Monday 25 July 2011

Claudii Liberati (Cripples Delivered )

(Once upon a Time there were two friends, who decided to go the Lesbos in order to see the
beautiful women on the island. The first whose name was Riley was very thin and tall his close
many men were accustomed to admire, since they were beautiful. Moreover, he was a good man
who helped people, and therefore, they missed him, when he was gone; for you as a friend to all,
and he did not prefer persons because they love when; rather he treated everyone equally, on
account of his unique heart.)

Secundus erat ornatus et sapiens cui nomen erat Benus , amicus etiam volentibs. Facies
eius ut mulier autem corpus sius ut agricola et cor sius ut poeta. Mens autem ut Socrate cum
dilexit sapientiam et virtutem et his quæsíverat nocte et die in cordibus aliorum. Ille autem erat
decoris oculis, quae ut mari. Tactae sunt cilia longissima additis ad gratiam oris. Maior erat quam
altero amico, sed se saepe non prudens, quia animae non paruit mentei.
( The second was beautiful and wise, and his name was Ben; he was a friend to the wounded
also. His face was as a woman, and his body was as a farmer, but his heart was as the poet.
Moreover, his mind was like Socrates; for he loved wisdom and virtue, so that he search for it in
the hearts of the others night and day. He had beautiful eyes which were as the ocean. These
were covered by very long eyelashes which added to the grace of his face he was larger than the
other friend, but he was not always prudent, since he obeyed his soul, rather than his reason)
.

Navicula parva, eiusque malum adulari leniter ventus. fuit Tranquillitas maris. Et amici in
sal odore aeris potuere. Omnia mira. In angulo navis erat claudus, quem ille adduxerunt secum,
quia amabat illum. Is quoque faciem semidei et sapientissimum. Cor sius ut Virgilio et verba
illius difficile dictu sed ille mirabile auditu vir doctissimus de studia. Tamen stultus erat de
mundo ac mulieribus quia homines philosophiam et carmine ante omnia amare volebat. Iliad
legit nocte ac die quo inveniebat bellatores nobiles qui causa amoris pereunt. Mox autem
dormiebat in curru dum cogitant de diis. Tum nautae coeperunt loqui
(The ship was small, and the sale fluttered gently in the breeze. They could even smell the salt in
the air. Everything was perfect. In the corner the boat there was a cripple, whom they had
brought with them because they loved him. He had the face of the demigod and was the wisest of
men concerning the liberal arts, but was stupid concerning the affairs of the world because he
wanted to love men and philosophy before all other things. He read the Iliad day and night, in
which he discovered noble warriors, who for the sake of love, parish. Presently, he was sleeping
in his chariot, dreaming about the gods. They began to speak)
 
(
with my giant penis they will want to announce me, and said that I have the best lover in the
world. On the island. I will be able to test my manhood. I will show to you, my friend, the ways of
men, not virgins
 
(Ben replied, “you are foolish: you will not love women by power. Do you not read the poems of
Catullus, in which he conquered Lesbia through many thousands of kisses? Women are to be
held both in sadness and happiness, for the purpose of discovering the deepest desires of their
hearts, so
  erat agrum sine
(you overlook the words of Caesar: I came, I saw, I conquered. A Roman man plows his field
quickly and without pretense. Cato believed this to be true, and I do as well)

“Caesar cinaedus vero non lexisti Catullum. Cato autem crudelissimus et iners. Destruxit terram
ut vicisset avaritiam suis. Vis facere etiam in cubiculo? Non legis Ovidius poeta .Refert modo
amandi mulieres. Nullum est celerrimus via. Sed malis esse animal quam hominem. Conor
capere sapientiam dum temptas mulieres capere
(Caesar was a fairy; indeed, you have not read Catullus. And besides, Cato was cruel and
cowardly. He destroyed land, in order to conquer his own avarice. Do you wish to do the same in
the bedroom? You do not read Ovid. He relates the way of loving a woman: none of these is the
quickest road. Yet you prefer to be an animal rather than the man. I tried to capture wisdom,
while you try to capture women)

Victoriose Raelius dixit, “reliquisti Horatium. Dixit ‘ Carpe diem’. Et ‘ nunc est bibendum’. Item
puto deberee dici Carpe mulierem nunc est tempus concumbere. lesbia ergo tu et nescis modo
mulierem amandi bene”
(Triumphantly, Riley said, “you have forgotten Horace! He said’ seize the day’ and’ now is the
time for drinking’. Likewise, I say seize the woman and now is the time to fuck. You are a lesbian,
and therefore do not know the art of loving women well)
“Quidem sum lesbia sed diligis ut asino. Tu ponis in omne verpam foramen quod potes invenire.
Nescis ars amandi feminam lingua tua ut cupiditate vincerentnur. Deinde victa est facilis. Res
quae exspectata diu est dulciorem quam rem festinus rapuit
(Indeed, I am a lesbian, but you love women in the manner of a donkey. You do not know the
origin of loving women with the tongue, so that she is overcome with desire: then she is easily
conquered. A thing which is long-awaited is sweeter than the thing grabbed quickly)
Respondit Raelius “id quod non illa dixit priore nocte. Ab me ecce es combustus”
(Riley responded, “that’s not what she said last night – oh you just got burned!)
“Tacete”, inquit Connorus, “dormire conor”
.
(“shut up”, said Connor, “I’m trying to sleep.”)
“Surge magister. iuova nos ut possimus soluere argumentum”. His dictis adduxerunt Connorum
trans navem coepit loqui.
(Arise, teacher, so that you may help us resolve this argument. After these things were said,
Connor was brought across the boat and began to speak)

“Carissimi, cur de mulieribus tractabatis? Nonne legistis Senecam? Ira est omnium
perniciosissimum affectionum ita debet esse regi. Mulieres frivolae sunt et leves. Non legistis
Medea? Corinthum ira sua perdidit? Et quid prodest Iason amanti. Nihil. Hercules quidem
occisus est ab femina. Apuleius asinum conversus est ab femina. Item propter amorem Helenae
Parisius gessit bellum. Converso quid bellum gessit propter hominem, qui amat virum? Nihil
Volo ire Athenas ubi multi sapientes pulchrique. Docebunt mihi multa, et diligam eos.
Sapientiam meam laudabunt, et dilectus, quia ego ero sapientior Socrate”.
(Dear friends, why are you arguing about women? Have you not read Seneca? Anger is the most
dangerous of all affections; it should, therefore, be controlled. Women are frivolous and
capricious. Have you not read the Medea: she destroyed Corinth with rage. And what did Jason
benefit by loving her? Nothing. Moreover, even, Hercules was killed by a woman, and Apuleius
was turned into a donkey. Paris has waged war, on account of his love for Helen; conversely,
what more has been waged on account of a man who loves the man? None! I want to go to
Athens, where there are many wise and beautiful men. They will teach me many things, and I will
love them. They will praise my wisdom and I will be their favorite, since I will be wiser than
Socrates)

“Magister, saepe stultus, non nos”, dixerunt, “. Non legis Aristotelem. Oderat molles. Non
credimus quae dicit in Symposio. Nonne legis leges etiam in qua obiicit amorem hominum
hominibus. Nonne Tusculanas disputationes legis, quibus reprehendit gymnasium? Id dicit fuisse
domum venereorum omnium. Non legís Plautum aut vel Martialem. Et irrident qui dilexerunt
viros. Quam sic melior es nobis?”
(“Teacher, often it is you who are stupid, not we”, they said, “you do not read Aristotle: he hated
gay people. We do not believe the things which are said in the symposium. Have you not read
vi
The Laws in which Plato object to the love of men by men. Or what about The Tuscan
Disputations, in which Cicero ridiculed the gymnasium, and said that it was the home for all
kinds of disgusting sexual vice. Have you read neither Plautus nor Martial, even they ridicule
men who love men. How then are you better than us?)

“Quia Homerus et Virgilius viros amaaverunt sic ego sum melior vobis cum sint meliores
omnibus. Non audistis nobiem Achillem cuius amor faciat mirabilia ad proeliandum Numquam
fuit miles melior.”
(Because Homer and Virgil love men. I, therefore, am better than you, since they are better that
all men. Have you two not heard of the noble Achilles, whose love accomplished wonderful
things in danger? Never was there a better warrior)
Benus respondit: “non est frigius locus. Rectus est ille furore, ut Medea et affectibus regeris ut
nobis. Vis ire ut Athenas, quia amicus et magister loco habitanti nunc. nescio fruisse eum
relectum te paucos dies iam te tristem”.
(Benjamin answered, “this is not chill zone. He was ruled by range, like Medea, and you are
ruled by your affections like us you want to go to Athens because your friend and teacher is
there. I know that he has left you for a few days and then already you are sad,”)

“Non desideriio eum. Volo ire enim Athenas causa discendi sed non gratia amicitiæ. Vos nescitis
quoniam sensi vestri pleni sunt abominabilibus, dum considero carmina”
(I don’t miss him. I want to go to Athens for the sake of learning, but not friendship. You would
not understand your senses are full of abominable things, while I contemplate poetry and music.)
“Mentiris Connore” , dixit Raelius.
(“You’re lying, Connor”, Riley said.)

“Tace”, inquit Connorus, voce plena veneno. “Utroque abominabiles. Ite ad crucem. Hecate Per
deprecor te. Ut vos noceatis inferioribus et sitis omnibus et peregrini et sitis et siys infecundi et
non habeatis patriam”.
(“Shut up”, Connor yelled, in a voice full of venom, the two of you are disgusting. Go to the
cross! I curse you by Hecate, so that you will be harmed by all the things below, and that you will
be a stranger to everyone, and you will be infertile, and hold no fatherland.)
“Medea nunc esne? Factus es femina quia tristis”, Benus respondit. “Exultate quoniam sumus in
itinere pulchro”
(“are you now Medea? You have become a woman because you are so sad”, Benjamin aswered.
Rejoice, since we are the beautiful journey)
“Filla landicam”
(suck a clit)

Itaque permanent amici contendere donec ad Lesbium. Erat pulcra insula Erantque multae
mulieres quibus potuit Benus uti arte sexu. Raeilus multas amavit et nomen eius laudaverunt.
Sed mox tristis fuit quia adamavit reginam Lesbii qui credit fuisse pulcherrimamque mulierem in
mundo. Illa vana et superba ut ipsa ignorasset eius amorem. Die noctuque deprecabatur. Is dixit
“regina Iustinaea liceat nubam te”
(and so the friends continued to argue until they reached Lesbos. It was a beautiful island and
there were beautiful women, on which Benjamin could practice his art of lovemaking. Riley also
love many women, and they did praise his name; yet soon he was sad because he fell in love with
the Queen of Lesbos, since he believed that she was the most beautiful woman in the world. Yet
this woman was vane and proud, such that she ignored his love. Night and day. He pleaded,
saying, “my queen, Justine, allow me to marry you.”)

“Nolo te maritari”, dixit. “Nemo qui potest esse vir meus, cum tam pulchra sim. Ego mulier
optima in mundo. rogo te ob causam debeam esse uxorem tuam? Tu promiscuus turpisque.
Pectoris plena libidine. Mens et corpor tuumm infirmi propter stuprum”..
(“I do not wish to marry you.” She said. “No one can be my husband, since I am so beautiful. I
am the best woman in the world. I ask you: for what reason, should you be to be my husband?
You are shameful and promiscuous. Even your mind is weak on account of lust,”)
His dictis cor suis fractum est Genitus erat quo factus esset. Sic laborabat multos annos,
Ut ispe esset melior. Tandem regina diligebat eum, quia sub simulatio fuit magna virtus. Regina
post quinquennium eo nupsit et fuerunt beati.
(After she said these things, his heart was broken. He was horrified by what he had become; and
so he laboured in order to make himself better. Eventually, the Queen grew to love him because
underneath his pretense, was great virtue, and after five years she married him, and they were
prosperous.)

Habebant tamen servam qui non est beata. Laura nomen eius, nan coacta esset relinqisse
viro Athenis. Didymus nomen eius. Ipsa pulchrior dominam suam. Erat autem Venus pulchrior
Verticordia. Et in civitate solebant pingere eius imaginem. Et Vir eius fuit pulcher et quia
videbantur Adonidem. Quae solebat laudare formam cui volit audire
(they had a servant, however, who was not happy; for she had been left by her husband, who had
departed for Athens, as well, his name was Thomas. Laura was more beautiful than her mistress,
more so even then Venus, healer of hearts. Even her husband was beautiful, because he seems
like Adonis; and she was accustomed to praise his body to anyone who wish to listen)

Interea multis amata, Benus volebat ire silvam ad convivendum Connoro. Et
aedificaverunt domum parvam quæ ad mare. Multis annis ambo amici erant. Loquebantur
ix
omnia. Connorus philosophiam carminaque amico suo docebat . Item docebat Benus amicum
suum, ut fuiesset humilior. Didicit super doctrina diligere caritatem et diligere cognovit
amicitiam supra Homero.
(Meanwhile, after he had loved many women, Benjamin wanted to go into the forest, in order to
live with Connor. And they built a small house, which was by the sea. For many years. They were
friends. And Connor, taught Benjamin poetry and philosophy, and Benjamin in turn, taught his
friend so that he had become more humble. He learned to put compassion and love above
learning, and he also learned to put friendship above Homer.)
Coniunx reliquit me ut eat ad Athenas. Incredibilis fuit per conubia nostra, dormivit omni
meretrix. Stuprum sum ego deserta. Accipete meam servam cum velit ire Athenas , ita ut redeat
viro. Converso ego me occidere. Ego ut Didone adolebo. Et erit nisi cineres enim meus ardor
comedit me. Relictiet mea insulam, ne succendam vos etiam.
Tum Laura dies alter venit. Portat literas ad domina, quae leguntur: Scribo vos in maxima ira
(Then one day Laura arrived. She was carrying a letter from her mistress, which read: I am
writing to you with the greatest anger. My husband has left me in order to go to Athens. He was
unfaithful during our marriage, sleeping with every manner of prostitute. I am deserted Except
my servant, since she also wants to go to Athens. Conversely, I will kill myself. I shall burn in the
manner of Dido, and there will be nothing left of me except ashes, for my love consumes me.
Leave my island, lest I should burn you alive. Also!)

Eamus luce Connor dixit quia ego fessus Nos debemus orare salutem ab dis debemus agere
sacrifcium Apollini, ut redimeret periculum. Et fecerunt haec. Cum posuit in Connorus strato,
putabat de regina. Quantus Corpus ab passione Victus quantum fides ab libidine. Passio est
x
maximum donum hominis, sed etiam plurimum venenum. Ergo ego studeam amicitiae
discendoque sed etiam sequam iustitiam.
(“Let’s go at dawn” Connor stated, “because I’m very tired. We ought to pray for safety from the
gods. We should make a sacrifice to Apollo, in order that he may save us in danger. When he was
in bed Connor thought on the Queen: such a body, conquered by passion; such fidelity destroyed
by lust. Passion is man’s greatest gift, but it is also our greatest poison. Therefore, I should be
eager for friendship and learning, but I should also be obedient to justice)
Apollo venit in specie serpentis dum dormit. Deus autem curavit eum ita ut esset claudus
non. Sed non magister dormiente, Deus abisse. Mane clamat ambulare possum. Hoc miraculum a
Apollone. Agamus agee gratias iterum. Benus respondit Ego quidem sum tam felix ambulare
potes ut choream ob gaudium.
(In the guise of the serpent, Apollo came, while Connor was sleeping, and that God healed him,
so that he was no longer cripple. Yet when he awoke the God was gone. In the morning he
shouted. “I can walk! This is a miracle from Apollo. We ought to give thanks again. “Indeed”,
replied Benjamin, I am so happy, that I could dance from joy)

Et fecerunt .cum repente vidissent miles egressus de foresta. Hic pulcherrima persona
quae umquam Connors videntur. corpus suis quasi marmorem. tam formosus et tam duri musculi
ut esset suo virtus Herculi et corpori Narcissifuit nigris oculis capillis quam schoham qui
resplenduerunt sicut in solem. Et est quasi dentes partes luna et subridens fecit mundus melior
esseOptimum habebat arma, et macer est, properat. Tulit gladium et scutum Achillis quos habuit
quasi pennas.
(And they did this, when suddenly a soldier emerged from the forest. He was the most beautiful
figure Connor had ever seen. His body was like marble, and he was so handsome and his muscles
xi
were so strong that he had the body of Narcissus and the masculinity of Hercules. His eyes and
hair were black, and they shone like Onyx in this Sun. His teeth were like pieces of the moon, and
when he smiled, the universe was better. He had the best armor, he was lean, and swift on his
feet. He carried a sword and shield of Achilles as though they were feathers)
“Quis es?”, dixerunt..
(“Who are you”, they said)
“Ego Alexander Macedo. Maximus imperator ullo. Missus sum Marte ad docendum vobis belli
artes et philosophiam: quoniam multaque proelia ego etiam docebar ab Aristotele”.
(“I am Alexander of Macedon the greatest general there ever was. I have been sent by Mars in
order to teach the two of you the arts of war and philosophy since I have won many battles, and I
was also taught by Aristotle.”)
“Dic nobis tuum nuntium”, dixerunt
(“tell us your message” they said.

“vobis eundum est Athenas Est malum triumviratu civitatem regit. Dux stultis pinguissimusqe.
Nescit quae suis subditis facit . Similis quoque Caesari et corrumpitur abvi. Munera accipit a
principibus pinquae urbum. Primus subditorum est stultissimus hominum. Christianus est, putat
homiem potest Christianum esse Dum sequitur rationem. est ambitiosa homo utentis sua
religione ad abscondam tenebris cordis. Est nec sapientem nec misericors, sed veteruus Secunda
est malua eius qui utitur venefica potentia ad vinculorum debiles et philosophos simul comedent
debiles sicut hirudines. Devoraverunt felicem animarum ut nihil relinquatur. Modo sed cepit
philosophi quia non diligunt illam amant pecuniam”
(“you must go to Athens. There is an evil triumvirate ruling. The leader is stupid and very fat. He
does not know what his subordinates do. He is even similar to Caesar, because he is corrupted by
xii
power. He accepts bribes from the leaders of the other cities. The first of the subordinates is the
most foolish of men. He is a Christian, and he thinks one can follow reason, well practicing his
faith. Truly, he is sanctimonious, and uses his religion in order to conceal the darkness of his
heart. He is not otherwise, nor is he gentle, but he is foolish. The second is an evil sorcereress,
who uses her wicked powers, in order to feed on cripples. They feast on them like leeches, and
they devoured the happiness of the souls until there’s nothing left but now she has captured the
philosophers; for they do not love, wisdom,”)
Horrendum est audire, aiunt
(“This is horrible to hear”, they said)
. Laura inquit: “ credo non ego dilectum meum posse capi tali loco
(Laura exclaimed, “I can’t believe my lover could be trapped in such a place)
. Connors Dixitque Iustinaee praeceptor meus, doleo pro te Solebas esse caput Academiae
Platonicae es: iam captus ab stolidis. Desiderium repente disparuit Alexandro.
(Connor added, “Justin, my teacher, I grieve on behalf of you. You used to be the head of the
Platonic Academy and now you are captured by idiots. Then all desire for Alexander
disappeared.)
“Quid faciemus ut salvent?”
(what must be done in order to save them)

. Debes tam pugnare mecum nos ad Athenas vincatis eos. Itaque navigare coeperunt Athenas.
Laura didicit artes magicis, ut sanet et superet maleficus. Benus ac Consorus docti ut this nocte
ac die et bellatores et poetae fierent .
(You must fight with me, so that when we reach Athens, you will conquer them. And so they
began to sail to Athens. Laura learned the magical arts, so she could heal as well as conquer the
xiii
witch. Connor and Benjamin were taught night and day and they became both warriors and
poets)
Sed reliquit Alexander et dedit gladium ac scutum propter audacem cognoverant
philosophos et sapientes fortesEt veniunt in urbe populi Connors inspiravit ad defectionem enim
suis verba elegantes et animosi ex eruditione et amicitia Iustinaee.
(But then Alexander went way, and he gave them the sword and shield on account of their daring.
They knew that they had become wise and courageous philosophers, and when they came to the
city Connor inspired the people in order that they rebelled; for his words were elegant and full of
spirit, on account of his friendship with Justin)
Cum arcem penetrarunt Connorus interrogavit principes autem tradavessent recusarunt
erant enim ebrius cum virtute. Sic artibus didici obtinuerunt eos celeriter. Laura mutavit in
porcum pythonissam Benus celeriter et Connor aliis duobus malefactores vicit. Connorus
Secetrus est capitem principes ubi audivit vocem de turba.
(When they penetrated The Citadel Connor asked the leaders to surrender,, but they refused; for
they were drunk with power. And so, with the skills they have learned they overcame them
quickly. Laura transformed the witch into a pig. Benjamin and Connor swiftly overcame the other
evildoers, and Connor was about to sever the head of the leader when he heard a voice from the
crowd.)
“Desine ac siste furorem. Misere eum. Iacta ferum! Non hoc te docui
(“stop and check your fury. Have mercy on him! Drop your sword! This is not what I have taught
you.”)
. Lente convertit Connorus. Tun vidit magister dilectis suis, quem perdidi per tot annos.
“Iustinaee” dixit, cadens genua, “non sum dignus! Fui iratus libidinosusque. Ignosce mihi.”
xiv
(
me.”
“Necesse est discas te ut doceas; enim mihi aequalius sint. Semper hoc dixit. Non refert quid
debiles qui oderunt dicunt, neve audias, qui non ament Sodomitas. Non se diligunt. Vivas cum
pace mulieres diligentibus. Surge, et vir exsisti His dictis, levavit humo Connorum et amplexus
eum.
Slowly Connor turned, and then you size teacher, whom he had missed for so many years.)Justin”, he said, falling to his knees. “I am not worthy. I have been angry and prurient. Forgive
(“It is necessary that you learn, so that you teach yourself; for you are equal to me. I have always
said this. Nor should you listen to those who hate cripples; neither are you to hear those, who do
not love sodomites. They hate themselves. Live in peace with those who love women. Arise and
become a man.” After he had said these things, he lifted Connor off the ground and hugged him)
Omnes fama igitur beati. Relegant malos et nusquam reversi sunt. Quia misericordiam
debiles sanavit Apollinis. Laura invenit viro. Connorus in Academia amico docuit. Et omnis
populus venit ad audiendum musicam .Elegerunt novos principes Robertus Paschallusque-qui
iustissimi homines. Et omnes aeque diligere. Benus elegantissimum invenit uxorem. Felix
Raeailus negotiator fuit Omnes diligebant Connorum numquam solus.
(And so everyone was happy. They banished the wicked people and they never returned again.
Because Connor had shown clemency Apollo healed all the cripples. Laura found her husband.
Connor taught in the Academy with his friend and all the people came, in order to hear their
music. They elected new leaders, Robert and Pascal, who were very just to all men, and treated
everybody equally. Benjamin sound of most graceful wife, and he was happy. Riley became a
successful businessman.

“Obliviscaris verba Caesaris ‘ veni vidi vici’. Romanum hominem celeriter
cunctatione simulatione. Cato credere esse vera, et credo”


Benus respondit “ es stultus mulierem vi non amabis. Non legis Catulli Carmina, quibus
per milia multa basiorum Lesbiam vincit. amplectendae mulierem usque mane. debes diligere et
ea dolor et beatum. Vis et loqui cum illis ad considerandam desideria cordis eorum ut possideas
animae mulierium non solum corpores eooum

Raelius ait, “ eamus Lesbum quia sunt multae pulchrae mulieres, quas díligam mea
magna pene per noctem et nomen meum omnibus populis volunt nuntiare. Et dicent me esse
optimum in mundo amatorem ut omnes invident. Est insula Lesbos in quo potero temptare
virtutem virtus. amice et ego monstrabo tibi consuetudinem hominum non virgenes”.
.


Olim erant amici dui qui volebant navigare Lesbo ad videndum mulieres speciosas in insula.
Primus cuius nomen erat Raelius, alutus fuit étiam tenuissima. Vestimenta sius mulos admirari
solebant, cum pulchra sit. Praeterea fuit vir bonus et benignus qui adjúvit. Igitur dilexerunt eum
et quaerentes eum cum abesset. Quia erat amicus omnibus, Non aliqui maluit quia amant
feminas. Maluit omnes aeque agere propter cordem speciem,

Sunday 24 July 2011

Queer Christology: musing on same-sex marriage

 
Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
 Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me (John Donne, holy sonnet XIV)
the heteronormative nature of Christian theology, is in one way expected, and in another, puzzling. It is perhaps because based- upon New Testament literature at any rate- Christianity is not meant to be a religion of the world. The author of the Apocalypse of John attacks this view, and the apostle Paul at best excepts it with grudging indifference. Jesus said the kingdom of God is at hand, which in its historical context at least, meant the end of the world and the dawning of a new era was imminent. Obviously this didn't happen and probably never will, at least not in the Christian way of imagining things. Christianity became a religion of the world. Paul and Jesus, who only offered grudging acceptance of marriage, were taken to espouse it as the norm for human affairs. Recent scholarship on the status/history of Mary Magdalene, in an admirable effort to reclaim the feminine for contemporary Christians, has downplayed its fundamental male Homosocial characteristics,; for these patriarchal aspects, rightly so, are troubling to contemporary feminist Christians. While Jesus undoubtedly had female followers, the writers of the canonical Gospels at least portrayed Jesus as creating a very male focused  club . What is more, it is a club which challenges the institutions of the family etc. in first Thessalonians, Paul seems to want the church to be like a hunting club (or some other traditionally male institution). He refers to his fellow Christians as brothers in Greek, although the new revised standard version translates it as brothers and sisters, and there is ongoing debate about his attitude toward women.
We've all heard arguments like these before. But even they failed to get at the real issue: what to do with the nature of God? For Christians, Christ in his human form at least was a Jewish man in his 30s, who was followed around by other men. He was also I might add, a carpenter. One might even call Jesus and the 12 disciples apocalyptic ancient Mediterranean "Village people" In Renaissance art his crucified male body was an object of erotic cathexis for women, and arguably, homoerotic and Homosocial cathexis for men. But this gets into complicated issues of anthropology and social psychology, which I don't even need to prove to make my point.

So let's look at theology. In the medieval period, female mystics like Saint Catherine, Julian of Norwich, or St. Teresa use the bride of Christ metaphor to describe their relationship to God. In part because it drew on the song of songs, this was not a metaphor exclusive to female mystics, or indeed, even mystics. For some Jesus is the husband of the church. Christians actually invented the word membership, since each believer has a small part in that marriage

with Christ. So you might ask why a poet, who was very heterosexual and loved his wife deeply would use such homoerotic imagery to describe his relationship with God. If he did not see himself as the bride of Christ, then why the sexual overtones ? All I merely suggesting is that those who say that there is no precedent for same-sex unions in either the Bible or theology (even if we exclude David & Jonathan and Naomi & Ruth) are ignoring two things: firstly, that Christianity in its early stages was antifamily and pro-Homo sociality; and Secondly, every Christian whether male or female is engaged in a symbolic marriage with Christ. If we take the incarnation as God's total experience of humanity, then God is also both queer and straight at the same time. Union with God, therefore, occurs to all kinds of people, in all kinds of ways and – for Christians – helps them to realize their humanity. Maybe John Donne's experience of God as a male lover helped him explore/remember aspects of his wife that he missed so deeply, by imagining himself as the feminine partner in an erotic relationship with God. In short what I'm saying is it's a bit hypocritical for the church to oppose gay marriage, when frankly it encourages male Homo social bonding, and male believers often engage in a mystical same-sex marriage with Christ. Why can that not be the new paradigm on which they base theological marriage?




Saturday 23 July 2011

Technology and the disabled condition

This is a copy of a lecture I gave at the University of Ontario Institute of technology's faculty of education. Hope you enjoy it:
.I thought it would be beneficial for us to consider technology’s etymology, since it is important for my particular understanding of the word and how I’m going to use it in my talk today. Derived from the Greek texh/-h=j lo/goj-ou (skill/art & word/logic... etc.), for me technology is nothing more then the application of human skill in creation. This is important because often we view technology as some impersonal and unchanging entity, out of which we construct our lives. However much we may be aware that technology is changing every day – and however much we may interact with it – without fail sometimes it feels as though no human could have created the devices we use; for to have an accurate understanding of every piece of technology we use on a daily basis, is beyond most persons. This can often lead to ignorance concerning how much technology we use-and even more so-the way in which we use it. In some ways this is completely necessary.
If you accept my definition of technology, then you are using it every time you brush your teeth, every time you eat, every time you go to bed, and not just every time you check your e-mail, Facebook account, or put together a power point presentation for your students or coworkers. So each person, whether she is a subsistence farmer, who uses solar panels, or a wheelchair user, who requires a ventilator to live, is to varying degrees dependent on technology. Yet what people do not wish to realize, is that there is not as great a difference in dependency level upon technology, between the wheelchair user, and a subsistence farmer. It goes without saying that there would be great death without technology, but let’s stop and think. Suppose those solar panels of the subsistence farmer broke. Even if she had the required technical knowledge to fix them, it is doubtful whether she would have the requisite material, made possible by international trade, which requires airplanes, at her disposal. And even if, say, she decided to become a hunter and forage for food, that would still require technologies and dependence on other human being" We can, therefore understand how technology can change the way that we perceive our environment, on a day-to-day level, but also how it can change our notions, of time space, each other & and what it means to be human. One need only think of the paradigm shifts that occurred after the publication of Einstein's theory of special relativity and the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick..
Tom Darby, a leading philosopher of technology, in his book, The Feast: Meditations on goes so far as to postulate that society can be classified into different historical periods. It is possible to trace social trends, through the different overarching metaphors which organize society. Darby states that the last of these overarching metaphors is technology; technology not only weakens our sense of the divine, it becomes the new divine.2 This is an intriguing hypothesis, though it makes me rather uncomfortable. It is commonplace, however, to assert that bourgeoisie virtues have largely become the chief societal values and that these views are obviously connected to, though not solely caused by technological development. They condemned a middle-class public sphere has a very different idea of what constitutes a good life than , for example, Aristotle did in his ethics 3.
politics and Time
I would also like to add to this thought by considering Julia Kristeva, whose thoughts on abjection are particularly elucidating, when it comes to technology, and I believe even more so when it comes to disability. Her theory of abjection states that patriarchy seeks to remove anything that reminds us of the womb, for though this gives life, it also reminds us of the undifferentiated ego state between mother and child, and subsequently, a conflict develops between the generative power of the womb and the fear of dissolution4. Thus, death, decay, and all the things we’ve come to associate with these processes become abject. Technology can often provide distance from these processes, and because technology is one of the primary means through which we buffer our contact with abjection, its association with liberation is very strong. It is one of the ways some seek to transcend death. To grasp the idea that technology
and the arts are means by which we attempt to transcend death, you may think of things such as Beethoven’s fifth Symphony, the Empire State building, the cloning debates, the metaphysical poets, the painting "the scream ",and so on [explain?–SRT]
I hope my off-topic example has established two basic principles. Every human being is dependent upon technology, whether we like it or not, & we are dependent on other persons for survival. The danger of increased technological development, is that it often creates considerable tension between individualism, as anonymity rises, and economic & social interdependence. (Ponder Facebook).. Without going down the dark road that comes from propounding an idyllic Heideggerian pastoralism,5 I think it’s safe to have some reservations about technology, while acknowledging its pivotal role in the social emancipation of not just minorities, but all.
If you’ll bear with me, I would like to return to a further point of etymology; for I think it is crucial to our discussion. The word logos can also mean narrative, argument, logic and/or discourse. For me, this is an important concept when one tries to think about technologies’ relation to equity: in Euro-American discourse – possibly more than ever before – and technology, language & thought are inextricable. In a post-Foucault world, it has become commonplace that language – if not the constituted element of reality, is at least one of its principal constituents. It has also become common to question the existence of an ontologically permanent self. Through perception, the subject is constantly defining his reality, and perception in turn, defines the subject6. This perceptual process eventually creates paradigms, which though artificial come to be models of and models for reality. Ideology, therefore, becomes our world.. The position that a clear distinction between the perceiver and objects is untenable, is obviously not new, and I apologize for my hackneyed summary here, but perhaps these much discussed concepts serve us better as a model for understanding disability than as tools for producing yet another analysis, of say Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
So I’m going to now spend some time unpacking the most basic thing I use, since an analysis of my wheelchair is crucial to the discussion of all the other exciting technology, about which educators love to hear. To my point about language I would add to and reiterate the fact that space constitutes reality. This seems obvious to most, yet it goes unexamined because the majority of persons share a similar set of spatial parameters which governs how they interact with the world.
Simply put, I don’t. Because of the technology society has devised in order to ameliorate my disability, I sit for the majority of the day. If perception as I’ve said is tied to identity, as it continuously creates a self reinforcing model for reality, then technology creates my world, as it does yours. This may seem like a bad continuation of the matrix trilogy (and for the record I’m not a complete subjective idealist) but it’s not as far-fetched as it seems. The dimensions of my chair make it such that, my gaze is often lower than the average person; there is also a greater amount of space between me and other persons. I do not have the same ability to move within my environment. For instance, I cannot sidestep, squat down, climb, or touch as many objects. In fact, not surprisingly my impaired movement, and lack of tactile stimulation no doubt contributed to my visuospatial learning disability and vice versa exceptionalities in other areas. So technology combined with damage to my motor cortex, created parts of the person you see here. I don’t know the extent to which this is true, but I imagine how I may’ve been different, had society devised different technological responses to my disability, or none at all. I’m put in mind of some futuristic self-supporting segued device. I’ve said this without malice or judgment, but almost everyone in the audience, including myself, would have a different perception of me if I were standing- what is more- if I were sitting in a manual wheelchair instead of a power one I would perceive you all differently, as well. This is not only because of the power of space and place, but also because of the "universe shaping force" of signification7.
By now we are all familiar with the idea that certain signs, objects or words, connote a constellation of ideas, which often participate with – though sometimes they can be in opposition to – the larger hegemonic narrative. Individual persons in this taxonomic process are grouped together under associated symbols. Because persons with physical disabilities are understandably linked with the technological developments designed to ameliorate their lives, our symbol is naturally the blue wheelchair. When people want to signify "disabled friendly space" and all that that entails the wheelchair sign validates that particular object or area, by associating it with a class of people. But the particular use of the wheelchair, while I’m unable to devise a better symbol, provides insight into an interesting fact. I would venture to say that no other minority groups is as associated with technology as persons with disabilities. Usually, a group chooses its own particular symbol that is supposed to represent abstract ideals within that community, take for example The Rainbow Flag, a sign which represents the diversity and freedom which the GLBTQ community espouses. Yet persons with disabilities are one of the few –dare I say only? – Minority group(s) associated with a technological symbol. Let’s examine how absurd this practical process really is. I have not yet seen little red men doing jumping jacks to designate every non-accessible area. I suppose if that were the case, we’d get sick of seeing these amusingly chipper figures everywhere, the assumption being, of course, that the world is accessible save for those unfortunate few confined to blue areas designed to facilitate their blue devices. This is partly because the main symbol of accessibility are our stairs, which kind of speak for themselves. Most of us don’t like to admit that except for the advances made in global design architecture and civil planning society’s response to disability is appallingly halfhearted, and I think this is partly to do with misconceptions surrounding technology and equity.
Indeed, our very identity is often discursively fused with it. It seems obvious why this may happen, and I’m not positing a solution, but I think such assumptions warrant more scrutiny than they receive, before one can address adaptive technology in the classroom. Often people viewed the wheelchair as a kind of inseparable appendage. This is expressed quite insidiously as a comparison between it and my legs. The wheelchair is not my legs. I have legs; they simply do not have average function. Still worse, the wheelchair can be something I am "in" as opposed to something I use. The word "in" is a watered down synonym for words such as "bound" or "confined" and carries with it the same ideology predicated on a medical/moral model of disability.
Admittedly, I would be in a bad way, without an electric wheelchair. Yet let’s examine how erroneous & perfidious this phrase is, by way of analogy, modern society would collapse without some form of propulsion which far exceeds the speed capable of being achieved by humans. What is more someone who, for example, operates a truck as an occupation, probably spends more hours in their vehicle – on certain days –than I do in my chair. Yet when referring to this person outside the context of her occupation it would be absurd to say the woman "in" the truck. I have no problem when it’s purely a visual descriptor, but all throughout high school I was known as the student in the wheelchair. Technology becomes a vehicle of confinement, rather then emancipation. One more point: no one would consider it a disability to not be able to run at 129 kph. Technology, therefore, sometimes while seeming to have an ameliorating quality actually abrogates the freedom of persons with disabilities. This is so because of social discourses, that designate certain technologies, not in the category of things to be used, but as objects, which can – perhaps even should -- define one’s being.
And now we come to the crux of my argument, and why I think the Hegelian teleology which still creeps the strongholds of Euro-American liberalism (i.e. the Ontario curriculum) is at once, fallacious, limiting, and frankly downright dangerous. The reason technology is inseparable from persons who have disabilities is the assumption that technology is the primary means toward our participation as full citizens. As society progresses, therefore and technology develops, "our condition" will continually improve until we reach a point where technology will make disability irrelevant.8 This is why I mentioned the theory of abjection’s relation to technology. If a person is operating under a medical or moral model of disability, then it will be inevitably associated with the abject. Imperfection of any kind – under this model – recalls the frailty of our condition. Under this supposition, which is more frequent than we would care to acknowledge, when persons confront disabilities, they are – on some level – confronting death. And, of course enter technology
I hope that most of you realize that this is really stupid, but this view is highly prevalent and insidious,. An actual argument I had with the team leader of the supported living unit, in which I reside, started when he made the moronic comment "you know because you have all this technology and accessibility it’s like you’re not even disabled." Let’s suppose for a moment disability is solely dependent on physical function – a dubious assertion at best – no conceivable device could ever replace walking; no implant can yet replace hearing; no seeing-eye dog can replace sight. "Disability" may engender exceptional abilities, not possessed by the majority, but it is foolish to think that technology alone can provide equity or indeed, absolute equity in every circumstance is ever achievable between two persons, whether they have a disability or not, whether they use technology or not. As well, this assumes that "a condition" is in constant need of amelioration.
Too often, persons look at others and think that they are not pleased with their circumstances, without actually asking them. This can also work in reverse; someone could assume that because of technology or accommodation, a person is happy in their circumstance when they may not be. This also assumes that all adversity is necessarily bad. I tend to take Nietzsche’s position that "suffering" provides meaning and build strength of character9. Ask your students/staff members how technology can best help them. They just may be getting along fine the way things are; without open communication you won’t really know. I can’t tell you how many times I was forced to use a piece of software or device that did not help me help me.
Yet other people had other ideas. While we are on the subject of Nietzsche, I find there arises a very dangerous stereotype of the Uber gimp, who uses technology, like some sort of elevated sideboard, in order to overcome his disability. When I first got speech recognition software, this led some to the conclusion that my accommodations should be reduced, because they overestimated the ameliorating affects (spelled by Dragon with an ‘a’ by the way) of technology.
The greatest barrier and liberating force when it comes to education in your classroom is not how furniture is arranged, or the lack of access to services, the barriers start with you; but they can also began to collapse with you. As my friend and fellow activist, Edward Ndopu says, there is a difference between legal provision for disability in education, i.e. persons with disabilities have the right to the same education as all other students and substantive recognition, which takes active steps to make these general precepts an actual reality. What we need is the "institutionalization of inclusion", not simply the modification of existing structures. 10 If the system doesn’t work ,and modifying it is no longer practical ,then change the system! It may help to think of social discourses as a form of technology: we use them to construct and understand our world ,and sometimes bureaucracy &discourses may even be helpful. The problem arises when we don’t realize why a discourse was created in the first place. Since these metaphorical tools become so entrenched, they eventually create us, even though it is we who create them..

My somewhat idealistic views find best expression in the work of Louis A., whose theory is difficult to summarize, which is why I’m indebted to another colleague, Justin Campbell, for his conversation, and elegant synopsis: One explanation for the ongoing power differentials within society can be found in the ideas of Louis Althusser, who saw the state as a product, rather than a direct determinant, of a society’s dominant power relations. While it is true that the state unquestionably wields great power, its formal institutions, including for instance the police, the military, the courts – what Althusser collectively labelled the "Repressive State Apparatus" (RSA) – do not determine for themselves in what way they will function coercively. The real source of power, then, lies in a society’s common ideas about itself. These are organized by the informal non-state institutions, such as schools, churches, businesses, families, etc., which together constitute the various "Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISA). It is by means of the ISA that popular consent for the status quo is secured on behalf of the powerful by advancing specific ways in which a society’s members implicitly and, therefore, uncritically, "construct" not simply their own understandings of their place within it, not merely their relationships to one another, but above all, and most importantly, their own constructions of themselves. The "class struggle" is thus firmly located within ideology. It is a battle, necessarily, because the single common element among all ideologies, regardless of the infinite possibilities for differences in content, is that they dominate and, through that dominance, ensure their own reproduction. While Althusser’s overt Marxism may seem somewhat dated by present standards, the general framework of his analysis nevertheless holds: that "common sense" is perhaps the most powerful force in politics, that it shapes the way we see ourselves, that it delineates our social interactions, and that the relationships of power that are established by those interactions are inherently reproductive.11" Why I have spent so much time talking to teachers is partly an accident, but it’s also because I believe that educators are one of the primary agents of social change. It is with you that education starts, and sadly, it is with you that learning can end. The Ontario curriculum poses interesting challenges for educators. These challenges are mainly born of the tension between individual educational goals, and instructional ideals predicated upon loads of philosophical principles. I’m sorry to say that, in my experience, educators often focus on a specific criterion, that I had to meet, rather than the overarching goals of the education system. In his doctoral dissertation one of my current professors, Geoffrey Kellow, suggests that one of the ways of holding onto "a Western educational tradition", and the face of multiculturalism and increased technological development, is to focus on its principal aim and that means by which it achieves this goal, as opposed to its specific content12. This aim is of course to gradually turn the students reason toward knowledge, it has been postulated at least since Plato’s Republic13, especially in the allegory of the cave.. Yet this is slightly more complicated, since the tenants of liberal democracy suggests that it is the job of the state to create an environment in which the individual is free to pursue her desires14. It is not the task of the state, in opposition to classical models of government, to inculcate virtue into its citizens. Classical thought saw politics As "the art whose business is to take care of men's souls.15 Nevertheless, liberalism espouses the vndividual person as the best judge of morality.Yet the question arises: how can society function without a polity educated in civic virtue? One answer is obviously through education, and teachers are, in a manner of speaking, the custodians of public virtue; for you shaped the minds of the future. Consequently , I’m intrigued by my current project on Thomas Jefferson’s conception of education; for he believed the primary purpose of education was to create a citizenry that was able to assess its government.. The goal of the curriculum, therefore, is & should be to create successful politically aware citizens, who love learning. Yet it is challenging to deal with the competing needs of students
In any case, the education system brings to the fore an ongoing debate in modern Canadian life, which Charles Taylor offers an excellent commentary on in his book, Multiculturalism and the "Politics of Recognition" He Argues for Special Recognition, rather than simply formal acknowledgment, saying the best model of liberal society is one which is "grounded very much on judgements about what makes a good life – judgements in which the integrity of cultures has an important place ". Yet, this necessitates an ongoing negotiation between: - liberalism (neutral) vs communitarianism (incl. common idea of "good life") - "procedural" commitment vs "substantial" commitment - individual rights vs collective goals - complete equality vs recognition of difference (special rights and (equal rights for everyone) restrictions for "special" citizens)16
By now you may be asking, what does my long rant have to do with technology in the classroom, or why I haven’t mentioned any specific devices/programs I use, other than my wheelchair. I did this for two reasons: firstly, I thought it would be better to address any specific questions you may have after or during my talk; secondly, there’s not much to say other than I use a speech recognition program, and a screen reading program. Dragon NaturallySpeaking is an excellent program, and it keeps improving. Nevertheless, it will always make mistakes. In fact, that very sentence I just wrote, required several corrections. It took me hours to write this, not including editing. Without the substantive recognition I have argued for, technology simply becomes another barrier, rather than the tool through which one achieves a measure of liberation. I also use a recording device, and I have difficulty reading overheads, so I prefer PowerPoint presentation. All these things may seem small, but they all require a more open and engaging classroom. This classroom must not only be changed physically, but every day as an educator you should strive to remove those psychological barriers, which at times are far more impenetrable.
As helpful as power points can be, there is still that one teacher, who believes that her love of overheads, or simple laziness outweighs the joy I experience when I am able to access knowledge. If a person gets as much joy from overheads as I do from Jon Donne, there is something seriously wrong with them. Routinely with technology, the caveat is raised "how will this help us meet the expectations as outlined in the Ontario curriculum. This comment suggests that Dalton McGuinty’s approval is the sine qua non for the learning of our youth, when he is much closer to a Thrasymachus than a philosopher king. In any case I surpassed their curriculum time and time again, and I still heard that refrain. While we’re on the subject of peoples ridiculous perceptions, based on the curriculum & accommodation I was French exempt, and I now have three years of Latin, and I am in ancient Greek. — sic curriculum supreavi. A practical example: writing bibliographies with Dragon NaturallySpeaking is difficult and exhausting. Because I have problems with breath support, typing every punctuation mark and formatting every entry is labourious. Thankfully there are several programs which will do this, but I still had teachers marking me down for ridiculous errors in my work. They did this even though they were clearly not part of my original thought, and did not reflect the caliber of my writing. Their rationale was that in university professors would expect precision. I have never been marked down for a bibliography by a professor, since I have never submitted a paper for publication, they cared more about my ideas than whether I forgot a period at the end of my citation; and three most of them use nota bene anyway, a program combining word processing and automatic citation , making this whole process – which I cried over in school --irrelevant. I can’t imagine the challenges educators face daily .but you must not become obsessed with bureaucratic perfection, lest you should forget education’s original intention. All these things dampened my desire to know. Though if we are to believe Thomas Jefferson , it did educate me in civic virtue ,insofar as I desired to become politically active , so that I could critique the McGinty/ Harris government’s alarming vision for education.
The same types of things occur with screen reading software. Sometimes electronic formats of books don’t have proper page numbers, or they get cut off, or it’s impossible to locate one edition. Even though they had read the material dozens of times, most of my high school teachers insisted on page numbers. We can, therefore, see how technology while it appears to ameliorate the condition persons with disabilities can also provide new and unforeseen impediments, if it is not supported by a paradigm shift in how we view education. This shift necessitates that we re-examine education’s original goals and reenvision its original structures.. If technology is merely imposed on an existing oppressive superstructure, the structure does not change; indeed, the apparatus merely becomes a more effective oppressive ideology. I hope my brief excurses into 70s Marxist theory demonstrated this.
Without question, I love technology, and it’s very liberating. There’s no way I’d be here without it. Yet accessibility is merely the creation of of environments in which technology can function. Creating a wheelchair accessible classroom, is not the same as creating an environment that is accepting to persons with disabilities. I hope I have also shown that we should be aware that while technology is positive, it often comes to define our identity in many ways. And to say that I use a wheelchair or voice recognition software, and you use your car or your hands to type is not a question of ontology, though it often becomes this, but a matter of diversity and degree. This does not mean, as one of the strongest bastions of liberal abelism on some would claim that "we all in some way disabled"; for society someone arbitrarily determines what abilities/characteristics are classificatory. What is considered mundane technology, e.g. a tooth brush and what can become what I have called ontologically constitutive technology i.e. a wheelchair is solely dependent on perception. As I hope I’ve shown this perception is not to be taken lightly, since it ultimately shapes and defines the universes that we inhabit and how we function together.
I cannot offer any sort of global solutions to these systemic problems; it is merely my hope that if technology is the rational application of art than you will use it to mould a better world for your students rather than disguised new forms of oppression. Freedom for your students starts with you, not with a computer.