In coming out in favor of gay marriage on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden said:
And by the way, my measure, David, and I take a look at when things really begin to change, is when the social culture changes. I think ‘Will & Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done.
Biden’s right about that last part. For those who don’t know, Will and Grace was a wildly popular sitcom airing on NBC from 1998 to 2006. Its three main characters were Grace, a Jewish interior designer, a Will, a fetching gay lawyer, and Jack, their gay friend played to stereotype.
Readers of Mere Comments are in all likelihood different from the general population in that we attempt to engage the fundamental questions of what it means to be human, what it means to seek goodness, beauty, and truth, what our common life together should look like, and so on. But most people don’t really engage in that quest, I think, even among our best and brightest in our most elite institutions, whether ecclesial or secular. Most of our leaders are simply given over to utilitarianism and pragmatism; at best we can hope for a stodgy, quaint Kantian to make a stand every now and then.
Sure, everyone has deep existential moments of angst and sturm und drang as well as deep joy, especially as we come of age, and asks questions about God, nature and humanity. But while these moments can lead to the sustained pursuit of truth, for most people it goes away when they become part of the machine that is Western life, where existence is (to quote Bridget von Hammersmark, a character from Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds) reduced to the fundamentals of “smoking, drinking, and ordering in restaurants.”
Indeed, I’ve found many people nowadays in the modern, technocratic West know three things and three things only: pleasure, pain, and media. They avoid pain and seek pleasure with the aid and guidance of the media.
If you are a convert from simple day-to-day living in the West as part of the machine to something with a substantive worldview and praxis — Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or a particular political philosophy, like Communism or Distributism — try to remember what it was like before that transforming moment. For my part, I grew up a normal kid in the upper midwest. I was raised ELCA Lutheran and went to Sunday School but dropped out of confirmation in junior high, being more interested in hockey and music and the social scene (such as it was at Erik Ramstad Junior High in Minot, ND) than religion. Growing up with MTV (I was born in 1974 and MTV launched 1 August 1981), I remember having my worldview shaped by media — the movies and TV I watched, the music I listened to. The popular media of the day became my matrix for understanding the world. And thus like most everyone else, I simply wanted to fit in, get a girlfriend, get a pickup truck, get a decent job down the road after college, and enjoy myself. I didn’t think at all about the Big Questions of God, man, and nature. Until a serious illness almost killed me as a freshman in high school, and I had my own transforming moment, and decided that life was short and eternity long.
So Biden is right when he says the sitcom Will and Grace “did more to educate the American public” regarding gay rights “than almost anything anybody’s ever done.” The media of film and song shape us profoundly in ways most people never notice. Video has become our matrix.
But if visual media comprise our matrix, we need to take the red pill. We need to study media ecology (=Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, Jacques Ellul, Walter Ong) to learn to think about how media shapes culture and attitudes. Too many times, church leaders lay and ordained talk about how we need to use various media to communicate the gospel, as if the gospel were mere content that could be poured into myriad forms. But form and content are never finally separable; some, like McLuhan, would say everything is form, while others would take a more mediate view. But if the medium isn’t the message, it certainly shapes the message, and it’s naive to think otherwise. Time indeed to take the red pill of the study of media ecology (start here and here) to understand what’s happening to us, and to understand how we can become more effective Christians in our current media ecology.
Indeed, most people missed the deeper subtext of Will and Grace: an Augustinian examination of disordered desire. Cathleen Kaveny penned the best piece ever written about Will and Grace in the Sept. 27, 2002 issue of Commonweal:
Will & Grace exemplifies Augustine’s view that sexual desire can escape from human control in a way that causes great anguish all around. Will and Grace are soul mates, best friends who live together and are there for one another, for better or worse. In every respect but one, they look and act like a married couple. It would be better all around if Will could refocus his sexual energies on Grace; it would be better all around if Grace could let go of Will, to find someone who could be a complete partner in her life. Neither, however, is going to happen. The saga of their relationship proceeds with a raucous humor undiminished by the sad dilemma that lies at its heart. In fact, rumor has it that they will soon have a baby together. [...]
Like Augustine, Will and Grace believe that desire is reliably fickle. It cannot remain true to itself and be folded into a stable relationship. Sexual passion is grace (understood in secular terms). It is serendipitous and ecstatic, a bolt of lightning. Friendship is not like that. It involves knowing and loving people as they are without glamour and even with the flu or chicken pox. Friends are more or less patient with each other’s neuroses. Friendship requires seeing the other’s soul, not in an idealized form but as a bundle of noble aspirations and base fears. It is will (understood in secular terms). In this perspective, except in the rare case, the miracle case, one cannot expect both friendship and long-lasting sexual passion with the same person in the world of Will & Grace.
Kaveny wrongly thinks Augustine would get on board with modern sexual mores even as she states ancient Carthage and modern NYC aren’t all that different, but for all that, her piece is brilliant: Why else name the series Will and Grace? If was just about two gay men and their straight female friend, it could have been Bob and Jane, or something similarly anodyne. Unfortunately, most people missed the profound anthropological dynamics of the sitcom, and in a mediated soporific narcosis, egged on, perhaps, by a subtle serpent, picked the low-hanging fruit.











The sitcoms of the Fifties are now routinely dismissed as portraying a life that never existed, although I think it really did, but even if it didn’t, what they typically showed were situations in which one of the children was in difficulty. The mother would have her distinctive take on it and the father had his, and you got the impression that there was something different about masculine psychology as distinct from feminine psychology and that both of them played an important role in helping the child resolve the difficulty. Now we’re essentially asked to believe that gender is just a social construct, except for visible anatomy. But the fifties sitcoms were closer to reality and recent discoveries in the area of neuroscience will gradually make that plain.
Though I liked the show’s wit and humor, it was a pessimistic view of life as a gay male, and it adhered to all the wrong stereotypes such as:
- gay men avoid commitment
- gay men are trite, narcissistic and mincing
- gay men’s best relationships are with unfulfilled straight women
As someone partnered for quite some time, I take offense at all of this. Commitment doesn’t mean staying until the martinis wear off. One doesn’t need to acquire some affectations to have a sense of identity. On occasions, one can share genuine affection and agape love with someone they also happen to have a natural attraction for.
Is our relationship “usual”? No. I appreciate the sense of “oddness” that others may feel. Yet, in a world filled with genocide, rape, torture and all other sorts of unspeakable horrors, I fail to understand why our relationship (which, though physically intimate, has involved a real degree of self-sacrifice and charity) generates such moral outrage.
James,
It is not the relationship that is offensive but the publicness of it.
Gays are not minded in the closet. This is the way it had been forever.
There are pretty good reasons for the closet. At this website, you can
read Anthony Esolen’s ten secular points against public recognition
of gay relationships. It damages friendships and the City is based
upon friendship. Hence sexualizing of all friendships is the end of
the City.
Gian writes: “Gays are not minded in the closet.”
Although I am not “out” at work, you do understand that this imposes a certain degree of dishonesty and deceit, yes? If someone inquires as to why I’m not married with children (and they do), I must come up with some reason that won’t offend their sensibilities. It’s a lie. I’m not interested in exposing anyone to details of my sex life. I just hate having to lie.
“It damages friendships and the City is based
upon friendship”
For the record, I have a number of heterosexual male friends who know about me. There’s no sexualization or physicality involved. I’m partnered, anyhow, and I wouldn’t cheat. Why is it assumed that gay men are only interested in bedding every male that crosses our field of vision and that we are incapable of platonic friendships? Perhaps you’re simply commenting on your own personal level of discomfort around gay men and women and how it ruins friendships for you?
James, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I’d respond to just one thing, your comments about ‘living a lie,’ as it were.
I think nowadays we moderns think everything must be perfectly open, transparent, laid bare; indeed, that’s one of the main components of the modern mindset:
“Modernism in art and literature is best understood as a drive to bring everything into the open. It reflected a broad rejection of manners and ornament, a determined effort to tear away what Edmund Burke called ‘the decent drapery of life’ so that we could see life as it ‘really is.’” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/03/the-sledgehammer-of-modernism)
So we could talk about whether that’s true or not, in general terms. Of course, I suspect your answer would logically depend on your prior commitment to the moral goodness (neutrality? normality?) of your relationship.
It’s an interesting question, Leroy.
With the advent of the reality television show, I do often wonder whether we have become a nation of voyeurs or if we are just so dulled by our own passionless lives that watching celebrities walk their dogs now serves as entertainment.
Even more odd is the necessity of broadcasting our every thought or trifling action on social media. “I just bought a burrito!” “Standing in line at the post office!”
It’s as if we must remind ourselves we exist by informing everyone of details they probably don’t care about anyway.
I am not on Twitter. My Facebook profile is used purely for the purposes of debating ideas, and it’s not even under my real name. I’m not looking to thrust my personal life into people’s faces but am just seeking not to have to create intricate webs of stories just so I can avoid making family, friends and co-workers uncomfortable or have to worry about losing my livelihood. Frankly, it becomes tiring.
In terms of the morality of my relationship, I am looking to construct a life that embodies my values as much as I can given the hand I was dealt. I am not capable of heterosexual marriage. Nor am I capable of living the rest of my life as a celibate bachelor destined to die alone (although I reject promiscuity in favor of monogamy). So, is it the human ideal? Who knows. It is what it is.
I think I’ve said enough on this thread, so I’ll leave it at that.
Thank you.
Thank you, James. Appreciate it.
Sigh. How long can a conversation like this go on here without someone noting that the Christian sexual standard (not the ideal, the standard) is that sexual activity is only blessed by God if it takes place within a marriage involving one man and one woman. James’ statement that he is looking to have a relationship in accord with his values appears to be correct, but of course it is not a relationship in accord with God’s values. No matter how sympathetically he presents his case, its foundations are built on air.
Someone might tell James, the man in a gay relationship who admits that his committed gay relationship is almost certainly not “the human ideal,” that he not far from the Christian standard, even here. When you confess to yourself, if not to God, that what what you are doing is missing the mark, and you also confess your own powerlessness to escape it (as James also has said it’s “the hand I’ve been dealt” that he has no power to escape), how far can you be from faith in the cross of Christ for vicarious righteousness, and the death and regeneration that arises from such faith?