Bakhtin and Life of Brian

In an essay entitled "Epic and Novel," M. M. Bakhtin identifies comical writing as a bridge in history between ancient literary genres and the novel. In fact, he identifies laughter as a key element in the growth of Western thought:

As it draws an object to itself and makes it familiar, laughter delivers the object into the fearless hands of investigative experiment -- both scientific and artistic -- and into the hands of free experimental fantasy. Familiarization of the world through laughter and popular speech is an extremely important and indispensable step in making possible free, scientifically knowable and artistically realistic creativity in European civilization.

The old epics, Bakhtin writes, place an irreconcilable distance between a story and its audience. Nothing can bridge the gap between the world of Odysseus and the world in which readers of the Odyssey live. The novel, however, puts a story into the "language" of real people. Novelistic literature adapts to fit the language -- that is, to match the way the audience thinks about its own experiences. The ability to laugh and parody was important to the birth of the novel because it allows an audience to compare literature to real life. If an audience can laugh at a parody of a great myth, it can question the myth itself. The vulgarity of humor brought literature and even other academic disciplines into the real world.

If Bakhtin is correct, parody can be beneficial apart from any satiric norm. Humor need not have a message in order to be useful; humor facilitates freedom of inquiry simply by creating an atmosphere of familiarity. I see merit in this idea, but I also see drawbacks to an indiscriminate application of humor. As Bakhtin himself writes in the next paragraphs, "One ridicules in order to forget. . . . What reigns supreme here is the artistic logic of analysis, dismemberment, turning living things into dead objects." Few people would always view forgetfulness as a good thing. Some things are best not killed, no matter how ancient they are. Surely it is possible to study an idea critically and respectfully. It would be unwise to kill ideas that happen to be true, no matter how liberating it might seem.

In matters of faith and community values, frivolity could lead people to abandon important ideas. After all, a standard may seem strange up close even if it is valuable in the abstract. By definition, the transcendent may not translate well into contemporary "language." The vernacular may be inadequate to express certain ideas.

Even so, the Bible finds familiarity useful in some religious matters. The writer of Ecclesiastes, for example, explores all aspects of existence in order to demonstrate the meaninglessness of life apart from God; his bitter acquaintance with the ways of the world provides fodder for religious discourse. Many times, as well, the prophets use biting humor. This use of humor, however, does not apply equally to God and his enemies. In the presence of the Lord, familiarity vanishes into fear and trembling. Mockery is not recommended.

A different sort of "familiarity" exists between God and his people. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 commands Israel to meditate on God's law at all times. Although sin places a great distance between God and humanity, Christ came to provide reconciliation. The literature of the New Testament is obsessed with history and personal communication, and even its most genre-bound book (Revelation) seems to be a product of the political situation of its own day. Lastly, the incarnation is the ultimate divine concession to human language.

I can see value even in mocking treatments of religion, however, if they accompany honest thought. Just as Job's anguished questions and Ecclesiastes' existential musings are appropriate to a point, so humor too sometimes exposes an important struggle. I think Christians should avoid taking offense too quickly when they perceive that their faith is being questioned. We may need to hear what our neighbors have to say.

The film Life of Brian (1979) comes to mind as an example. For obvious reasons, many Christians find this movie repugnant. I believe it has value, however, because it asks the audience to consider religious questions in a personal, immediate way. It breaks down any "epic distance" between the New Testament and modern audiences. It asks whether the doctrines of Christianity make sense in today's language. The "blessed are the cheesemakers" scene and the Latin graffiti scene are both blatant references to language and the proper transmission of ideas. Meanwhile, the crucifixion scene has an even more important message. This scene parodies those who view the cross as a good thing; its chorus of optimistic crucifixion victims is a bitter comment on the futility of faith in the absence of resurrection. The apostle Paul makes the very same point. Religion without resurrection is an exercise in lofty but empty language. Death is death, unless it's not.

For those who put their faith in Christ, such an idea is not a threat. Our faith is true and living. It is neither limited to contemporary language, nor unapproachable and removed from reality. "Our truth," as the postmoderns might call it, is both transcendent and immanent.

| Posted by Wilson at 21:17 Central | TrackBack
| Report submitted to the Humanities Desk