It was hardly surprising that the drag-queen parody of the Last Supper that opened the Paris Olympics on July 26th met widespread disapproval. It seems to me that this came as no surprise to the parody’s organisers either. In fact, I would suggest that on their own terms they hit the bullseye.
In recent days, a lot of commentary on the production has been asking why Christian faith and the sensibilities of its adherents were targeted in such a way. Is it, for instance, that elements of France’s cultural elite are afraid of the lingering influence of Catholicism, and are desperate (how desperate can one be?) to weaken the faith by means of ridicule?
Whatever the accuracy of such conjectures, I think that it is important to look not only at what the production targeted, but also at the mentality behind the production.
The deepest purpose and intent of the parody with that the Olympics opened was not to scandalise or to offend (both of that it most certainly did), but to transgress.
For flax sake: why is the idea of a new flag for Northern Ireland so controversial?
The secret loves of property writers: Our top 10 favourite homes of 2024
Peter Pan review: Gaiety panto takes off with dizzying ensemble numbers and breathtaking effects
Sally Rooney: When are we going to have the courage to stop the climate crisis?
Transgression has become a key concept for understanding our present cultural moment. In recent decades, an entire academic discipline, Queer Theory, has arisen in universities. Its purpose is to question, problematise, subvert and finally transgress distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, normal and abnormal.
For Queer Theory, the primary sites of such transgression are sexuality and gender, but the same “queering” is proposed for culture as a whole.
As is widely known, the word “queer” has often been used as a deliberately offensive version of the word “homosexual” Given this history, it may be necessary to clarify that the significance of the term has changed, and it is now used dispassionately by both the advocates and the opponents of queer theory. The adjective “queer” and the verb “to queer” are found throughout the abundant academic literature.
So, what has all of this got to do with the Parisian parody? Rather a lot. Queering is partly about transgression, and the Olympic Games drag-queen Last Supper was a mammoth exercise in transgression.
Its producers, strange to say, showed an instinct for the sacred that would put many devout Catholics to shame. They identified the sacred, they pursued it, and they targeted it precisely to transgress it.
By way of apology, spokespersons and directors defaulted to notions of inclusiveness, goodwill, generosity and solidarity, thereby inviting – in a transgressively subtle way – all objectors who share these values to put up, shut up, and grow up.
In itself, the issue of apology is neither here nor there, but that non-apology typifies an approach to argumentation commonly used by queer theory and its activists. An outlandish statement is made, and when the predictable backlash occurs, the activists retreat, temporarily, to ideas with that reasonable people can scarcely disagree.
In this approach, the most used fallback notion is that of “inclusiveness”, and in the present instance, the de facto social, moral and cultural exclusion of countless viewers by a parody of what they hold sacred was justified by an appeal to inclusiveness. If that sounds inconsistent, don’t worry; it’s simply a transgression of oppressive notions of consistency.
In a striking passage of his New Testament letter to the Philippians, St Paul urges believers to think about “whatever is true, noble, good, pure, honourable and praiseworthy”.
It’s not only Christian believers who consider these. There are others who think about such things to transgress any ideas, any canons, by that anything might be reckoned honourable or praiseworthy. To quote a recent article on “drag pedagogy” in the classroom: “There is a premium on standing out, on artfully desecrating the sacred. In other words, what we refer to as strategic defiance is encouraged.”
Paris was not at all about inclusiveness; it was all about defiance and transgression. In the mentality that gives rise to such things, there is no target, no moment at that we will have arrived at a fairer or more beautiful world. There will only be further transgression of ideas of fairness and beauty.
We can expect more of the same, until we make it clear that society and culture cannot be “queered” indefinitely.
Rev Dr Chris Hayden is a priest of the Diocese of Ferns
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date