Murdoch University
DVC Education & Equity Portfolio
This paper examines the highly circumscribed faith of U.S President George W. Bush, particularly with regards to his response to the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror. When George W. Bush ordered General Franks to attack Iraq, he... more
This paper examines the highly circumscribed faith of U.S President George W. Bush, particularly with regards to his response to the events of 9/11 and the War on Terror. When George W. Bush ordered General Franks to attack Iraq, he asked God to bless him and the troops. When George W. Bush speaks on the radio—for instance, on the day before Easter on the Christian calendar—he talks about relying on the “creator who made us”, and about placing “our sorrows and cares before him”. When the space shuttle Columbia exploded, he drew on words from the book of Isaiah, saying, “the same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today”. The questions to ask when perusing such statements as these are, which God is Bush referring to here? Secondly, is each of these references to God actually referring in fact to the same deity?
I am concerned to critically examine the religious rhetoric of George W. Bush using the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer to unpack some of the ethical problems inherent in such a framing of faith, before turning to the work of North American theologian and philosopher John D. Caputo to open up some of more traditional conceptions of God. I argue that post-structuralist theories offer useful ways of addressing some of the enormous confusions concerning God, and faith in or loyalty to certain discourses of God-talk. I take this trajectory to suggest the possibility of a rupture in the sovereignty of God, and by extension, systems that are dependent upon such a metaphysical configuration for legitimation.
I am concerned to critically examine the religious rhetoric of George W. Bush using the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer to unpack some of the ethical problems inherent in such a framing of faith, before turning to the work of North American theologian and philosopher John D. Caputo to open up some of more traditional conceptions of God. I argue that post-structuralist theories offer useful ways of addressing some of the enormous confusions concerning God, and faith in or loyalty to certain discourses of God-talk. I take this trajectory to suggest the possibility of a rupture in the sovereignty of God, and by extension, systems that are dependent upon such a metaphysical configuration for legitimation.
- by Marnie Nolton
- •
Since its inception in 1966, Star Trek has had a big impact on viewers. As its characters travel through space encountering different planets and people, the series provides a forum for many ethical and philosophical questions. The... more
Since its inception in 1966, Star Trek has had a big impact on viewers. As its characters travel through space encountering different planets and people, the series provides a forum for many ethical and philosophical questions. The episodes are often morality plays—the situations and dilemmas of the crew serving as allegories for much larger social issues like race, gender, the nature of war, and religion. The result is a Federation message of progress, integrity, and optimism that has sustained audiences throughout the years. Deep Space Nine (DS9) takes these Federation ideals a step further and deliberately places them and its characters in situations which question some of these grand notions, often in ways that are not easily reconciled. DS9’s questioning and further exploration of boundaries occurs specifically via its use of religious tropes, mental illness, and through the concept of difference. DS9 is particularly well suited to such an analysis given the strategic significance of Bajor to the wormhole and the Federation’s insistence that Bajor become a member of the Federation ‘by any means necessary’. In such a situation, the Prime Directive is temporarily set aside or suspended in the quadrant, as the democratic ideals of the Federation move from pharmakon in the curative sense of host to pharmakon in a poisonous sense of parasite.
In ‘Duet’ Major Kira interrogates Aamin Marritza, a Cardassian accused of war crimes against the Bajoran people during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. It is revealed that at the Gallitepp labour camp thousands of Bajorns died, and that Marritza is somehow—although it is not yet clear to what extent—associated with this camp. Major Kira feels compelled to punish anyone who served at the prison camp and believes that a trial would give Bajor satisfaction. Marritza, in turn, accuses Kira of not wanting the truth: “It’s not the truth you’re interested in”, he tells her, “all you want is vengeance”. To further compound this situation, Commander Sisko and Gul Dukat also enter into dialogue on the prisoner, with the implication that relations between their two governments will suffer depending on the outcome of such a trial. We clearly see that all parties involved are at an impasse, where the possibility of justice—and questions surrounding notions of justice and recompense—become highly problematic. The question remains: are all Cardassians monsters? Are all Bajorans righteous freedom fighters?
This paper is concerned to outline the antagonistic construal of the discourses informing the Bajoran-Cardassian interaction, specifically with regards to the way these discourses have been used to both legitimate certain stakes and identities, while also marginalising and displacing others. For instance, the Bajoran-Cardassian relationship in ‘Duet’ is a particularly clear example of the antagonistic relationship that exists between the two species since the occupation. As I demonstrate, this relationship is particularly entrenched as antagonistic by the constitution of particular identities—the Cardassian overlord or the Bajoran victim—which operate to displace the other as either Cardassian monster or Bajoran freedom fighter.
Overall, the paper is split into three parts. In the first of these I contend that the parties in ‘Duet’ have reached an impasse—unable to move beyond certain grounded assumptions about themselves and others as a result of the occupation. From this point I turn to engage with DS9 in terms of the theory of agonistics as outlined by Jean-François Lyotard, a theory that is suspicious of, and destabilises closed traditions and narratives, whether they be Federation Directives, Cardassian military stratagem or Bajoran faith claims. Further to this, I will draw on Derrida’s notion of differance as a useful tool in recognising the temporality of our claims to truth when applied to the various parties involved in and around the struggle for the rebuilding of Bajor and the Federation’s claim to wormhole access and technology. This discussion is concluded by an exploration of some of the implications of such exclusionary functioning in terms of its impact on Bajor, Cardassia and the Federation.
Finally, although the Bajoran-Cardassian-Federation matrix may often seem to be incommensurable, I would argue that DS9 as a series constantly subverts these (and other) relationships in ways that are best described as transgressive. Furthermore, I would argue that this ongoing transgressive subversion reminds us that agonistic relations and closed boundaries and identities are in fact always open to subversion and a consequent shift beyond impasse. DS9, I suggest, is an exercise in postmodern hope.
In ‘Duet’ Major Kira interrogates Aamin Marritza, a Cardassian accused of war crimes against the Bajoran people during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. It is revealed that at the Gallitepp labour camp thousands of Bajorns died, and that Marritza is somehow—although it is not yet clear to what extent—associated with this camp. Major Kira feels compelled to punish anyone who served at the prison camp and believes that a trial would give Bajor satisfaction. Marritza, in turn, accuses Kira of not wanting the truth: “It’s not the truth you’re interested in”, he tells her, “all you want is vengeance”. To further compound this situation, Commander Sisko and Gul Dukat also enter into dialogue on the prisoner, with the implication that relations between their two governments will suffer depending on the outcome of such a trial. We clearly see that all parties involved are at an impasse, where the possibility of justice—and questions surrounding notions of justice and recompense—become highly problematic. The question remains: are all Cardassians monsters? Are all Bajorans righteous freedom fighters?
This paper is concerned to outline the antagonistic construal of the discourses informing the Bajoran-Cardassian interaction, specifically with regards to the way these discourses have been used to both legitimate certain stakes and identities, while also marginalising and displacing others. For instance, the Bajoran-Cardassian relationship in ‘Duet’ is a particularly clear example of the antagonistic relationship that exists between the two species since the occupation. As I demonstrate, this relationship is particularly entrenched as antagonistic by the constitution of particular identities—the Cardassian overlord or the Bajoran victim—which operate to displace the other as either Cardassian monster or Bajoran freedom fighter.
Overall, the paper is split into three parts. In the first of these I contend that the parties in ‘Duet’ have reached an impasse—unable to move beyond certain grounded assumptions about themselves and others as a result of the occupation. From this point I turn to engage with DS9 in terms of the theory of agonistics as outlined by Jean-François Lyotard, a theory that is suspicious of, and destabilises closed traditions and narratives, whether they be Federation Directives, Cardassian military stratagem or Bajoran faith claims. Further to this, I will draw on Derrida’s notion of differance as a useful tool in recognising the temporality of our claims to truth when applied to the various parties involved in and around the struggle for the rebuilding of Bajor and the Federation’s claim to wormhole access and technology. This discussion is concluded by an exploration of some of the implications of such exclusionary functioning in terms of its impact on Bajor, Cardassia and the Federation.
Finally, although the Bajoran-Cardassian-Federation matrix may often seem to be incommensurable, I would argue that DS9 as a series constantly subverts these (and other) relationships in ways that are best described as transgressive. Furthermore, I would argue that this ongoing transgressive subversion reminds us that agonistic relations and closed boundaries and identities are in fact always open to subversion and a consequent shift beyond impasse. DS9, I suggest, is an exercise in postmodern hope.
Il n’y a pas de hors-text (Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology: 158). Rabbinic bibles are printed copies of the Old Testament produced from the sixteenth century onward in which the Hebrew text, Targum, Masora, and Rabbinic commentaries are... more
Il n’y a pas de hors-text (Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology: 158).
Rabbinic bibles are printed copies of the Old Testament produced from the sixteenth century onward in which the Hebrew text, Targum, Masora, and Rabbinic commentaries are brought together. The illustration shows the arrangement: In the centre is the Hebrew text (with Masora) and the Targum, and around it are the commentaries (here of Ibn Ezra and Rashi). Commentaries seek to supplement or add something to the original text. In this paper, then, I am concerned to trace the undecideability of biblical texts by taking commentary as a starting point. The irony in offering a commentary on biblical commentary is not lost on me.
The self-consciousness of post-modernism over the 1970s and 1980s erupted in the development of a whole new metagenre. Here, the prefix meta is added as a kind of question mark to the most powerful and influential institutions. The intersection of the meta is an indication of a heightened self-consciousness and a refusal to accept any institution as a given, as natural. Biblical commentary is a candidate for and of the meta because it exerts a strong and often unquestioned, pervasive force. Commentary app-ears to be a real or accurate exposition of the text, and it is possible not only for texts but for commentaries (as supplementary texts) to be canonised. Orthodox and assimilated commentaries set the parameters within which accept-able readings must operate, and texts are habitually read through the filter of their assumptions.
Whilst the first critique of this situation came from the work of Marxist Fredric Jameson, I’m concerned here to utilise Jacques Derrida’s work on doubling commentary, to open up the perceived closedness of biblical texts surrounded by their commentaries. This paper will discuss the possible implications for biblical studies of Derrida’s claim that there can be ‘no outside text’ (translated by various Derrida commentators as ‘there is nothing outside the text’ or ‘there is nothing outside text’ or ‘there is nothing outside textuality’).
Rabbinic bibles are printed copies of the Old Testament produced from the sixteenth century onward in which the Hebrew text, Targum, Masora, and Rabbinic commentaries are brought together. The illustration shows the arrangement: In the centre is the Hebrew text (with Masora) and the Targum, and around it are the commentaries (here of Ibn Ezra and Rashi). Commentaries seek to supplement or add something to the original text. In this paper, then, I am concerned to trace the undecideability of biblical texts by taking commentary as a starting point. The irony in offering a commentary on biblical commentary is not lost on me.
The self-consciousness of post-modernism over the 1970s and 1980s erupted in the development of a whole new metagenre. Here, the prefix meta is added as a kind of question mark to the most powerful and influential institutions. The intersection of the meta is an indication of a heightened self-consciousness and a refusal to accept any institution as a given, as natural. Biblical commentary is a candidate for and of the meta because it exerts a strong and often unquestioned, pervasive force. Commentary app-ears to be a real or accurate exposition of the text, and it is possible not only for texts but for commentaries (as supplementary texts) to be canonised. Orthodox and assimilated commentaries set the parameters within which accept-able readings must operate, and texts are habitually read through the filter of their assumptions.
Whilst the first critique of this situation came from the work of Marxist Fredric Jameson, I’m concerned here to utilise Jacques Derrida’s work on doubling commentary, to open up the perceived closedness of biblical texts surrounded by their commentaries. This paper will discuss the possible implications for biblical studies of Derrida’s claim that there can be ‘no outside text’ (translated by various Derrida commentators as ‘there is nothing outside the text’ or ‘there is nothing outside text’ or ‘there is nothing outside textuality’).
Jacques Derrida has noted of God that “God contradicts himself already ... only that which is written gives … [God] … existence by naming … [God]. It is simultaneously true that things come into existence and lose existence by being... more
Jacques Derrida has noted of God that “God contradicts himself already ... only that which is written gives … [God] … existence by naming … [God]. It is simultaneously true that things come into existence and lose existence by being named” (Derrida 1978a: 70). Naming God can lose God. This is a significant insight for examinations of monotheism, drawing attention to its irrecusable contradictions, paradoxes and constitutive aporias. The significance of this insight is heightened when a second recognition is made regarding monotheism’s own discursive practices of exclusion and displacement, practices that are conventionally based on and legitimated by a narrative of presence. Together these points act to frame this dissertation insofar as they open the question as to their possible reconciliation. In this dissertation, then, I argue that Derrida’s deconstructive notion of supplementarity can support a genealogical analysis of this problematic informing traditional conceptions of God ...