By John Hirschauer
Friday, May 22, 2020
The late German theologian Rudolf Bultmann’s most famous
contribution to New Testament criticism was Entmythologisierung, or
“demythologization,” of the gospels.
For Bultmann, “demythologizing” Christianity meant
recasting the miracles of the gospels as allegories and metaphors developed by
the evangelists. Jesus didn’t really multiply the loaves and the fishes,
the Bultmannian critic says — the gospel writers were recounting a “miracle” of
sharing, a crowd of otherwise selfish peasants who shared their food with one
another after the example of Christ. “It is impossible to use electrical light
and the wireless,” Bultmann famously said, “and at the same time to believe in
the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”
Entmythologisierung allowed Bultmann to
triangulate between liberal textual critics, who read the miracles and
exorcisms out of Christianity altogether, and the literalists, who appraised
the gospel writers as faithful scribes of the historical record. Only
credentialed scholars, with their tools of historical criticism, could
reconstruct what the gospel writers really meant. In this way,
Bultmannism assumes a sort of academic clerisy, a body of scholars who parse
the authentic meaning of the gospel text for the hapless masses.
(At least the liberal critics extended to the evangelists
the common courtesy of calling them “liars.”)
Sociologist Kelsy Burke’s profile
of anti-porn Christians in Slate was something like an exercise in Entmythologisierung:
She interviews a number of self-described Christian “porn addicts,” but refuses
to take them at their word, reinterpreting their remarks under a Bultmannian
“hermeneutic of suspicion.” Like a zoologist peering through a cage, Burke
assumes that her subjects are helpless pawns in some grand experiment,
incapable of saying what they really mean without the translational
efforts of their academic conduits.
To Burke, Christian efforts to combat “pornography
addiction” are really covert attempts to uphold “toxic masculinity,” entrench
patriarchal interests, and “reinforce damaging gender stereotypes.” Since the
groups she studied cite “so-called objective evidence” about the differences
between the male and female brains to explain relative disparities
in porn consumption, these “recovery” groups effectively reproduce “many of
the most damaging lessons of pornography itself.”
Thinking that men and women are different is sort of like
commodifying videos of human bondage, if you really think about it.
Burke’s profile begins with a long preamble — they always
begin with a long preamble — before highlighting a series of apparent contradictions
in her conservative Christian subjects. First, she says, “conservative
Protestant men are the most likely group to perceive themselves to be addicted
to porn, even if they watch less of it than their secular counterparts,”
implying that these “conservative Protestant men” are being effectively
brainwashed and that their self-assessed addiction is belied by their actual
behavior. But, as any good sociologist knows, there is a component of judgement
built in to these self-diagnoses: Just as a Puritan might perceive himself
“addicted” to alcohol even if he only drinks once a week, so too might a
“conservative Protestant man” find himself “addicted” to a behavior he
considers to be always and everywhere unacceptable, even if he engages in it
less frequently than his peers. In other words, the fact that some effete
Brooklyn yuppies feel no qualms about regularly consuming and pleasuring
themselves to pornography is of precisely no relevance to “conservative
Protestant men” and the validity of their self-perceptions.
Throughout the piece, Burke interviews a few of the
“conservative Protestant men” who perceive themselves addicted to pornography.
One subject discusses the pain of being “stuck in this sin.” Another speaks of
his “sickness,” and longs to change his behavior. “Nearly all of my interview
respondents made a point to mention the fact that ‘some’ women struggle with
pornography,” Burke said, while acknowledging that men, all told, are more
likely to abuse it. (This,
as it happens, is true.) In using the word “some,” these men implied that a
statistical disparity exists between the two sexes in the frequency of their
porn use, and that, Burke asserts, is used to “normalize men’s pornography
addictions and isolate and pathologize women.” For support, she cites fellow
sociologist Sam Perry, who translates the remarks of Burke’s subjects into
veiled and subversive attempts to buttress the patriarchy. Christian men, Perry
claims, view female porn addicts as “sinning against their gender.”
Whatever that means.
The entire piece assumes that porn addiction itself is
more or less a social construction. Maybe so — Burke insists that even if there
are real social consequences for those who consider themselves to be “addicted”
to pornography, “porn addiction” as such is “not included in any reputable
diagnostics manual.” Few “mainstream scientists . . . liken it to drug and
alcohol addiction” or even to “a behavioral addiction, like gambling.”
While a compelling argument can be made that the very
notion of “addiction” effectively medicalizes a moral failure, one very much
doubts that Burke would be eager to make that argument. The question then
remains: If Burke and the “mainstream scientists” she cites are willing to deem
compulsive gambling a species of clinical addiction, why not compulsive use of
pornography? One suspects that she and the clerisy of “mainstream scientists”
who compile the “reputable diagnostics manuals” are more suspicious of
religious believers than of the hardcore pornography that so exercises them. As
presumptive “mainstream scientist” David J. Ley wrote in Psychology Today,
“many of the moral values we were raised with, about sex, race or gender, are
no longer fully applicable to the modern world. Because of religious opposition
to sexual education, many people struggling with masturbation don’t understand
what is normal, or that their sexual interests are healthy.”
Classifying intemperate porn use as an addiction like
compulsive gambling would concede that there is something “problematic” about
pornography. Instead, the unwashed masses are enjoined to update their “moral
values” to better reflect the priorities of “mainstream scientists” like David
J. Ley and the other shamans of the so-called modern world.
Don’t like it? Start your own “reputable diagnostics
manual.”
No comments:
Post a Comment