Look Down! Look Down! Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables And How Christians Can Deal with Immigration Reform.

Introduction:
In recent months, a controversy has erupted over the new immigration law passed in Arizona. The law has raised suspicion due to the fact that it “greatly expands the powers of the police in dealing with illegal immigration, including for the first time giving them the right to stop anyone on ‘reasonable suspicion’ they may be an illegal immigrant and arrest them if they are not carrying identity papers.” Furthermore, it leads some to believe that “the new bill will lead to racial profiling, with its powers used to harass anyone who looks or sounds Latino.” Therefore, the law brings to the attention the question concerning the foreigner. However, an even greater question emerges as to how Evangelical Christians will respond to this situation. In order to assess the possibilities for Christians, Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables may give insight as to how Christians can deal properly with this event. Why Les Misérables? It is an immensely popular story, yet few there are who really understand the socio-political implications behind the novel. Therefore, this paper will argue that Les Misérables offers the perfect space to deconstruct the recent immigration policy in the United States and the ideology behind it. First, we will examine the novel in light of hospitality toward the Other. Second, we will analyze the way the novel depicts the issues of law and justice. Third, we shall discuss the novel and the idea of history and memory. All of these issues are to be examined in the hopes of finding an application to the current crisis.

The Open Door: Les Misérables and hospitality:
It has been called “‘the world’s most popular musical’”. It has been read by millions and adapted for film, animated feature and radio drama. Les Misérables is a phenomenon. Even from its first publication in 1862, it has been incredibly popular. Yet despite such achievements, many would be shocked to learn that the story was “banned in France”. Furthermore, Hugo referenced his critics responses stating, “‘The newspapers which support the old world say, “It’s hideous, infamous, odious, execrable, abominable, grotesque, repulsive, shapeless, monstrous, horrendous, etc.””” And that is the key to the whole situation. Les Misérables is a book about worlds. In fact, the novel presents the reader with a pure form of hospitality, which exposes the old system (political, social and legal) of its prejudices. Therefore, let us examine the text to see how this also applies to our current situation.
At the beginning of the novel, Jean Valjean is released from the quarries of Toulon for theft. When he enters the town of Digne, he is refused employment and lodgings because of his yellow passport. Without shelter, Valjean decides to spend the night on a public bench. However, an elderly lady explains to Valjean that he can find lodgings at Bishop Myriel’s home. There, he finds sustenance and lodgings without payment. However, knowing his certain future, Valjean again resorts to thievery. Nevertheless, he is caught and is brought back to the bishop’s residence.
When Valjean is brought back to the Myriel’s house, the bishop tells him, “‘Do not forget, do not ever forget, that you promised me to us this money to make yourself an honest man…Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil but to what is good. I have bought your soul to save it from blank thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God.’” The system (legal and economic) left Valjean a bitter and vengeful man. Yet, the bishop’s hospitality offers the convict a new path. Thus an investigation into the meaning of hospitality is in order.
To begin, we need to define the word hospitality in order to assess what is accomplished by the bishop’s actions. Jacques Derrida offers us a useful definition, when he wrote:
[Absolute] hospitality requires that I open up my home and that I give not only to the foreigner …but to the absolute, unknown anonymous other, and that I give place to them, that I let them come, that I let them arrive, and take place in the place I offer them, without asking of them reciprocity (entering into a pact) or even their names.

For Derrida, hospitality is a call. As James K. A. Smith explains, “The call that resounds in this relation, what the Other calls us to, is hospitality – making room for the Other, receiving the Other as wholly Other.” This interpretation of Otherness and hospitality owes a lot to Emmanuel Levinas. As Bruce Ellis Benson remarks, “Levinas sees the desire to systematize as an attempt to control that which is other to me by making it mine. In other words, I wish to recast the other in my own image.” Thus, hospitality is unconditional. As Smith declares, “Derrida suggests that hospitality…requires unconditional welcome and orders ‘that the borders be open to each and every one, to every other, to all who might come, without question or without their having to identify who they are or whence they came.” This is exactly the way the bishop operates. When Hugo recounts the bishop’s manner, he states, “No door in the house could be locked.” The reason for this principle stems in the bishop’s words, “This is the distinction: The doctor’s door must never be shut; the priest’s door must always be open.” Even when Valjean wakes up to steal the bishop’s silver, he finds that that the door “was not barred.” Moreover, as Valjean sneaks into Myriel’s bedroom, he “found the door ajar. The bishop had not closed it.” It is no wonder that the text refers to Myriel as “a man who is hospitable by nature.” This is why the people of Digne “elected to call him by the name which for them had the most meaning, Monsigneur Bienvenu…Bienvenu – or ‘welcome’.” However, this hospitality is not some naïve romanticism. On the contrary, it is most dangerous.
When Valjean goes to steal the silverware, he carries a spike that serves as a pry bar. As he stands in the bishop’s room, Valjean approaches the bishop as he sleeps and stands “seemingly between the two extremes of death on the one hand and salvation on the other – ready to shatter that skull or to kiss that hand.” In the Bille August film from 1998, the scene is recreated; however, the bishop awakens and catches Valjean in the act of stealing. Valjean proceeds to render the bishop unconscious with a blow to the face. Therefore, this hospitality is not without its dangers. There is a certain vulnerability involved in it. The person becomes exposed to the Other. John D. Caputo is more bold when he declares, “[Love] means to ‘surrender to the impossible,’ se rendre, to render oneself back to the impossible.” The impossible then represents the Other. As Caputo further delineates, “The other person is not one of our possibilities but one of our impossibilities…We can never be sure of what is going on in the heart of the other but we affirm that distance rather than being demoralized or defeated by it. The relation to the other is bracing but risky business.” In the novel, Valjean asks the bishop why he does not fear that Valjean could murder him in his sleep. The bishop kindly retorts, “‘That’s God’s affair.’” In the 1998 film, the same situation presents itself except the bishop says, “‘How do you know I’m not going to murder you...We’ll just have to trust each other.’” Therefore the story posits an element of trust between the two parties if hospitality is to be carried out. Since both are finite beings (one can not know the mind of the other), a mutuality of trust must be established. As Christ understood it, our love for our neighbor needed to be the same as the love we have for ourselves. After all, is that not the point behind the “Golden Rule”? As Jesus explains, “‘In everything do unto others as you would have them do unto you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NRSV ). Thus, Christ states that the heart of the law is the law of hospitality; or that the law is hospitality. Therefore, it is imperative that Christians promote inclusivity as much as possible. This has been the problem with a Christianity in the United States. As Caputo writes:
The Christian Right is all for the force of law, for rigorous enforcing laws against illegal immigrants, for keeping order in the streets, and they applaud wooden formulas like ‘three strikes and you’re out while slandering jurists who value discernment and adjudication as merely pandering to criminals.

As most of us are aware, Valjean receives a sentence of five years for stealing bread to save his sister’s family. Because of his numerous escape attempts, Valjean’s time in Toulon reaches nineteen years. Thus, Hugo lays the blame on the system for being so callous and overbearing on the less fortunate. As Hugo exclaims, “Was it not monstrous that society should treat in this fashion precisely those least favored in the distribution of wealth, which is a matter of chance, and therefore those most needing indulgence?” In other words, Valjean becomes a victim of what Slavoj Žižek terms “systemic violence”. Žižek defines it as the “violence inherent in a system: not only physical violence, but also the more subtle forms of coercion that sustains relations of domination and exploitation, including the threat of violence.” What is most disturbing about our present state of affairs for Christians in the United States comes from the fact that many Christians go along with these prejudices. This is why Caputo is so incensed when he declares:
It [the Christian Right] turns a deaf ear to the poverty of the inner-city life that makes a life of crime an inviting alternative to working for below-subsistence wages and no health care. They campaign vigorously for right-wing politicians who grant tax breaks to the wealthy but refuse to raise minimum wage – in the name of Jesus!

This attitude does not manifest the law of Christ, which is hospitality. Instead of being like Monsigneur Bienvenu, some Christians in America have become Inspector Javert.

On Immigrants: The Right Questions

The issues around the recent Arizona law and other concerns dealing with ethnic studies have brought out the best and worst from people. I claim that this is simply an issue that cannot be ignored, but has to be dealt with in a truly political way.

I think Alain Badiou, who has worked for immigrant rights in France, has written in his Ethics some important things that need to be considered in dealing with Arizona and the signs of anti-immigrant feelings. He notes that we are still living in the reality of nation-states and borders; that reality does not look like it is going to change anytime soon. Considering this reality, the questions we need to ask are whether or not the State is dealing in an egalitarian/civil manner.

There are 3 questions that need to be asked.
1. How do we concretely treat the people who are here?
2. How do we deal with those who would like to be here?
3. What is it about the situation in the original countries that makes them want to leave?

These 3 questions get at the heart of the matter. These questions, in this particular order, are a better way of formulating the problem than cries for "open borders" (which don't mean anything, honestly) or the blatant racist/nationalist opinions of various gasbags. This is a serious political issue that cannot be ignored...

Where is my John Wayne? Badiou on heroism...

In an interview, Badiou said: "My philosophy desires affirmation. I want to fight for; I want to know what I have for the Good and to put it to work. I refuse to be content with the "least evil." It is very fashionable right now to be modest, not to think big. Grandeur is considered a metaphysical evil. Me, I am for grandeur, I am for heroism. I am for the affirmation of the thought and the deed."

This is coming from a guy who likes heroes from the Westerns, which is a genre I grew up watching as well. There is something admirable about knowing what is the good within a given situation. A hero is a hero for affirming the good in a way that does go against popular opinion or because he or she sees something disgusting in evil. Like Barth and Augustine, Badiou does not want to give a name to a metaphysical/radical Evil first and then talk about the Good. No, the Good comes first only then followed by the parasitic evil. When evil rears its ugly head it needs to be smashed...

Barth and Badiou: The Risk of the Event

I'm literally killing 2 birds with 1 stone. First, I'm working through Church Dogmatics I:1 & I:2 in a doctoral Directed Reading with Dr. John Franke. So far, the reading and the conversations have been stimulating. I will also be reading the so-called Postmodern Barth books (Ward, Johnson, Andrews) as well. In light of these readings, I want to then have Barth dialogue with thinkers like Jean-Luc Nancy, Giorgio Agamben, or Alain Badiou (I just had Barth dialogue with Zizek in a paper on theology/psychology).

I think that we might be past the postmodern or "religious turn" readings often associated with Levinas and Derrida. This is why I plan to put Barth in conversation with the other figures because they are often thinking past Derrida and Levinas (as well as Heidegger).

Second, I need to get ready for my posting for the Karl Barth Blog coming up in July. I will be putting Barth in conversation with Badiou. I wrote a paper for a Theological Method's seminar led by Nancey Murphy on Barth and Badiou on the Event. There are some nice connections but also some clear differences. My goal is to look for the actual connecting points. There have been a number of books recently published that are starting to consider Badiou's Paul book. But more about that later... The idea for my current seminar is to look at Badiou's critique of the turn to language and otherness and see if Barth would connect with him. We shall see if this is successful.

By the way, notice how grandfatherly Badiou and Barth both look in the pictutres. I hope I look that hugable!

Scrooge Part 2: Scrooge and Time.

Shadows of Time: Scrooge and the Misappropriation of Time
With all the modern conveniences of today’s world, one would think that we would have more time. However, this is not the case. For Jensen, the root of the problem resides in the commercialization of time. He writes, “The introduction of clock time in Europe with the consequent increase in efficiency eventually reduced the amount of leisure time people enjoyed, which previously had been plentiful.” With the clock, we have clear delineations of time. Time can now be measured, and our awareness of time more poignant. However, the use of time became linked to production. As Jenses explains, “Surprisingly, time saved is used for yet more work under the pressures of modernity.” Furthermore, he states, “Time came to be defined economically, as Ben Franklin ostensibly said, ‘Time is money.’” Time, then, became utilized for profit. The more hours one pits in for work, the less time there is for leisure time. Actually, leisure time is looked upon as wasting time. Thus, we turn once again to Ebenezer Scrooge. It is a mistake to see Scrooge simply as a caricature of some wealthy people or our bosses. Rather, Scrooge represents the capitalization of time.
When Scrooge is approached by some men taking a collection for the poor, he tells them, “‘I can’t afford to make idle people merry’.” Thus, Scrooge appeals to the old stereotype that those who are without money are so because they are lazy. When Bob Cratchit asks for Christmas Eve off, Scrooge retorts, “‘And yet…you don’t think me ill used, when I pay a days wages for no work’.” Time is simply for profit. Any other use of time is a waste of time or idleness. However, is time really the enemy? Is it this particular view of time the problem? What needs to happen is that we need to learn to manage our time in a healthy and Biblical fashion.
In one sense, we cannot pretend that we do not live in the modern world. Therefore, we must learn to be responsible with the time we are given. The Scriptures are constantly telling us of our limited existence. As Paul declares to us that “the night is far gone, the day is near” (Romans 11:11). Paul states this in reference to loving our neighbor. Therefore, time is meant to spent helping and loving others and not accumulating wealth. Thus, when Fred visits Scrooge, he tells his uncle, “‘There are many things from which I might derive good, by which I have not profited, I dare say’.” Thus, for Fred, ding good is not a matter of profit. Rather, doing good brings its own reward. Also, when Marley visits Scrooge, he laments, “‘Not to know that any Christian spirit working kindly in its little sphere, whatever it may be, will find its mortal life too short for its vast means of usefulness’.” This is very close to Paul’s dictum, “Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 4:15-16). Thus, Marley sends Scrooge the three Spirits. What one notices, however, are the times that they come. Marley explains, “‘You will be haunted by Three Spirits…Expect the first to-morrow, when the bell tolls one…Expect the second on the next night at the same hour. The third upon the next night when the last stroke of twelve has ceased to vibrate’.” However, when one comes to the end of the story, Scrooge notices, “‘The Spirits have done it all in one night’.” The Spirits, then, represent a bending of time. In fact, they represent the life span of a human being (past, present and future). Moreover, time, which is so important to Scrooge, becomes the means for his redemption. By the end of the story, Scrooge will not even be aware of time. He exclaims, “‘I don’t know what day of the month it is…I don’t know how long I’ve been among the Spirits. I don’t know anything. I’m quite a baby. Never mind. I don’t care. I’d rather be a baby’.” Only when Scrooge realizes it is Christmas day that he worries about time. It is not that he is slipping back into his former ways. Rather, it is because he wants to begin his new life. With that in mind, let us look at the repentance of Scrooge.

Zizek is not James Cameron's greatest fan

See link for Zizek's take on Avatar: http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2010/03/avatar-reality-love-couple-sex

A Christmas Carol: Part One

This is a paper I wrote for a Spiritual Discipline course. It attempts to show that behind Scrooge's solitude and work ethic lies an attitude of anxiety and addiction.

Keep Your Distance: Privacy versus Solitude
One of the significant signs of an addiction is solitude. True, solitude can be a sufficient therapeutic device, which we shall examine below. Nevertheless, as L. Paul Jensen notes, “Addicts and codependents are incapable of open and truly caring relationships.” Therefore, solitude can be a negative result of harmful addictions. Of course, the addiction we will be examining is being a “workaholic.” Thus, there is such a thing as negative solitude. Henri Nouwen writes, “We say to each other that we need some solitude in our lives. What we really are thinking of, however, is a time and a place for ourselves in which we are not bothered by other people.” Therefore, some people have a selfish motivation to be alone in order to be unburdened with the plights of others. Nouwen calls this privacy. He writes, “For us, solitude most often means privacy.” Moreover, in the case of Ebenezer Scrooge solitude is a means of sheltering oneself away from others and their needs. Indeed, his work serves the purpose of securing himself from society.
Take for example Scrooge’s relationship with Belle that comes to a halt because of his fear of commitment and his new found desire for wealth. She tells Scrooge, “‘Another idol has displaced me…a golden one.’” Dickens portrays Scrooge as someone who is “solitary as an oyster.” When Dickens describes Ebenezer’s living quarters, he states, “It was old enough now, and dreary enough, for nobody lived in it but Scrooge.” Concerning the lack of friends and friendly salutations, Dickens declares, “But what did Scrooge care? It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance.” Now, one must ask why Scrooge chooses to cut himself off from his fellow creatures. Dickens explains that it is out of fear and anxiety that he shuts himself away in his counting house.
When Belle decides to release Scrooge from their engagement, she tells Ebenezer, “You fear the world too much…All your other hopes have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid reproach.” Therefore, the addiction to work and gain stems from his personal fears and anxieties. Jensen states that addictions are often attempts to escape one’s fears. Quoting James Houston, he explains, “‘Busyness acts to repress our inner fears and personal anxieties…The inability to stop keeps workaholics running from the feelings and thoughts of their hearts.’” Furthermore, Jensen writes, “The addictive system is a form of insanity, fueled by a sense of invincibility and the lie that behaviors lack consequences.” Of course, for Ebenezer Scrooge, the consequences are personal, spiritual and corporate. They are personal because they transform him into a cruel, frightened miser. They are spiritual because they threaten his eternal destiny, as we shall see below, and they are corporate because they affect those who occupy the space around him. Thus, Scrooge is going to need as intervention of some kind to reveal to him his own addiction and his own personal fears and anxieties, which support his addiction. This intervention comes from his late partner Jacob Marley.
The novel itself begins with the death and funeral of Jacob Marley. Of course, Scrooge found an ideal partner in Jacob. Both of these men are addicts to work and gain. In this way, their relationship forms one of codependence. We mentioned codependence briefly above. Nevertheless, codependence is based on ties that further support our addictions. As Jensen explains, “Close friends and relatives often feed the addiction by giving emotional or material support in ways that enable addiction. This behavior on the part of the family or friends is called codependence.” Thus, family and friends can contribute to one’s addictive behavior, even unwittingly. However, in Ebenezer’s case, he creates a relationship of assent. They both uphold their own addictive lifestyle. However, when Marley dies, Scrooge no longer has the support of necessary to fuel his addiction. It must be stated, though, that Scrooge is set in his ways. It then becomes ironic that the relationship that encouraged the addiction becomes the means of intervention.
When Marley dies, we find that he dies alone. Dickens tells us, “Scrooge was his sole executor, his sole administrator, his sole assign, his sole residuary legatee, his sole friend and sole mourner.” Of course, Dickens adds, “Scrooge was not so dreadfully cut up by the sad event.” Furthermore, Scrooge manages to capitalize on his friends expiration by living in the house “which had once belonged to his deceased partner.” Since the funeral, the only time Scrooge reflected on his partner was seven years later. This pathetic display demonstrates from the beginning of the novel the dangers of surrendering to a system, which places work and gain over all else. For Dickens, true business is endeavoring to help the poor and needy. When Scrooge attempts to justify his and Marley’s business, the ghost of Marley replies, “‘Business…Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!’” Thus, Marley tells Scrooge of the fate that awaits him if he does not turn from his ways. When Marley’s ghost leaves him, Scrooge observes a host of ghosts. These are departed rich men, who still have their wealth; however, they can no longer use it to aid the sick and hurting. Therefore, Dickens demonstrates the futility of riches and shows where true wealth lies – in helping others. This is hell for Dickens: Having the means to help others, but never being able to participate. Nevertheless, before Marley rejoins the doomed spirits, he tells Ebenezer that he will be visited by three ghosts. These ghosts are a further extension of Marley’s intervention on Scrooges behalf, and they act as a means of preventing Scrooge from meeting Marley’s punishment.
In order to save Scrooge, the three ghosts come to Scrooge and show him his past, present and future self. However, even though Scrooge can see and hear people, he cannot interact with them. After calling out to his former peers, the Ghost of Christmas Past exclaims, “‘These are but shadows of the things that have been…They have no consciousness of us.’” Of course, the same can be said about the second ghost, who with Scrooge “went on, invisible.” What is the point of this device? Here, we have solitude. Granted, Scrooge is accompanied by the Spirits; however, that act more as spiritual guides, which reveal to Scrooge his innermost fears. Furthermore, this shows his duty to others. This again is the difference between privacy and solitude. Privacy is a selfish act of shutting people out. On the other hand, solitude is an act of personal reflection, which prepares us to help others. As Nouwen declares, “Compassion is the fruit of solitude and the basis of all ministry. The purification and transformation that take place in solitude manifest themselves in compassion.” For Nouwen, then, “Solitude is the furnace of transformation. Without solitude we remain victims of our society and continue to be entangled in the illusions of the false self.” Also, in regard to the monastic tradition, Richard F. Lovelace states, “The monastery represented a sort of sanctification machine for the postulant longing to become free from the fallen nature, and it could also be a school in which to learn to love God and one’s neighbor with one’s whole heart.” Thus, the solitude found at the monastery helped reinforce a love for God and humanity. It is in solitude that we can take time away from our busy schedules to reflect on our own lives and the needs of others. Furthermore, solitude helps break the bonds of out cultural system. Our cultures and societies attempt to mold into their own cast. As Nouwen explains, “Thus greed and anger are brother and sister of a false self fabricated by the social compulsions of an unredeemed world.” As believers, we are called to be set apart from the world. As John puts it, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world” (I John 2:15). Scrooge’s anger then comes from his seclusion and the judgment placed upon him by a harsh and hypocritical world. As he explains to Belle, “‘This is the even handed dealing of the world…There is nothing on which it is so hard as poverty; and there is nothing it professes to condemn with such severity as the pursuit of wealth!’” Nevertheless, Ebenezer begins to understand his past errors and his present duty. When Tiny Tim dies, he hears Bob Cratchit state about his nephew Fred, “‘I shouldn’t be at all surprised…if he got Peter a better situation.’” Thus, Scrooge sees that his purpose will fall into the hands of Fred, his nephew, while Scrooge will die like Marley “plundered and bereft, unwatched, unwept, uncared for.” Thus he will have wasted his time and his life. Now, we can turn our attention to Scrooge and time.