Saying ‘no’ this Christmas

I have always been interested in the various characters that make up the Christmas story, the narratives they embody, and the roles they play. While most celebrations focus on Jesus, the silent protagonist, of the Christmas Play, I have often been interested in the supporting cast, particularly May-Jo, I mean Mary and Joseph, without whom the Christmas story wouldn’t unfold.

This year, as I reflected on May-Jo’s parts in the Christmas drama and their role in the story, what stood out for me was their agency. Their saying ‘yes’ to supernatural callings which societies even today would ridicule. Ordinary characters with an extraordinary agency! The will and determination to say ‘yes’ against all odds.

Mary said ‘yes’ to an out-of-wedlock baby and Joseph said ‘yes’ to marrying a bride who was pregnant with another’s child.

But the power of their ‘yeses’ lies in the various ‘noes’ it entailed. Their ‘yes’ to the angel was a ‘no’ to traditional mores, social expectations, and even basic common sense. All of it based on their response to a supernatural calling delivered by an angel in a dream. May-Jo’s determination to say ‘no’ to themselves and their world was the secret of their stardom.

Reflections must lead to self-reflection and self-reflection to action in the world, thus defining one’s being in the world! The power of a story lies precisely in its ability to transform its hearers, even as the hearer heeds to the injunctions of the story and embodies it in her practices. Narratives, ancient or modern, take on scriptural status, as far as their transformative power to induce a change in their readers continues to grow beyond their historical confines, effecting change from one generation to another. Such narratives have the power to be embodied in the here and the now, even in our lives today.

So, what does it mean to say ‘no’ in our highly agency-conscious diverse society?

The word ‘no’ definitely has a negative connotation in that it signifies disagreement, non-participation, and non-compliance.

In our multicultural and diversity-sensitive world, ‘yeses’ are often privileged over ‘noes’ in the name of ‘diversity’, ‘rights’ and ‘tolerance’, as there is a premium on the values of agreement, participation, compliance and political correctness.

However, there appears to be a huge difference between May-Jo’s ‘yes’ and diversity’s current cry for a ‘yes’.

Through their ‘yes’, May-Jo gave a resounding ‘no’ to the universal expectations of their society and said ‘yes’ to the particular and unique calling on their lives. It was a true celebration of individual autonomy and agency, in that they chose to say ‘yes’ irrespective of the prevailing social mores and acceptable behaviour of their society.

However, it appears to be the reverse in our world that celebrates diversity. Diversity’s demand for ‘yes’ today is a demand on society as a whole for a universal ‘yes’ to certain forms of life and has unfortunately turned coercive in that it does not allow for a ‘no’. ‘Noes’ are taken to be politically incorrect and increasingly illegal. In diversity’s demand for a ‘yes’ there is a thrust on a universal social behaviour framed by present social conditions and expectations, and there is no celebration of particularity. Diversity’s demand for a universal ‘yes’ goes against the very grain of what diversity stands for and thus is implicitly paradoxical. The vocabulary of ‘diversity’ is one of universalism and does not celebrate historical uniqueness and callings.

So, what can diversity learn from May-Jo’s affirmations and negations?

A true ‘yes’ to diversity will have to entail a ‘no’ to all forms of universality, including its own demand for universal acceptance. Diversity is a celebration of diverse unique callings. It is truly about individual autonomy and not social universality. It does not think about a collective universal voice – national or institutional but celebrates all individualities – individuals of all diverse kinds. Replacing one universality with another is not a celebration of agency and autonomy or diversity. Diversity is concerned about the individual rather than commonality, even when the individual goes against the accepted universal. That is what May-Jo did and we continue to remember them from one Christmas to another.

What does the ‘no’ protect? It is the protection of the individual calling from the tyranny of universal compliance. Everything individual that truly makes us human – our relationships, our identity, our morals and our callings. Thus, an implicit ‘no’ is an explicit protection of these values that make an individual truly human.

That is why the stories of Mary and Joseph have eternal value and continually endure the onslaught of history. They have survived the attacks of time and age and continue to thrive because in them there is a celebration of what is truly human – the agency to say ‘no’ and ‘yes’. Therefore, as long as humans remain, these stories will continue to inspire and encourage every reader and command hearers towards being authentically human.

So, don’t be afraid to say ‘no’ this Christmas.