On The Radical Ambiguity of Satire And Truth
What we can learn from Slovene Martial Industrial Rock
All art is subject to political manipulation except that which speaks the language of the same manipulation. —Laibach
I just finished reading a one volume history of Central Europe. The concluding chapter included a section on the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, with whom I have some passing familiarity if also a certain level of distaste, but then also analyzed the music of the Slovene martial industrial rock band Laibach, who I hadn’t yet heard of but am now listening to with attention.
The quote from Laibach (top of post) I’ve been mulling over daily since I read it. “All art is subject to political manipulation except that which speaks the language of the same manipulation.” One might label this approach to art “radically ambiguous.”
Alternatively, it may be a working definition of “irony.”
What you can learn from a cursory review of Laibach’s biography is the extent to which making such “political” music (which is, according to Laibach, the only way to make art that is not subject to political manipulation) can be perceived as either part of the problem or part of the solution, depending on perspective.
Laibach rarely steps out of “character.” Think of Stephen Colbert back when he hosted The Colbert Report. To perform in such a manner, it is an integral aspect of the performance to remain “in character.” Satire hangs much of its integrity, such as it is, on steadfastly remaining satirical even when someone says “you must be kidding, right?”
But when you perform satire, when you speak ironically, you risk being accused of affiliation with the very thing you (may) be (ironically) performing against. This is certainly true of Laibach, who although having been accused of being fascist (or totalitarian) artists state that they are as much “fascists as Hitler was a painter.”
Such performance is either edgy -or- easily open to misinterpretation. Take your pick.
Either way, a certain percentage of the population will never follow along because they literally don’t get irony or satire, and another certain population will follow along not for the humor or the truth but because the satire (such as it is) confirms their worldview.
—
Sometimes I believe Laibach (and other art or actions like theirs) may in fact be the most effective strategy to combat evil in our world. But I also doubt. Both, at the same time.
With fascism, as just one example, simple bourgeoise “we’ll take the high road” approaches can’t/won’t work. Fascism can roll right over you unless you actively fight it.
Or, some concrete recent examples in my own life/orbit: recently somebody spray painted “Housing First” on a picnic table in the “Upper Ramble,” a new park recently built in our city as part of downtown beautification efforts.
When I saw the graffiti, my immediate and unabashed reaction was: “That’s a word from the Lord.”
Those who subscribe to respectability politics would prefer the graffiti artist just hold a sign at protests, or use chalk, or take some other form of “legal” action. But of course, it’s only through an act like graffiti on the picnic table that the real truth can be highlighted in its starkest form: a new park in the city center funded by regressive sales taxes while the city repeatedly fails in its commitment to build shelter and address homelessness is inherently more ugly than any graffiti.
In fact, such graffiti is beautiful.
I’m thinking also of some of the rhetorical strategies I see present in Scripture. Paul multiple times in his letters takes the foolish route, boasting when he believes he shouldn't boast (2 Corinthians 12) or proposing concepts so radical as to be easily misconstrued (positing, for example, the foolishness of God).
I guess my point is simple: parody, irony, taking on the appearance of the very thing we oppose, may in fact be our only remaining strategy, even if such strategy is full of risk.
Nowhere is this more true in my own life than in the “art” of church. That is to say, what I immediately pondered when I read that statement from Laibach was: All church is subject to political manipulation except that which speaks the language of the same manipulation.
I’m uncertain this is true, but I decided I needed to try it out and see if it works.
Consider: my denomination is called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But we aren’t Evangelicals in the popular Americanization of that term. Not even close. What we are is a progressive Christian mainline denomination rooted in Lutheran theology.
So we ask ourselves quite often: should we get rid of the word “evangelical” from our name? Is it “radically ambiguous”? For Lutherans, evangelical is about “good news,” “freedom in Christ,” etc. It’s not at all about all the trappings of Christian nationalism so rampant in American Evangelicalism.
But how does one disambiguate the word? Is it better to abandon the language or “speak the language of the same manipulation”? And what would that even mean?
Similarly, when we worship together (which is the primary way we “perform” the “art” of church), do we perform the same words while meaning something different when we use them, or do we in earnest simply move on from the language? These types of questions are some of the most common questions right now in progressive Christianity.
Can we still call Jesus “Lord”?
Should we pray the our “Father”?
What about all that blood in the old hymns?
How do we confess the creed?
I’ve found this short sentence from Laibach incredibly inspirational (there’s a word) as I consider what it might mean to be faithful in ways that are not subject to political manipulation. Because the whole issue is so subtle, right?
As just one example, right now churches are divided by the polarization of the “right” and the “Left” while simultaneously almost no churches of which I’m aware have figured out how to not be subject to the political manipulation of late stage capitalism.
Might speaking the language of the same manipulation be at least one faithful way out of such a dilemma? Or is it too “radically ambiguous”?
Has it even been tried?
I think retaining the title evangelical in our name is the Laibach move. It just comes with the risk of misunderstanding I outline in this post.
Satire: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/06/11/trump-indictment-classified-documents-evidence-accountability/70307577007/
with truth?