My guess is last night’s debate will put this plagiarism kerfuffle to rest, so this may be a day late and a dollar short—though this video is still floating around the internet tubes. (And just listen to the spooky music! Hold me, I’m a-skeered of the black man!)
But there’s an angle on this that I haven’t seen anywhere, so here goes:
When the allegations started coming in about Obama’s alleged plagiarism of Deval Patrick’s “Just Words” riff, it triggered in my mind something I learned along the way, in seminary perhaps, about African-American preaching. As I remember it, within that tradition there are certain basic structures, forms and even phrases that are used widely. The congregation immediately recognizes the form, knows where the sermon is headed, and settles in for the ride, spurring the preacher on in a call-and-response exchange. This mode of preaching is akin to jazz improv, where there is a structure and freedom within it. The point is, the community knows and expects this. Out-and-out plagiarism is certainly still possible, but the sharing of form and content is much more free-flowing.
I did some digging and found this quote from a book called Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators by Rebecca Moore Howard (Google book search is AMAZING):
The Black folk tradition was oral, since slaves were denied written literacy. The oral tradition therefore depended upon repetition and borrowing.
…In this sermonic tradition, sermons are ’shared blessings, not personal belongings’ (from a book called Voices of Deliverance by Miller—the page I’m looking at doesn’t have the full cite). Borrowing gives preacher a number of advantages: it recognizes the culture’s valorization of authority and appropriateness over originality… Miller’s interpretation would assert that we are not discovering that our priests violate public morals, but rather that their traditions endorse an alternative set of textual morals.
Martin Luther King Jr. was engaged in “voice merging”—the African American folk preaching tradition of patching together unattributed words, phrases, and even extended passages from theological sources, the Bible, and other preachers’ sermons… King’s composing practices originate in the oral traditions of the African American church, where discourse is “communal wealth.”
Now how does this relate to a political speech? Well, setting aside the fact that all politicians have speech writers, and all politicians borrow (see the Clinton link above), I would make a case that Obama is “voice merging” like MLK did. In the a-skeery video above, he incorporates everything from a quote from Malcolm X (reportedly a favorite movie of his) to lyrics from a rap song, which also happens to be the title of an Alice Walker novel.
This would also explain some of his appeal to young people, whose language is peppered with cultural references. This is just the way we talk. I also think that in the Google and YouTube age, our “communal wealth” is greater than ever before, because everything is instantly accessible to us as never before.
Does he need to be more careful about attribution? Probably, at least in written transcripts. But verbal attribution is clunky. I had a sermon published some years back that I later found had been preached almost word for word by someone else. But she didn’t technically plagiarize. Instead, every paragraph or two she said “And according to reverendmother…” It must have driven her listeners nuts.
Setting aside the “Just Words” flap and issues of borrowing, it is clear that Obama has listened to a great deal of black preaching, has internalized its forms, and shares its ethos.
In fact, one of the things Obama does so well is to use language that resonates with faith language, without talking explicitly about faith. It serves as a wink and a nod to people of faith in general, and Christians in particular. When he talks about bridging the divides, we hear “There is no longer slave or free, male or female, all are one in Christ.” The way he talks about poverty and his work as a community organizer brings to mind Jesus’ command to serve “the least of these.” Meanwhile the secular left is happy because he’s not shoving God down their throats. It’s a strong strategy for a Democrat. And I believe it IS a strategy. But it is also rooted in the preaching tradition that he has experienced and surely internalized.
The hard-core evangelicals will never go for Obama, but he is a faithful church-goer, more so than McCain if
I’m not mistaken. So I think he’ll get some moderate evangelical swing voters. I can think of a few friends in that category who are passionate about poverty and hate this war. One in particular is very conservative socially, but he sat out the last election because he was so disgusted with Bush and couldn’t get behind Kerry.
Time will tell.
10 Responses to “on plagiarism and faith”
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
» Aaaaaand little she-who-is lost another tooth this week!
» SBJ is four months old, 19 pounds 5 ounces, and 26 inches tall. GIGANTOR!
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
If you’re right, the accusation of plagiarism is racist.
Putting that aside, originality of expression is not the point of a political speech. Clear expression of an idea is. Criticizing a politician for using words he’s heard express his idea well is like criticizing a poet for merely using different words when expressing an idea other poets have tackled before.
It just isn’t the point.
Thank you.
You know, I think it’s just this very lack of understanding of different cultures that is at the root of so many of our problems, in church and in the public arena. Your explanation here is helpful.
I’ve tried to like Hillary. Really, I have. But last night’s “hope you can xerox” comment just confirmed my gut feelings about her. She’s just too bitchy to bring about any form of unity.
I agree with Patrick Appel at the Daily Dish…
There is a lot of talk this morning about Hillary allegedly plagiarizing John Edward’s or Bill Clinton’s lines. I don’t buy it for exactly the same reasons I didn’t buy the idea that Obama plagiarized lines. Political rhetoric isn’t subject to copyright. If those standards apply to Obama, then they also apply to Clinton. The difference is I don’t expect the Obama campaign to jump all over her for allegedly lifting lines.
What interested me about her is that I’d managed to absorb some vague idea about her being “shrill” without ever having actually seen her in a debate. My boys are both sick right now, so they fell asleep early enough for me to watch this one.
I no longer think she’s shrill, and I realize I accepted that characterization unconsciously. My conscious reassessment of her is that she makes sense, but she takes cheap shots and won’t let go of them.
I realize this is my third comment, but everything that drips from my brain is a diamond.
One of the things you’re told to do on a job interview is demonstrate doing the job, not just talk about how you could do it if given a chance. If the job is unifying people, Obama’s demonstrating an ability to do that before we’re even to the election.
Very interesting. During a speech following the Challenger disaster Reagan used the line “reached out my hand and touched the face of God.” He was familiar with the poem and used the line in a moving speech. I don’t remember any clamor then about plaguerism. I think one of the problems today is society is not used to gifted oration. When we think of great orators we think of Churchill or MLK. Both reflected and used phrases that meant something to their audiences in the way you explained. That Obama and his campaign manager/assistant use same or similar phrases shouldn’t surprise since they have a unified message and words convey message.
Along the same lines, several years ago I attended a Christmas fellowship of an Iranian christian congregation in Houston. (we lived in Iran for several years) I found it interesting that devotionals, testimonies and praises were give in a form of verse. Poetry and verse is loved and a part of Iranian culture and used frequently. These christians still identified with their culture even in a foreign land and even their christian speech reflected that. I hope my mention of part of the “axis of evil” doesn’t offend your readers.
Very interesting an compelling argument you’ve made here.
And really, don’t we all internalize phrases and cadences and ways of saying things that work? Not the same as plagiarizing in a written document. Not really plagiarizing at all.
Very interesting. I’ve often thought that Obama sounds like a preacher (even when he’s politicking.) Great post.
I think Obama is such a preacher. And while churches need good administration and such, they rarely thrive without inspiring, challenging, hope-filled preaching. Given the scant policy differences b/w O and C, I decided to go with the preacher.
Appreciate your thoughts on the plagiarism issue, for sure.
This is a very interesting angle. Preaching is all about the sharing of ideas, giving our own gloss on some combination of scholarship, experience and what’s in the air this week. Political speech at its best is the same and therefore not unique but rather organic.
It wasn’t brilliant in this video-obsessed age to use someone else’s words exactly and not credit them, not because it was plagiarism but because it stirred up a preventable storm.