Engaging the Other
I recently was reading Peter Rollins blog where he posted the opening parts of a chapter based on his talks at the Calvin College conference. The chapter is titled “Beyond the Colour of Each Other’s Eyes: The Worldly Theology of Emerging Collectives.” The following section stood out to me -
This ritualistic enacting of the divine Kenosis, where we keep our shoes on but symbolically remove our ideological commitments, allows for those who have gathered to encounter each other in a different way than they normally would outside of the liturgical space. This encounter was beautifully summarised by Emmanuel Levinas in an interview when he commented that, if we see the colour of someone’s eyes, we are not relating to them. One way of interpreting this is by pointing out that, if we are not really listening to someone, we will be well aware of their external features, such as the colour of their eyes, the clothes they are wearing etc. However, once we get into a deep and intimate conversation will no longer notice these external features, we will no longer see the colour of the persons eyes. It is not that they have become invisible to us but rather that we have entered into what Martin Buber called an ‘I/Thou’ relation in which the objective nature of the other is encountered as emanating their subjectivity.
While I fully affirm the need to empty ourselves and get beyond labels and outward appearances in order to understand and love the Other, my gut reaction to his words is that he’s missing something. I think often in all of our ideological debating about how best to serve/love/know each other we get so wrapped up in ideology that we fail to even notice the color of each other’s eyes. Its not that we get consumed by appearances, but that we don’t even bother to care in the first place. Let me unpack where I am coming from here.
When I read Pete’s words, two other examples about eye color and the Other popped into mind. The first thing I thought of was something I read about the bestselling novel Twilight (and I bet Pete would love having his work compared to a teenage vampire romance…). The notion of eye color plays a significant role in the novel, in many ways it represents the person as a whole conveying their desires, their questions, and the nature of their soul. I read one woman’s response to the book where she mentioned the significance of eye color. As she was reading the books, her husband of 20 years was filling out passport applications for them and asked her from across the room what color her eyes were. Married for twenty years and he didn’t even know what color her eyes were. I have a suspicion that wasn’t because he simply looked past outward appearance and deeply engaged her soul either.
The other eye color reference that immediately came to mind was that old Revolutionary War command for the soldiers not to fire at the Redcoats until they can see the whites of their eyes. While that example promotes the otherizing of people, it reminded me that back then war was personal. Killing a person meant being right up there in their face – seeing the blood, gore, and agony your actions inflicted upon them. No matter what they were labeled, seeing the color of their eyes forced them to be a real human being. Today we can drop bombs on schools and hospitals with the pushing of a button. We don’t even bother to know who are are hurting – we don’t take the time to even acknowledge the physical existence of those we slaughter.
I think before we take the step to empty ourself for the Other, we have to first acknowledge the presence of the other. It can be easy to talk about them (like I am here) and contemplate moving beyond their otherness, but unless we first get close enough to see the color of their eyes all of that can never be real. So I’m all for going beyond eye color, but I think we need a healthy reminder get beyond ourselves long enough to actually see that color in the first place.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Yes, yes and yes.
If we flatten the differences of the other, then we aren’t engaging with them at all. I think you are right that folks seem to want to move past the point where there is an other, but in doing so, it seems they miss who the other actually is. Their eyes gloss over. They don’t notice the other person’s eye color because they are too busy staring at their own reflection in their pupils.
Maybe that’s not what you’re getting at exactly here.
Oh, and I’m a closet Twilight reader. I have very mixed feelings about them. That said, I can’t put them down.:)
I know you’ve read some of Juliet Marillier; have you read any of her Bridei Chronicles? I recently read the first in the series and in it she has some interesting thoughts on combat as it used to be, combat so close that the combatants are looking at one another’s eyes, wondering about the other’s family waiting for him at home, etc. Kind of a tangent, but what you write about the Revolutionary war and the “whites of their eyes” reminded me of it. I’ve read the same sort of reflections from soldiers who fought in WWI and WWII, and agree that the way warfare is waged today often removes the sense of the weightiness of what is happening, even from the combatants. In the past the combatants were usually all too aware of it, even if the ones in power sending them into combat were often insulated from it.
David – great thoughts. and yes, it’s hard not to be drawn to the Twilight books even with their issues.
karl- I’ve only read the first book in the Bridei Chronicles, although I keep meaning to read the others… I love Marillier’s stuff.
If you go far enough back, even the ones sending men into combat were expected to join in the fight too. Kings used to lead from the front of the battle. Roman Emperors had to prove themselves in battle. While I’m not saying that it was a good thing for a society to be ruled by its warriors (though let’s be honest, that’s not just and ancient or medieval form of government – until recently, most of our Presidents have been expected to have spent some time in the military too), on the other hand, it’s not necessarily a bad thing for those with the power to declare war to have to share in its risks themselves.