Submit your questions
and a clarification [for the trads...who are such drags]
Email or DM your questions for our first Q+A pod. We’re taking questions on all cracks in pomo related topics. Please indicate how you’d like your name to be announced, or if you’d prefer to be anonymous. You have until 11/24 to submit.
[stephenadubato AT gmail DOT com, @cracksinpomo]
We also need to take a moment to mourn the loss of the 23 subscribers who were deeply scandalized by the Notre Dame drag show post from Friday. Some very pious trads confused the critique of the First Things article for an endorsement of drag shows in Catholic institution. It’s a shame that such devout souls can be so averse to nuance.
I’ll reiterate, first, that both devout Catholics and drag purists should agree that drag has no place being performed in a university setting…as the only fitting setting is a chthonic, subterranean nightclub. Drag is a deviant artform. It is grotesque, some might say diabolic even—as it aims to pervert and mock the order of nature. Surely, for a devout monotheist, such a premise if morally problematic. But it’s still an artform in se. I was only trying to express that critiques that lead with morality, and that fail to provide a deeper aesthetic and ontological undergirding for their argument, are quite flimsy and aren’t very compelling. “Say no to drag show because Catholic Church say iz bad” is not a very convincing argument.
A better critique of it would have taken the time to understand and explain what drag actually is—ontologically speaking. That is, on the level of being, its nature, before skipping to the level of ethics—of whether it should be embraced or not. I find it much easier to engage in a conversation with someone who has a different pov as me if we can start from the shared premise of the nature of a given reality. But many conservatives caths living in majority Protestant countries like the US struggle to be able to grapple with questions of aesthetics and ontology [see the vehement comments left on the previous post whereas in a country like Italy, this isn’t as confusing.
But if you’re still confused about [or scandalized by] what [you think] I mean, take a look at these examples, whose angle is more focused on aesthetics and ontology before skipping to the questions of ethics:
-Two from Paglia, who is a pagan/animist atheist who disagrees with Christianity’s ethical conclusions, but understands and respects its aesthetic and metaphysical vision. She expresses this in here critiques of the Presbyterian Church’s liberalization of it sexual doctrines, and the US Catholic Church’s liturgical reforms.
-Two critiques of same sex marriage from conservative Christians—Rod Dreher and Michael Hanby—whose point of departure is not ethics but metaphysics—they set out to describe the nature of same sex marriage, leaving readers to determine whether its nature is good or bad…but again, a much sturdier and compelling argument.
Please consider signing up for a paid subscription to this page for more riveting content. If you’re new to Cracks in Pomo, check out the About page or read up on our Essentials. Also check out our podcast on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube and follow us on Instagram and Twitter.