The N-Word & Other Offences

In this desperate world of spin, it does not matter what you say or do, it only matters how it is received by others. In a recent piece of journalism by the BBC (The British Broadcasting Corporation) the N-word was used. The story concerned a racially aggravated attack in Bristol. The BBC initially stated that it in effect had hemmed and hawed over the difficult decision to include the word, but had decided on balance that given their desire to accurately report the facts of the incident, as well as the BBC having the family and victim’s support, the inclusion of the word was appropriate. The story having been aired received a throng of complaints.

A few days later, given the backlash the BBC received, they decided to revise their response. They apologised for the use of the word, and stated that in the future a different approach would be taken.

We could debate whether the use of that word in this particular report was or was not appropriate. I am not inclined for many reasons to offer my own verdict: I’m not particularly invested in the issue, I’m not black, I do not know all the particulars of the specific incident in question, I am not well versed on the complex set of issues surrounding the whole where, when, why, and by who the use of the N-word is or is not tolerated. It is the BBC’s response itself I find illuminating.

A considered decision on the BBC’s part was made. Their decision ultimately received a negative backlash. That backlash prompted them to backtrack on their initial response and issue an apology. To state the obvious, had the backlash been negligible the BBC would not have deemed it necessary to revise their approach. In other words the revision was entirely reactionary. They did not alter their approach due to some well-reasoned set of propositions, their approach was altered simply because people were pissed off.

Though this incident shows up as a particularly stark example, it is of course not exceptional. In today’s media circus which invariably seeps into our everyday conception of things, people do not stand by what is right or reasonable or true, they stand by what plays, what at best the people will collectively deem acceptable, but more often what the authorities (or the media) has deemed for them acceptable. This entirely negates the role of reason, or morality, or empathy; for in such a system what you think you know is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what you think is right or wrong. It is folly to stand against the mob with your principles, all that matters is how what you say or do is interpreted.

What is to be done in this desperate state of affairs? Being as I am one about spiritual matters, I am inclined to think of what the church’s response should be. As a liberally inclined religious person myself I have often thought that the role of the church in the 21st Century was to call people to their higher-selves, to train people to be more empathetic, morally upright, and ultimately reasonable in the face of any given adversity… The trouble is however, that this impulse is challenged when a troublesome situation arises, a situation which compels us to disregard our empathy, morality, or reason, in favour of today’s far more dominant force - the verdict of the collective.

In our connected world, morality is no longer a game played out between yourself and the other in isolation, or yourself and a community in isolation, it is always played out in the context of this (mythical) global community, played out before the invisible eyes of the greater collective. Given this I feel it is no longer enough to merely affirm the role of empathy, morality, and reason, it is also necessary to practice welcoming the individual whose empathy, morality, or reason leads them in a direction which is contrary to your own, your community, and perhaps most importantly of all, contrary to our perception of the will of this imperceptible collective.

In other words, I am increasingly persuaded that the church should be about the community of the other, and therefore it is necessarily about the coming together of a people who hold views that are not your own, and necessarily in contradiction of one another. Is heaven made up of people that hold all your opinions? Is heaven made up of only people with 21st Century sensibilities concerning race, gender, sexuality, etc…

Call people to act by their own empathetic, moralistic, and reasoned sense of things… But when that sense leads them down a path you find anathema, do you silence them? Will you stamp your feet in indignation? Will you judge, or perceive?