A reader critiques my portrayal of race and violence

We had a bit of a feisty discussion here recently around the subject of gender roles and relationships on my post Men are in charge because the Bible says so. Not long after, I received a challenging email from Jana (who agreed to let me share our correspondence):

Sorry to leave this on a contact form not a comment. I didn’t want to start a nasty comment fight so I thought this would be best. I saw [the] article a while back and the picture disturbed me. I ignored it, as usual dismissing it, excusing it. I’m just being upity again!

But then I stumbled across it again and I just had to ask. What on earth made you pick a picture of domestic violence taken from rural Africa? Sorry to be a pain but I just can’t fathom why you would have chosen this particular picture and I just had to ask. Sorry!

Jana

Here’s my reply:

Hi Jana,

Thanks for being willing to ask. I chose the picture because it perfectly captures the spirit of male power inherent in patriarchy. When men exert power in the world it is typically through verbal, physical, or political threats, coercion, or violence. I find that highly disturbing, and I needed a disturbing picture to capture the essence of patriarchy.

So, why does it disturb you? Do you think it’s an inappropriate picture for that post?

Thanks,
Jason

Jana’s response made me realize I’d missed the point:

Hi Jason,

Yeah you are right the image definitely captures the image which you talk about in the piece. And I am in total agreement with your points. What disturbed me was why did you pick this one out of an African rural context? How many of your readers can identify with this scene? I found these with a quick search. Seem to convey the same.

http://runninginheels.co.uk/articles/domestic-violence/
http://objectifythis.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/dolce-and-gabbana-rape-ad.jpg
http://www.topnews.in/files/Sexual-violence-women.jpg

Now I am not trying to accuse you of racism or anything like. But by using the image you did, all you did was reinforce the idea that violence against women is something which those barbarians do. Because your readers won’t identify with that African villager at all. Why use a picture of an African man when there are plenty of pictures of men from your own culture doing the same?

I hate racifying things. But sometimes I feel a bit of a duty to say something which I know a lot of us BAME’s are thinking! “not again” “not another shot of a dark skinned man doing something barbaric”. Probably should have just left you alone but felt compelled to say something.

Thanks for listening!
Jana

Frankly, I hadn’t considered any of that.

That’s a fair critique Jana. To be perfectly honest I chose that particular picture 1) because it was dramatic, and 2) because you can’t really make out anyone’s face – and I’m somewhat cautious about showing people’s faces on my blog if I don’t know them, particularly when they’re portrayed negatively. BUT, I never thought about the racial or cultural messaging. I should have – which is not quite the same thing as saying I shouldn’t have used the picture, but it’s very possible that upon reflection I wouldn’t have used it, if for no other reason than to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes about blacks and black Africans. There’s an interesting, complicated, and very important discussion in there somewhere. Either way, I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Regards,
Jason

And, our last email:

Hi Jason,

Yes I never thought that you would have chosen the picture with the express purpose of putting across that message. And I realise that it’s hard to find appropriate images especially when you are trying to meet so many criteria (not sexist, not racist, hides faces, communicates the point etc.). The last thing I would want is to suggest anything else. Race and gender issues are so interwoven and overlapping so it all very complicated. But I think you are right, there is an important (though complicated) discussion in there and it is just waiting to be had.

I heard something is going on over on your side of the Atlantic with regards to race in the church, that things are changing and shifting? In any case the race issue still exists (Obama or no), and we have to have a global discussion for a global church.

Thanks,
Jana

Friday Later I’d like to complicate this topic with some thoughts about race, violence and the Kingdom. But until then, I’d be interested in your thoughts – with the caveat that any comments on this sensitive topic need to be appropriate. Otherwise, they will be edited or deleted.

Technorati Tags: Critique, Kingdom of God, Race, Violence

Flannery O’Connor On The Need For Violent Critique

Occasionally a Christian friend or colleague will express frustration with the highly critical tone I often take here towards the Church. They ask why I can’t be more positive and affirming (for that is what good leaders do, or so they say). To them I offer the words of Flannery O’Connor:

The novelist with Christian concerns will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him, and his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural; and he may well be forced to take ever more violent means to get his vision across to this hostile audience. When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal means of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock-to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.

Unless we are willing to accept our artists as they are, the answer to the question, “Who speaks for America [or the Church?] today?” will have to be: the advertising agencies. They are entirely capable of showing us our unparalleled prosperity and our almost classless society, and no one has ever accused them of not being affirmative. Where the artist is still trusted, he will not be looked to for assurance. Those who believe that art proceeds from a healthy, and not from a diseased, faculty of the mind will take what he shows them as a revelation, not of what we ought to be but of what we are at a given time and under given circumstances; that is, as a limited revelation but revelation nevertheless.

Of course, there is an important function of leadership that offers “what we ought to be” as well, but often the difference between those who are angry with critique and those who offer it is that the former prefer the cheery optimism of advertising while the latter are serving up the prophetic unmasking inherent in art. There can be no vision without critique, no forgiving embrace without just exclusion, no joyous thanksgiving without grievous lament.

I don’t think I’m overstating the case when I say that for many in the Church today “leadership” is essentially conceived as a function of marketing. But in my view that is a betrayal of the leadership gift, which I think is a role more akin to art than advertising.

Technorati Tags: Advertising, Artists, Christianity, Critique, Leaders