Why is it so funny, though? Good parody takes something real, adds an implausible twist, and presents it as though serious. This is a case of social criticism (against the scientific illiteracy promoted by some fundamentalist Christians and the debate over whether creationism should be taught to children in science class). I don't think anyone has ever actually taught children that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur - but there are people who teach children that humans and dinosaurs lived together 6,000 years ago, and perhaps more recently. So all you have to do is tug on the worldview a bit, extend it, and presto! Clever images.
If you understand what it means to have a worldview - what it means to say that you have a worldview - then you can analyze things like this more effectively. How do you know the things you think you know (such as it is silly to think that Jesus might have ridden a dinosaur - the doctrinal dimension of your world view)? Why is it wrong to fail to teach genuine science to children (the ethical dimension)? Do those you are criticizing share your analysis? How can you connect to them, allowing you to engage in dialogue with them as an internal critic, rather than preaching at them from the outside? I have a feeling this image, funny as it is, addresses people who already agree with its message (that creationism is foolish and should not be taught to children), and will just insult those who disagree (by which I mean those whose worldviews tell them that evolution is a pernicious lie).
But now, take a look at the next image, below and on the left, which is from an American peace rally.
This is not parody. It is deadly serious, and very powerful. The question is, why? I would argue that this is a case in which social criticism is being done more from the inside.
First, the slogan is obviously a take-off of "What would Jesus do?" - a saying that is so common among American evangelical Christians that there are bumper stickers and lapel pins that say simply "WWJD" and everyone knows what it means. Second, the fellow is dressed as - might actually be - a priest or minister. Third, the protester's sign introduces a kind of cognitive dissonance: Jesus, the "Prince of Peace" who famously blessed the peacemakers and condemned those who live by the sword, versus his followers who make war, all the while claiming to follow in his footsteps.
Jesus said: but I tell you who hear me:
Love your enemies,
do good to those who curse you,
pray for those who mistreat you.
... Do to others
as you would have others do to you.
(Luke 6:27-28; 31)
So... let us bomb only those Jesus would bomb. As internal social criticism, I think this is brilliant.
Think worldviews again: here we have the ethical dimension of a Christian's worldview being appealed to by pointing out contradictions in the behaviour of those who hold to a creed (doctrinal dimension) but don't live up to it. Meanwhile, the social dimension of the same worldview makes the message more powerful because the priest's clothing, which is instantly recognized, brings out the contradiction (the parish priest being the counsellor and, in a sense, peacemaker for the Christian community). It is probable that elements of the ritual dimension are also appealed to. Seeing how this (and more) is at work in this image can help us to understand why this social criticism is so powerful.
A Final Note: The artist responsible for the dinosaur picture says he disagrees that his image is an example of external social criticism. It's possible that he is an internal critic - to know for sure, I'd have to know something about what community within the US he is from. If he grew up in a fundamentalist family, or became a fundamentalist at some point in his life, or something like that, he might be considered an internal critic if he still "feels" that community well enough to identify with it or at least "speak its language" (but the tone of the parody tells me he isn't very sympathetic). The other thing I'd need to know is what his intended audience is - I inferred that it was people who already think that Creationism and Biblical literalism are wrong, but perhaps he also means to convince Creationists (and literalists) themselves. I would say that as parody reinforcing a point of view, this image is likely to be very effective, but it's unlikely to convince any actual Creationists. I could be wrong about that, of course, and saying it doesn't in any way detract from the value of it as a contribution to an important social debate in the United States.
On the other hand, the artist had to know some pretty intimate details about the Creationist viewpoint to even think of parodying it in this way.
Remember the definitions of "internal" and "external" social criticism here: the internal critic points out problems from within the community in question (in this case, I'd say the community of conservative Christians) - something I don't see the 'dino' image doing abut which I do see the 'priest' image doing. The external critic (no less legitimately, but from a different angle) points out the problems from outside the community in question. The former criticism is usually more effective (in the sense of convincing people) than the latter, since it speaks more directly to the worldview of the audience. I think the priest image is internal and the 'dino' image is external, but a closer analysis of the work of each artist could prove me wrong. Nevertheless, I chose these two images because I thought they were both excellent examples of the kind of thing social critics do.
What do you think? Leave a comment!
For other comments, click on the pictures.
4 comments:
Something occurred to me as I looked at the guy with the 'who would Jesus bomb' sign - some social criticism is easily parsed no matter where you come from, and some requires more understanding of the source. In the west, even if you don't have a religious upbringing, much of our culture, its references and its symbols, are Christian based, and we know how to read them -including the whole 'what would Jesus do' stuff. If you come from without, you may not. For example, many muslims here (Islamabad, yes, it's Cas commenting) have no knowledge of Christianity at all. They will see the first social comment, and get the fact that it is silly. However, they may look at the second and muse about who exactly would Jesus bomb - apparently Mr. Bush thinks he'd bomb Iraqis.... There were many religious references used at the start of the war. Similarly, the paper that did the silly cartoon competition in Denmark did it as social comment - most of the cartoons by western standards were not at all objectionable, and some of them made social comments that were anti violence, and relatively pro-muslim, but since the cartoonists didn't know enough about the culture, and how basically offensive it was to represent the Prophet (PBUH), they did not accomplish that goal. I don't know whether this actually contributes anything to your discussion, but it was something that struck me, being at the moment both an insider (cultural upbringing) and an outsider (being immersed in an utterly different culture).
This is exactly on. Internal social critics are more able to connect with the culture of their audience and its presuppositions. Thus, they are more effective. External critics are less able to do this, and so often miss the boat. The "Priest" and his sign would be ineffective if aimed at Pakistanis, to continue the example, for just the reasons you gave - and this isn't his audience, either. And actually, the dinosaur picture might actually be more effective (though still external) social criticism in the Muslim world, where creationism is also debated, just because it aims at a Christian conception, and not at a Muslim one. Although... in a Muslim context, portraying the Prophet Jesus in this way might also be taken to be quite offensive - and this would diminish the effectiveness of the drawing there. Interesting points. Thank you for them.
Actually, although I see the social criticism within the "Jesus on a Dinosaur" picture, I find it looks more like a perfect world. Confused? Well, I find the two most conflicting ways of thinking are the Religious view of the world and the Scientology view of the world, and this piece feels like a 'union' between the two ideologies. The reason this piece struck me so much was that since the idea of those two ideologies coinciding is so farfetched, the photo seemed to portray this idea the best, because you'd obviously never really see Jesus riding a Dinosaur. That's another idea of social criticism I pulled from that muckity muck. The Jesus Bomb thing seemed more like an attention grabber, but did give me a chuckle.
"Scientology"? Do you mean "scientific"? Scientology is a pretty specific thing...
Post a Comment