Wisdom Actors, part 2
Style of communication
So far, then, we can safely conclude that these four devout Israelites have some pretty serious religious sticking points about policy, and that they reveal, at least to us in our time, some pretty curious ways in which they exercise freedom of conscience. In this regard, these narratives remind me, on the one hand, of principles for obeying one’s conscience, and on the other hand, of allowing others freedom of conscience on negotiable issues, as spelled out in the New Testament Epistle to the Romans, chapter 14.
Let’s now move from how the four devout Jews handled delicate religious and political interests to the issue of the aesthetics, or style, of communication. This is not an area that most people give any thought to, but it essential in the field of international relations, foreign policy, and diplomacy. Further, in areas such as diplomacy, negotiations, international mediation, and suchlike, I have become convinced that the agency of wisdom insists on a particular manner of expression.
“Style matters in foreign policy,” writes seasoned foreign policy advisor Dennis Ross (Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World, 2007, p. 6). Ross has had vast foreign policy experience in the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and he now serves as a high-level advisor to President Obama on Middle East policy. In Statecraft, he offers several examples of the importance of style in diplomacy and international relations, contrasting the marked differences in foreign policy style between President George W. Bush and that of his father, President George H. W. Bush, and the implications the difference had on U.S. relations overseas. “Style is part of an approach to foreign policy,” Ross concludes. “Style gets at how we shape the instruments at our disposal for” promoting the substance of policies (p. 11).
The significance of diplomatic style, of course, is often most noticed in verbal language and in the way words are used, especially between great contrasts, such as when American and British leaders speak about the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Britain, or when the George W. Bush administration paced North Korea, Iraq, and Iran in an “axis of evil.” But there are many other issues essential to diplomatic style, such as body language, right down to the ways in which ambassadors, for instance, dress for official meetings.the agency of wisdom insists on a particular manner of expression
Is a foreign minister from an Arab country appearing at the White House dressed in a suit and tie or in a traditional white cotton dishdashah and three-piece head covering? What lapel pin is a U.S. Secretary of State wearing? You may chuckle, but Albright has written an entire book about it (Read My Pins). Style and symbolism, and much more besides, will evoke meanings beyond use of words that will be clear to the elite, and they may influence the direction of talks, the corners turned, the outcomes possible for a given situation. Right down to the lapel pin.
A caveat. I recognize that the field of the aesthetics of communication is itself mystifying, and that this is just an article, not a book, you’re reading, so we’re limited, here, in how much can be said. Further still, the aesthetics of wisdom communication may by unfamiliar territory, indeed. But perhaps we can make a beginning. Mind you, I’m merely offering some of my own findings and (tentative) conclusions, but I think that in Daniel the statesman and diplomat we have some good clues about manner and tone of communication consistent with the international aspect of the wisdom tradition. It underlines Ross’s point that style matters.
Traditional prophetic style
I have chosen to do this by way of contrast. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bible presents us with different styles of communication, depending on who is speaking, what the subject is, and what is being said about that subject. To now narrow the focus, it seems clear from my research into the wisdom literature that the style of the prophets stands apart from the style of “the wise” when either are addressing politics, governments, international relations, and foreign policies. That is, they way officials who are among the maskil, the hakamim, the soperim, or the sarim talked among themselves or to their counterparts in other nations is quite unlike the way the prophets of Israel spoke their messages. I believe this marked differentiation indicates two kinds of communication, each having their own style consistent with the purpose and function of each tradition. One is consistent with the Old Testament prophetic calling, the other with government officials.
To generalize for a minute about the style of the prophetic tradition, it is, for one thing, confrontative in ways that the style of the wisdom tradition is not. To put it crudely, the traditional prophetic style, as we see it expressed in the Old Testament, is free to go for the juggler, which it frequently does. A long passage in Isaiah 47, for instance, drips with sarcasm. Although you need to read the entire chapter to get a good feel for this, I note a few lines here: “Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne… Take millstones and grind flour… Sit in silence, go into darkness… Now then, listen, you wanton creature…”we can hardly imagine Daniel, the epitome of the old-world hakamim, ever using such a style of communication
That the indictment, itself, never mind its style of language, is directed at policymakers is important but is not our subject, here, though it is worth mentioning that they have enacted such unjust domestic laws and international policies that the policymakers and their nation, Babylon, will be severely judged. Prophetic indictments in the Old Testament are in fact usually addressed to such policymakers, whether kings or their officials, whether in Israel or in other nations. In this regard, Isaiah 46-47 give us a biting polemic against the Chaldean hakamim and soperim in Babylon’s wayward government.
Consider, too, the inflammatory rhetoric against an Assyrian king for the hubris he has about his foreign policy decisions (Isaiah 10). The prophet taunts and thunders: “Woe to the Assyrian… [The] Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; under his pomp a fire will be kindled like a blazing flame.” Here’s the situation. The first half of Isaiah 10 depicts the superpower Assyria as a club in the hand of Yahweh being used against “a godless nation.” The king of Assyria, however, with his mighty military have overstepped the bounds of what today might be called a just war. The king and his officials are drunk with colossal self-confidence, the ever-present danger of any superpower.
In the wine of self-intoxication, the King of Assyria ends up priding himself as the maker of world history. As Ze’ev Weisman writes in his Political Satire in the Bible, the prophecy is a biting satirical comment on that hubris. “The prophet places in the mouth of the king of Assyria, who is the object of his criticism, the very words that make him liable to God’s judgment… ‘By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom I have understood…’ is meant to pour scorn on his delusion that the source of his mastery in the world arena is his strength and his wisdom as a ruler, while in fact he is a tool in the hands of God, the true master of world history” (1998, p. 89).
Of the monstrous hubris of the ruler of Tyre, who claims to be ruling as God, prophetic language declares that a “ruthless nation” will bring “you down to the pit, and you will die a violent death” (Ezekiel 28:2, 7-8). All sorts of other examples of inflammatory rhetoric are found in the Old Testament prophetic literature. The sarim of Pharaoh give “idiotic advice” (McKane, Prophets and Wise Men, translating Isa. 19:11). The wisdom (hokma) and political counsel (esa) of Edom turn that small nation into “an object of horror…, as Sodom and Gomorrah” (Jeremiah 49:7, 17-18). “A sword against the Babylonians!” the prophet yells (Isaiah 50:35) to its officials (sarim) and wise men (hakamim).
These several illustrations are enough to show a normative style of communication in the prophetic tradition. (The style seems reminiscent of the language of Psalm 2:4,which depicts God himself, his forbearance at an end, deriding the hubris of kings.) The prophets felt free to go for the juggler and to employ a style of language befitting that. Now we can hardly imagine Daniel, the epitome of the old-world hakamim, ever using such a style of communication.
Daniel’s style
Daniel’s manner of expression among his peers and in the royal court contrasts to that of traditional prophetic communication as depicted in the Old Testament. I suppose some could accuse Daniel of waffling, or of ungodly compromise, or of playing both ends against the middle, or of being a Casper milk toast. But none of those arguments fly. After all, as we have seen, the text clearly indicates that Daniel has been willing to die for his beliefs.
Others might suggest that he was a quiet soul, or that perhaps he lacked the skill to engage his political colleagues in a worldview debate over the ultimate dissimilarities between Babylonian and Hebrew worldviews. But neither of those ideas hold water. We know from his education that Daniel had to have been was well-versed in the Babylonian worldview, and from that we can assume he would have been on equal footing in any theological or religious debate with his political colleagues. And it is clear from a close reading of the book that he could be bold at times, albeit in his own way, even if we accept that he was usually a quiet fellow. In other words, none of these reasons prevent us from reaching the conclusion that Daniel could have launched bitter polemics or biting sarcasm any time he wanted to. Yet that style of communication from Daniel is nowhere seen in the text. My conclusion is that he did not use that style because he was a trained professional in the wisdom tradition.
Daniel’s tone of his communication is different, I believe, because it must be. Like carefully tuned strings on a fine instrument, tone and tradition must agree. The maskil, hakamim, soperim, and the sarim of the old-world Middle East (as far I can discover none were prophets) were appointed by kings to serve as officials in various positions of government to keep the realm and its international relations running as smoothly as possible. (This is, of course, similar today, for professionals and specialists such as cabinet members, ambassadors, diplomats, foreign ministers, negotiators, and others are appointed by presidents or prime ministers to serve in domestic or international politics and governance.) Now, as everyone knows, in order for things to run as smoothly as possible, general agreements among people, and peoples, who are different must be reached for the common good of all concerned.
Such a calling requires its spokespersons to have a manner of communication consistent with reaching such goals. If that normative style of the calling is abused or broken, as would happen if the officials engaged in bitter polemics or biting sarcasm across the table from each other, relations would worsen or completely break down. Daniel’s manner of expression among his peers in the royal court is the complete opposite of that.Like carefully tuned strings on a fine instrument, tone and tradition must agree.
As I wrote in the two part summary of the wisdom literature, whether we call it “common ground, or common good, or human mutuality: the shared concerns of everyday life and the decisions people will make in them as they live and work together is a central interest of the wisdom tradition.” This is the theater in which Daniel the statesman serves and his manner of communication must suit that calling or he is out of a job. A particular style of communication therefore, whether oral or written, seems to be essential to those who were trained professionals in the wisdom tradition. (We can assume that this was part of what Daniel learned under Ashpenaz.)
Beyond tolerance to respect
We have more clues in the Book of Daniel, more than in any other piece of known ancient wisdom literature, as far as I am aware, about the style of wisdom-based communication by high-level government officials in pluralist situations. The book can be divided into two main sections, chapters 1-6 and 7-12. In the latter, Daniel receives several stunning supernatural visitations, apocalyptic revelations, and their interpretations, but none of these are germane to any of the kings or the royal courts in which he is an official. In other words, they are personal to Daniel in the sense that, after receiving these revelations, Daniel is not seen interacting with any of the rulers or any of the wise in any of these administrations. With nary a mention of Daniel having engaged with any royal courts about the revelations and visitations, for all we know none of those kings or officials knew Daniel had them.
It is in the first half of the book where we find Daniel and his three friends interacting with rulers and officials. Their conversations may be about personal issues, such as diet or prayer, or it may be about interpreting dreams or visions, or it may be about dramatic disclosures or personal threats. So it is in the first half of the book that we must look for clues to what I’m calling Daniel’s wisdom-based style of communication.
To begin, a small but significant point is the little phrase, “O King, live forever!” It appears many times in the text, used by various figures, as a formal assertion of respect, not unlike today when someone says “Mr. President…” This little tidbit of information is really quite important, especially today, when the word “respect” rarely is used in the media and in society; and when heard in politics, well, everyone knows it means something else.
The word that is bandied about today, almost as a substitute for respect, is “tolerance.” But tolerance and respect are not synonyms. To have someone respect you is quite different than merely being tolerated. The latter attitude is a kind of passive endurance taken toward a person one has to put up with but can’t do much about. It’s not far from condescend, or patronize. Respect, however, engages with the other attentively and courteously, which is harder to work at than merely tolerating the other. Today, however, we are frequently commanded by our betters in politics and elsewhere that we must show tolerance toward the other. I don’t want to seem ungrateful for that commandment. Our obedience to it would certainly take us a few good steps back from blowing each other up; but it is a far cry from the respect of others that is needed if we are to work together for common good.tolerance and respect are not synonyms
Christ Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement, has done a lot of thinking about respect. IGE practices relational diplomacy around the world in some pretty hairy situations and has had a number of stunning successes in international negotiations and mediation by helping the parties move in their thinking beyond tolerance of each other to respect. Seiple writes: “If my neighbor … is created in the image of God just like me, then I need to find a way to respect and love my neighbor as I would myself. Finding the language, logic, and actions that speak to that neighbor can be difficult, but we cannot shirk from the task…. When you get right down to it … [if] we don’t have time to respect our neighbor and to understand and work across our deepest differences, then intolerance, hate, and violence are not far behind.” (Dr. Chris Seiple, “IGE: Your Global Neighborhood Weather Station,” Web article.) It is easy to forget that people are made in the image of God. This is not something to be tolerated, but respected.
Daniel does respect
Respect for the other is normative in the spirit and tone of Daniel’s communication, even when he is delivering the strongest possible medicine, as he does in the narrative depicting “the writing on the wall” at the end of Belshazzar’s reign. Having been brought in to interpret the strange writing and having understood its meaning, Daniel suddenly faces a terrible dilemma. The writing on the wall is the king’s obituary.
How does this diplomat, then, go about predicting to Belshazzar his own death? The scene in the text is quite detailed (5:13-31), and Daniel is prudent, discreet, and respectful. He even took it upon himself to remind Belshazzar of his father’s repentance (his father was Nebuchadnezzar). It seems to me from the text that Daniel not only desired Belshazzar’s repentance but was trying to nudge him toward it. The text is silent as to what effect that had on the king, but before he dies, something quite remarkable has transpired in the banquet hall. The king could have had Daniel’s head on a platter for predicting his death. Instead, the king clothes Daniel in royal purple, puts a gold chain around his neck, and proclaims him third highest ruler in the kingdom!
We might want to imagine how one of the prophets might have spoken to the king, given the same situation! Some might argue, well, what did you expect, this was the king and so Daniel was just looking out for himself. I don’t think so. We have indications that Daniel’s style of public communication was consistent.
