere crime against the law to perceiving law itself as criminal). Again, when Kester mentions the shift from ‘pirate radio to BBC’ and ‘Napster to Spotify’, this is not a mere individual ‘romance of the new’ as Sudworth claims, but a properly philosophical insight that pirate radio and Napster, in different ways, did not merely transgress the law but showed how the legal system itself was exploitive. As such they opened up the way for new configurations. For example, the free access to music, while condemned as theft by the music industry, helped to expose the exploitation within that industry and short-circuit the unhealthy control they possessed. It was indeed a form of theft, but a form of theft that exposed the theft of the system itself.
I myself have opted for a different motif in order to draw out the radical, dialectical nature of theology. Namely, the phrase ‘Orthodox Heretic’ (a phrase that, as yet, is not widely used). I have chosen this term carefully for numerous reasons that would take too long to explain here. However I will mention one that is pertinent in this discussion.
Theologically speaking I am making the same structural move as that mentioned above concerning the political dimension. Namely that we must move from the idea that there is an Orthodox Christian stance and a heretical positioning that transgresses it, to the point in which we see Orthodoxy itself as heretical. This is the first of two basic moves. This first move exposes how there is no absolute foundation to orthodoxy, that it was formed contingently over time through debate, discussion and argument and that its necessity was then retroactively constructed and maintained by the victor. A point that almost any non-partisan historian of religion will attest to. The second basic move of Orthodox Heresy is to then show that new theological configurations are possible, that new constructs and institutional practices can be imagined. In short, that we are free to mould and remould the church in different and imaginative ways (as has been the case throughout history).
I will need to now try to short-circuit the non-dialectic response that this post might generate in our critics, namely that this sounds like I am throwing out the old in some ’romance of the new’. By no means! Again this rests on a problematic philosophical ground that sees actuality and potentiality as distinct spheres (al la a certain reading of Aristotle). The potential always being that which is not yet, and the actual being nothing other than potentiality realized. On this thinking myself and Kester are presupposed to be prophets of the potential against actuality. But this is a mistaken understanding. We are instead calling for the potentially that exists within actuality. This is the Pauline position (Christ has come, the event has taken place).
The actually existing church is full of potentiality, the event is housed within it, and the role of the outsider theologian (the orthodox heretic, the theological pirate) is to uncover that potentiality. Returning not to some idealized, ossified reflection of church practice, but rather to the event which gave birth to existing church practice, thus opening up new imaginative spaces. Here the new is extremely old, the contemporary is ancient.
So to ‘betray our betrayal’ is to misunderstand our negation of negation (fidelity is betrayal, orthodoxy is heretical, God is the ultimate rebel, Christianity is anti-Christian) as a mere negation (betrayal, heresy, rebellion, anti-Christian) and then move back to a previous affirmation (fidelity, orthodoxy etc.).
To attempt to rein us in and pull us back is then to fundamentally miss the nature of our project. Sudworth is right to dismiss those who would not take us seriously, but he is dead wrong in thinking that we do not have a project and deeply mistaken that we, ‘magpie-like’ play with ‘sociology, philosophy, contemporary culture, with the occasional leitmotif of scripture’. On a personal note I am only beginning my writing career and have not yet a large body of writing behind me, but I hope to show in the next twenty or thirty years that the ideas I have outlined above have significant theological, indeed Christological, import.
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 am
[...] Öfteren ein Fenster geöffnet haben um eine neue Perspektive zu entdecken. Heute hat Peter einen Eintrag auf seinem Blog veröffentlicht in dem er auf die dialogische Natur der Herangehensweise von ihm und Kester hinweist. Da in diesem [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:55 am
Hi Pete. Thanks for this post. Very helpful. I’ve linked back to here from Moot’s blog, if that’s ok.
I have a question – I’ve just finished reading Zizek’s The Fragile Absolute, and it was the whole transgression/transgressor subjective/objective thing that bothered me the most out of all of it, actually – which, if I understand you correctly is the crux of your argument here.
Does this mean that I don’t like/agree with the dialectic approach? I’m not sure I know enough to say that for certain yet, but my question to you is, have you written anything that expands that idea online, or is there a link you point me to? I want to be sure that I’m understanding correctly. I must confess I haven’t read your latest book yet, so if it’s in there, let me know *blushes*.
I’m wondering if a part of me has lost faith in philosophy, and that while that kind of “philosophical inversion” as I call it can spark off interesting, even world-changing thoughts it just seems a little too distant from praxis at times for my liking. I think that’s why I liked Richard Sudworth’s response.
Interesting thoughts.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:15 am
hello Pete
I wonder if this is an essentially UK ‘emerging church’ debate that is quite complex and it is therefore easy to misunderstand and talk past each other in an imperfect blogoshere medium…..I still would consider your work as broadly within the non-realist death of God stream in the Don Cuppitt mould. Is is not the major fustration of an author that according to his perception he is endlessly misread yet does postmodernity not stress the ‘death of the author’ in the interpretation of his writing once it is in the public domain?
The reading world for theology is in reality a very small declining number of people and there are many voices out there within it all competing for attention and influence (witness my bookshelves at home)…….to be honest there is an incredible amount of indifference and apathy to theological debate in general within the church
all the best
Rodney
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
Hi Pete,
Having just read Richard Sudworth’s blog post and the responses there and over at Jonny Baker’s blog it’s really interesting to see how these thoughts and ideas are drifting into and grinding up against the voices of the more institutional church.
I may have completely got the wrong end of the stick here, but I think what I interpreted in reading some of the comments was possibly a slight anger or fear that your work might be completely sidelining the lifes work of many who have (at least in their own eyes and those of their community) tried to be ‘faithful’.
Whilst I think your critique certainly is aimed at burning away and exposing some of this, I don’t think that you are in a sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think that the language used in these discussions can sometimes cause confusion but the more space that everyone allows for these discussions to take place without instant reactionary violence the more I think your project will become clear.
Not really sure I’ve actually said anything now. Amazing how an idea gets lost in the process of trying to write it… !
Tom
p.s. just noticed the little subliminal smiley face at the bottom right of your blog. that was nice.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
Hey Rodney… I am not too sure what your argument with my piece is? I definitely do have an argument, I argue for it regularly and I attempt to correct people when they misunderstand it (as a philosopher I am no relativist).
In terms of readership I leave such concerns as to whether people are interested in reading my material for my publisher to worry about. I simply do what I do whether two people read me or 2 million (and it is of course much closer to the former). Some people claim that theology is on the increase both in the academy (because of Badiou, Agambin and Zizek etc.) and outside (with the rise of religious groups around the world). Others claim that it is on the decrease. Again this is not really my concern – the fact that more people might watch the X Factor than the news or read John Grisham over Dostoevsky is not something I feel able to combat (although I will try from time to time). My desire is not to argue whether people currently read theology or not but rather to do a small part in getting people interested. But primarily I am interested in the arguments and how they pan out in lived groups like ikon. Thankfully the legitimacy of a task is not to be weighed by how many people are interested.
Hey Mike. The book that I am currently writing will flesh this out more!
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Hah! When’s the publication date?
you’ve just got me on tenterhooks now, you cheeky monkey!
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
[...] posted a critique of the thought of Pete Rollins and Kester Brewin last week (HT). Today I read Rollins’ response at his blog. Part of what’s going on is Sudworth’s disdain for Brewin using pirates and [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Pete – have read all your books – with delight. Thanks for providing a framework for thinking theologically. For me, what you have been proposing actually encourages life-long thinking. The extremes tend to be either tossing the ‘baby out with the bathwater’ or to grab an idea and to hold it as an absolute til death do we part. Your notions move us to wrestling with the eternal, eternally. Just as the infinite would have the finite.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
[...] In defense of pirates (and orthodox heretics) (tags: theology religion christianity) [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
[...] PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » In defense of pirates (and orthodox heretics) [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Hi Pete…my response to your response now posted http://www.distinctlywelcoming.com/2009/09/pirates-part-ii-land-ahoy.html
September 24th, 2009 at 5:26 am
[...] BLOG RESOURCES ABOUT PETER SPEAKING SCHEDULE « In defense of pirates (and orthodox heretics) [...]
September 24th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Pete,
Can I clarify (as the person who I think first used the phrase “half-baked” that it was not meant as a criticism in the sense of inadequate or incomplete it was meant for me that I read Kester’s posts not as proposing a new orthodoxy but as stressing the need for thinking and action which is prepared to live with the tension of relationship with and antagonsim to the established – I meant most of all that thenarrative way in which Kester conducts his thinking allows for dialogue and indeed new thinking in itself (something which I value in your style too) not simply rebuttal or acceptance – you both lead me on a path of exploration through your approach rather than make me feel I am being offered something which I either have to accept or reject. I guess after many years of reading books which asked that of me it is encouraging and helpful to read/hear ideas which make me feel there is space to contribute/go.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Hey Mark – totally understand. You have been a big supporter and my comments are not directed at you in any way. Didn’t know that comment originated from you, I thought you were quoting it from someone else and subverting it!
September 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
You’ve misread who the offence in Somalia would be to, Pete: the widows and the orphans. I’m happy to leave the blog debate there and glad it’s generated such deep reflections across the spectrum of opinions. You’re still welcome to spend an evening with the Macallan by the way; just don’t bring your sword as I reckon i’d ‘av you in a fight if not in a philosophical discussion.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am
lol – I think you could kick my ass too. I am a big softy. Thanks for generating this discussion. It is very important and I think that there are a lot of people (including myself) who have found it valuable. I think it generated interest because you articulated how many people felt (nice one). I am just trying to win a couple back from the dark side
Would love to hang out again some time soon!
September 25th, 2009 at 3:26 am
[...] – since writing this Pete Rollins has posted a piece on his blog which addresses some similar points. In particular, he demonstrates that his understanding of [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 5:12 am
[...] have been following the discussion between Pete and Richard and in the process Pete suggests he would rather be “critiqued for not going far [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 5:37 am
In the specific instances, yes, these systems are corrupt and evil. To label them capitalist is inaccurate. They are a state-sponsored form of capitalism. There is no pure capitalism at work in the world today, except at the local level, hidden from view. What we generally perceived to be capitalism are all modified versions of the old socialist ideal of the state-controlled economy. Arguably, when in the most capitalist country on earth, the US, the government can take over an auto manufacturer, it is clear that capitalism exists only in localize pockets where the cost of government control is too high for little return.
While the Pirate metaphor as you describe seems a fitting way to expose the transgressions of the system, it really is an appeal to anarchy, not simply to transgression. The pirate metaphor can be applied to all systems, regardless, capitalist, socialist, communal, hierarchical, even the family. And logically, the pirate way would be destructive of the pirate way because some pirate within the pirate system would be transgressing its system to demonstrate the transgressions of the pirate system. Obviously, this logical obsurdity is a downward spiral to certain annihilation of every system.
Capitalism is a convenient whipping boy because there are plenty of examples of greedy capitalists making a fortune off the poverty of others. However, if you look for closely at what takes place in what we think of as the capitalism system, you’ll see that it is the state that is the real beneficiary of this system. And I’d say that the pirate system is much more accurate picture of entrepreneurial capitalism. It is a clearly a representation of capitalism as “creative destruction” as Schumpeter posed. So, I am suggesting that if the pirate metaphor is sound, then the answer is not more state intervention in the economies of the world, but less. This is the dialectical view that makes sense from the realities of our time.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
[...] was while pondering this that I remembered a blog dialog between Richard and Peter (start, next, next and next), which in turned raised the questions: What comes first the chicken or the egg? [...]
September 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
[...] Sudworth Prompting the Dialogue Pete’s First Response Sudworth’s Response Pete’s Second [...]
September 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I was pointed your way by Richard Sudworth’s blog, and I reached him via Jason Clark on Facebook, so I fear I represent the institutional, the orthodox and the conservative (although church friends would laugh at that) … I tend to like change for change’s sake, I think that we are in a time where the established patterns of church life need some overthrowing but I find the piracy analogy unhelpful. Yes, I see how it might draw our attention to transgressive regimes of trade, but I do not think that is the pirates intention and, whilst too often linked to individuals, intentionality is an important issue. My enemy’s enemy might not be a healthy friend for me, if ‘he’ sees me in the same light.
If our goal is to be faithful to Jesus, and his body, then to use the self seeking, greedy, violent (and piracy is and was systemically violent) seems odd at the very least, and doesn’t help make the points I hear you making.
I’ve always loved the Northumbria Community’s “Heretical Imperitive”, the idea that it is a part of our discipleship to ask the uncomfortable question, to challenge the status quo, to rattle the cages of the comfortable… but I sense in the Heretical Imperitive a from-withiness, whilst your challenge seems to be stone throwing from without. The wounds of a faithful friend will lead to healing and new life, the wounds from stones thrown at my glass house may well damage more than institutions.
The challenge I hear you making is good and helpful, it’s the language tools you’re using that seem unhelpful.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
[...] taken as the result of music “pirating.” If you have the time, you might look into what Pete Rollins has said on the subject and how Richard has responded (the posts can get somewhat convoluted). What [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
If I were to summarize some of what you are saying, Pete, it would be using a quote from the historian Ranke: “Each age is immediate to God.”
September 30th, 2009 at 2:06 am
I think this article made some interesting points, I read a textbook directly related to this topic, its called Global Issues, Local Arguments: Readings for Writing by , I found my used copy for less than the bookstores at http://www.belabooks.com/books/9780321244239.htm
October 4th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
[...] there’s been some kind of dust-up over the Christian notion of piracy. Peter Rollins writes In defense of pirates (and orthodox heretics) and The debate continues while Kester Brewin writes about St Paul and the Last Word on Pirates | [...]
October 8th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
[...] Pete Rollins’ counter to Richard [...]
October 10th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
[...] reflection The Betrayal of Betrayal. The discussion really got rolling after Kester Brewin and Peter Rollins teased out the nuances of a provocative but evocative piracy metaphor, where they explored, in [...]
October 21st, 2009 at 12:28 am
Great post Pete