I had two momentary relational fails this morning: one conversation got fouled in anger, the other in silent sulks. Not a great start to a Saturday - and of course as a participant I cannot claim innocence in either. However, I found it interesting to think about the relative (in)ability of people to discuss in different contexts (especially about events such as Trump, the Charlottesville riot, and remembering Marikana).
How we engage in discourse is rooted in our identity and our perceptions of the identity of others. This can often lead to fractious engagements when we make presuppositions, fail to recognize blind spots, are unwilling or unable to see how we may be misinterpreting others, or how we may be misconstrued by others. Fast conversation is seldom rational. Perhaps our biggest blind spot is our chronological arrogance that inhibits us realizing how much we are a product of our own culture, time and experience, and are culpable of unrecognized offenses. Anyone who says they're not vulnerable to this is delusional. For example: on the topic of removing the statues of those who are offensive to today's values, one person tweeted "Challenge: name five historical figures from mid 19th century or earlier who wouldn't be considered extremely racist by modern standards". The overt intent of the tweet is clear: that the figures of a past era were simply products of their culture - men of their time, with the subtext that we shouldn't condemn them for their racism. Well, of course we're all a product of our time, and that should be intrinsic to our hermeneutics. But that position is also a blind spot of gigantic proportions. As others said in responses to the tweet, "It genuinely doesn't occur to these guys that you could put up statues of black people", and "I also loathe the [argument for] 'men of their time.' My ancestors hated being enslaved at that time, just as any white person would have." [Going off topic for a moment: Personally, I think the core of the issue around statue removal is (a) how to convey the full character of those being represented by the statue so that we don't glorify the reprehensible, and (b) how to erect statues to remember the human excellence of those in the minority or who live hidden among the powerless. Hiding history is to fall into that terrible trap where those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; we need to communicate the nuance of history as best possible without the skewed epistemology of our own identity.] So back to identity, and of course labels. Labels refer to identity and denote a perceived value. Yet we are selfish creatures, and so the first reaction to a label is to evaluate it through our own epistemology and assess what value or threat it holds for us. Label a bottle of water as "poison" and we would choose to die of thirst. Give a thirsty man a bottle of poison that was labeled "spring water", and he would quickly die. Labels do not accurately convey value, and we fail to recognize that at our own peril. For example, you read the news and you see "Republican", "Liberal", "Progressive", "Right wing", "Evangelical", "White", "Black" - these are labels of connotation that generalize, and all generalizations are wrong (think about the paradox of that!). If labels are weak at conveying real identity, what makes up identity? Identity can either define your values, or your values can define an identity. The former results in values that are fluid and impermanent. For example, you may be attracted (for whatever reason) to a particular perspective and take on an identity using the commonly associated label. Maybe you think abortion is ok, same-sex marriage is good, and minority rights should be protected. Suddenly you're "a liberal" or some such term, and you are swept along, modified and captured by that movement. Likewise I suspect many get lost in the dark hole of the alt-right equivalents in much the same way. As I quoted in the prior blog post, discussion used to be "I think A, and here is my argument", but when identity is allowed to determine values it takes on the form of "Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B" - we allow the unexamined epistemology of our adopted identity to determine everything. This is the alt-right, and the cultural evangelical, the liberal and the patriot of whatever political persuasion, when they all accept that "the epistemology of my adopted identity causes me to be offended when you disagree". The alternative is to seek Truth before identity, because (as best you can understand) it is true, and to allow that to define your identity. You may end up being labeled by others as something which is an uncomfortable fit, but your identity is not being defined by the label. If anything, your value-defined identity has the power to change the meaning of the label. A closing thought on how this relates to Christianity; it is my sense that the majority of western Christians have allowed a "evangelical" identity of personal preference to define their values. It is only a minority that say "here is what I believe to be a true value system, and these are my reasons for believing it", and then allow that to define their identity (and this applies to Catholics, Jews, Moslems, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, liberals ...). When we allow reasoned and examined belief to define individual identity, we get our martyrs and unsung heroes. When we adopt an identity in order to give us our values, we end up with statues to the powerful. The epistemology of our identity will draw us toward one, and repel us from the other.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|