Divine Plagiarism

It occurs to me, at the McClure-DelCastillo engagement party (two of my friends here,) that a pretty huge number of my military friends have multi-ethnic marriages (like upwards of 30%.) This is not as true for my civilian friends, but is somewhat true of my Christian civilian friends. At the K-School, this was not true at all. It was a big deal for someone to even have a multi-ethnic relationship, and had some pretty huge social ramifications, whisperings about ‘selling out,’ and ‘sleeping with the enemy,’ and the like. This never made much sense to me. Nonetheless, for some reason, within the extended military community (active duty, spouses and children of career military,) multi-ethnic marriages are both very common and viewed as normal. I, for obvious reasons if you read any of my other posts, think this is great. There must be some math, some magic to this. There must be some governing dynamic. This post is an attempt to find it. On a mostly unrelated point, I’d like to like to thank Nate and Natasha (those two friends) for proving to me that purity is possible, even when you’re 29 years old. They’re saving their first kiss for their wedding day. Administrative note: if I wasn’t lazy I’d find some actual statistics. Instead, I’m going to use the time-honored tack of using my friends as my sample, along with ’stuff I heard’ as data. I also highly advocate TLAR Navigation. (TLAR=That Looks About Right.) By the way, as a ‘not get fired’ note refer to my ‘who I am’ page for my disclaimer that I do not represent any views other than my own here.

Definitions. Any time you classify anything, you must trade some nuance for understanding (reference Uncertainty post.) This discussion is an attempt to classify different identities in regard to the direction of definition (from within or from without.) This discussion must therefore speak in very broad terms, and generalize to a great degree. If I step on anybody’s toes in doing so, I apologize. Returning to the previous post on dimensionality, our discussion will limit itself to one dimension at a time within the huge multiple regression that exists in each of us. (For each dimension in which we are defined, such as race, class, gender, etc., there are complex allegiance and identity interactions. We’ll just talk about one at a time, acknowledging the concomitant loss of the total picture.) The milieu of this discussion will be the questions of immigration. And, even though identities are dialectical (defining those who define them, and vice versa,) our view is macroscopic, so we’ll just assume that dialectic. Anyways, to the question at hand.

Exclusive Identities. An exclusive identity is defined as simultaneously being something, and therefore not being something else. More succinctly, ‘I am X, and therefore not Y.’ Inherent in the definition of the identity is the negation of some competing identity. An exclusive identity tends to be far stronger, but is not generally accessible. The identity remains ‘pure’ as defined by its participants, and is disinclined, at least to some degree, to participate in the larger context. In order to meet the needs of its members, the identity may create parallel or alternative structures to provide basic services. Barriers to participation in the larger context push an identity more in the direction of exclusivity. An exclusive identity’s distinguishing characteristic is distinctness. In the immigration context, most community identities start as exclusive identities, and then either remain so, or evolve into inclusive identities as barriers to participation are overcome. Specific examples: The African-American community, has to some extent, maintained an exclusive identity forged by history (and necessity.) Evidence of this is the parallel structures of the traditionally black colleges (Morehouse, Spelman, etc.) This identity was initially imposed from without (shamefully through slavery,) but is currently maintained largely from within. Initially, the Italian-American immigrant community had an exclusive identity imposed from without (not being accepted, being called epithets, etc.) The Mafia’s early role was filling in the security gaps left from failure of the police. (Similar to the development of the PIRA in Ulster in the first half of the last century.) The American military could be said to have an exclusive identity, but one imposed from the inside. We will explore this in ’External and Internal Identities.’ The important point is that an exclusive identity is defined as much by what it is not as by what it is. Therefore the members of an exclusive identity must continue to not be the antithesis of the identity as they inhabit the identity.

Inclusive Identities. An inclusive identity is the first of an exclusive identity without the second. It is defined as being something, without precluding being something else. Simply ‘I am X.’ There is no required negation of the opposite, in fact an inclusive identity can embrace the opposite and be both at once. This sort of identity tends to be weaker, but far more accessible. In fact, the identity can spread beyond the original group members, both in general influence and in specific shaping of behaviors within the larger community. This sort of identity finds it strength in participating in the larger context, as its accessible nature allows it to exert influence proportionate with its participation. It rarely establishes parallel institutions, but instead spreads its most effective institutions throughout the whole, reshaping the whole. In time, particularly appealing parts of the inclusive identity may supplant aspects of the collective identity (more salsa is sold than ketchup in America.) Diffuseness is the identifying aspect of an inclusive identity.
(In this sense, perhaps, it is the relative truth of an identity system, making the exclusive the absolute truth of the system. The absolute system defines the origin.) Examples include the current Irish-American identity (St. Pat’s day, people who are like 1/32 Irish are all like ‘Kiss me I’m Irish,’ Boondock Saints is a uniquely American movie, even though it is uniquely Irish-American.) The current influence of Latino culture in contemporary music, food and films (Fast and the Furious, Y Tu Mama Tambien, yuppie burritos are the current food of choice for the larger culture, even though they are as Latino as American pizza is Italian (not much.)) is certainly shaping the larger culture, indicating a transition from a more exclusive to a more inclusive identity. The Asian-American inclusive identity has imprinted itself very strongly on Saturday Morning cartoons, which are more formative that one may think. By the power of Grayskull. Growing up in the 80s. Fun. (Sort of on this topic, one could make an argument that the assimilationist impulse in the first generation Asian-American community was so aggressive as to create a backlash within the second generation toward recovering the identity, seen in movies such as Joy-Luck Club.) The important point here is that the member of the inclusive identity says ‘I can be this and something else.’

I am not trying to make any normative statements here. My impulse would be to prefer inclusive identities over exclusive ones, but that is because I am to some degree a member of the majority culture. Simultaneously, I would argue that in being a military member, I am a member of an exclusive identity, for to some degree, I identify myself as ‘not a civilian.’ These are different slices of reality though. My point is that inclusive identities are not necessarily better. Under certain circumstances maintaining exclusive identities may be necessary or beneficial. One such circumstance is in the face of an overwhelming majority identity. In order for the identity to maintain itself, it must set and keep itself apart. I would cite Reform Judaism as an example of this, given its shaping experiences in latter-second millennium Germany. (There seems to be a strong element of ‘we’re not Christian’ in Reform Judaism. Conservative Judaism does not seem to have quite as strong a strain of ‘definition by negation.’ (Example: Matisyahu and POD's Roots in Stereo.) This is certainly a controversial statement, and if anyone wants to push back against this, I honestly welcome it. I have another essay that discusses this topic at length.) An exclusive identity would also be beneficial in the face of an oppressive majority culture. Collaborating with the larger culture smacks of colluding with the enemy, similar to the dynamics of a POW camp. I would cite the African American experience during slavery and Jim Crow laws as an example of this. In order to push back against external degrading definitions of identity, an exclusive identity allows the group members to define their own identity with pride. I must nuance this somewhat. In the I Have a Dream speech, Dr. King seems to hint at a future inclusive identity. Perhaps this is in the expectation of eventual removal of degrading forces. I cannot speak meaningfully to this. The final circumstance that necessitates an exclusive identity is an obliterative majority culture. An assimilationist culture allows multiple inclusive identities within the context of shared general experiences and values. The assimilated individual still retains a mix of their own individual identities, while participating in the larger collective identity. The obliterated individual has only the larger collective identity. Consider the Borg from Star Trek. ’Assimilated’ Borgs, even as their uniqueness is added to the whole, are not allowed to retain inclusive individual identities. They are obliterated, not assimilated, and their old identity is not changed, but lost. So there are circumstances where exclusive identities are normatively better. I would note, though, that in an accessible assimilationist culture, inclusive identities generally foster harmony and prosperity better than exclusive identities.

Exclusive identities may be developed along substrate lines simply as a recognition of reality. Barriers to communication or entry may come in forms other than cultural differences. Consider the impact of mountain ranges on cultures and languages (the Balkans, the Basques,) or the difficulties imposed by linguistic differences (South American tribal cultures a la Jim Elliot.) The transitive remnants of these substrates (language, clothing, music) may be maintained as the distinguishing marks of the identities. Exclusive identities are the natural state then, defined by excluding the other. This checks when one considers the degenerative states of inclusive identities are exclusive identities (Balkanization, civil wars.)

Fluidity. Sorry about the long definitions. I am intrigued by fluidity between these states, more than the definitions themselves. Specifically, I am interested in how exclusive identities become inclusive, both in the military and in the immigration example. Let’s start with from some specific examples of this transition.

Superstrate Identities. An exclusive identity may transition to inclusivity during the incorporation of a superstrate identity. (I just made up that word. I hope it means something. What I mean by it is a transcendent identity that is placed on the top of other identities.) (Interestingly, most superstrate identities are exclusive themselves.) The new superstrate identity requires cohesion between its members, therefore is unable to accommodate exclusive identities. The military serves as an example of this. Here, the process incorporates a shaping experience, such as basic training or combat. The sociological purposes of basic training are intriguing. It is as much to de-socialize previous allegiances as it is to establish new ones. (‘Break them down and build them back up.‘) In the wake of this new socialization, it is not that the old identities die, but rather they lose their exclusivity. In their place is a new system of allegiances which forge a whole out of a group which still maintains its diversity. With the power of exclusion greatly diminished, there are far fewer barriers to success for traditionally disadvantaged groups. Hence the claim that the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy in the country. The idea of the military as an artificial ethnicity is intriguing, but would take much more time to explore adequately. This superstrate identity may happen through more mystical means, such as in the church. Here still, it involves ceremony and a death of the old to create the new identity. (reference Death and Rebirth.) A forging experience or a shared narrative can build or strengthen a superstrate identity, but generally this is done by contrasting the self with the other (hence most superstrate identities being exclusive.) America was not really America until World War Two. One might say that WWII was America’s basic training. The narrative of a common struggle, and the collective sacrifice, caused many groups to start thinking of themselves as one. Sept. 11 invoked the common superstrate identity by clearly defining an opposing and threatening force, and caused some exclusive identities to become inclusive for a period of time. (An argument can be made that simultaneously it excluded some previously included identities as well.)

Economic Necessity. There comes a critical point in the development of economic interdependency between two groups where they must decide whether to include each other or fight for domination. If a majority culture is 95% of a population, it can exclude the minority group and remain economically viable. Economies of scale will still work. At this ratio, both groups can maintain exclusive identities. If the majority group is 51% to the minority’s 49%, it is no longer practical for the two groups to maintain separate economic lives. Without shared markets and shared manufacturing, and with scarce resources, the two groups are faced with a choice. Along economic ties, cultural ties and family ties develop. Either one group pushes the other group back below that critical point where exclusive identities can be maintained, or the two groups assent to having inclusive identities. The former is a very unpleasant choice, generally accomplished through ethnic cleansing or civil war. Fortunately, in America, people seem to prefer the latter choice (although this could be due to laziness rather than beneficence.) I am thinking about Corpus Christi here. The percentages there are about 50% Anglo / 50% Latino. It is not economically viable to have two Corpus Christis (no convenient river or railroad tracks.) Therefore, Corpus chose the latter. Although economic inequities exist, Corpus seems to think of itself as one city. High degrees of intermarriage exist, and hence exclusive identities will not be able to be maintained past one generation there.

Multi-Ethnic Children. It is awfully hard to maintain two exclusive identities within one person. Hence, children of parents of different races seem to see themselves as the possessors of multiple inclusive identities. To consider it logically, there are one of four possible choices for such a child. The first is to take on an exclusive identity with those who are the same mix. This is not particularly practical (‘Half-Latino Half-Anglo pride’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.) The second and third choice is to identify exclusively with the ethnicity of one parent or the other. This is problematic, in that generally kids love both of their parents, and realize that they are composed of parts of both of them. Hopefully the parents wouldn’t abide the child viewing them as independent rather than a united front. So the only option that remains is to maintain two inclusive identities. Interestingly, there is a counterbalance to the power of the majority in the effects of intermarriage, as the child usually feels more compelled to express the minority identity of the two. (S. and Q. are two of my good friends here, he is Italian-American and she is Vietnamese-American. Their child’s dolls are more Asian than Caucasian. My other friend S.’s husband was half-Japanese, half-Caucasian, and he expressed his Asian heritage pretty strongly too. And he is really good at Halo. But that has nothing to do with anything.) The larger culture can shape this, of course. In America, generally someone who has any black ancestry is considered black, whereas some places in South America anyone with any white ancestry is considered white. (This, in turn, may have to do with the shameful history of sexual assault on the part of slave owners, and the assaulters’ concurrent unwillingness to take part in the resulting children’s lives. Identity formation then went to the remaining parent.) The synthesis incumbent in multi-ethnic children in turn causes adherents to exclusive identity to abhor intermarriage. Consider the Deep South during the civil rights era, or the vastly less virulent accusations of ‘sleeping with the enemy’ that would be whispered around the Kennedy School. The integration experience of Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants cannot be divorced from intermarriage, neither can the resulting strongly inclusive identities. (Not to get normative, but clearly I think this is good, as do I see the multi-ethnic marriages of many of my friends a good portend for the future of this country.)

Models. Having described some mechanisms by which exclusive identities become inclusive, as a good social scientist, I have to make a model. (I’m not really a good social scientist. Vrroom. Airplane noises.) Let’s pull in Biology and Economics, because all the cool kids are eclectic like that. I like jumping between fields without regard for current academic turf lines (‘cause I’m not an academic. Did I mention I’m not an academic. By the way, I’m not an academic. [Yeah, that’s one of those exclusive identities right here. Oh, the irony. {The really fun question is trying to figure out what exclusive identity is the negation of academic. You‘d probably have to know me pretty well to figure that out. You‘d probably have to care, too, so Ill get back to the point. I mostly said that just to use the cool squiggly brackets, square ones and parentheses all in a row. -> }])

Osmotic Membrane Model. Imagine a membrane separating one fluid from a larger mass of fluid. Say, for the sake of something or other, it’s a cell membrane, keeping the inside of the cell from going to the outside. That membrane will have some amount of permeability, some type of transport mechanism, and some tensile strength, beyond which it will rupture. So initial conditions. Cell plops into fluid mass. All of the cell stuff stays inside the cell. Say we start adding water to the cell. Cell starts expanding. Water wants to move to the outside, partial pressures and all. (I know its an imperfect model.) It starts pushing against the membrane, and the cell begins to expand, displacing the outside fluid. At some point, though, the transport mechanisms reach their limits. Water still wants to leave. Some of it starts finding its own way out. Rips form in the membrane, as its tensile strength can no longer hold back the pressure. The rips grow larger and larger until there is no barriers to diffusion. Even in the wake of cellular rupture, the endoplasm of the cell remains mostly in its original location, and the mixing occurs around the edges until some new perturbation of the system or until some catalyst enters the scene. So to explain the analogy. The cellular membrane is the mechanisms by which the exclusivity of the identity is maintained (social censure, geographic confinement, etc.) The introduction of more and more water is the growth of the identity through the multiplication of its members. The transport mechanisms are the legitimate pathways recognized by the exclusive community for interaction (without inclusion) in the larger context. (Note that there is a possible principal-agent problem pointed out with this model, if the owners of the transport mechanisms wield much influence, they may keep the membrane in place past its rupturing point, diminishing the influence of the identity in order to increase their own.) Notice that the membrane will not rupture if the pressure of the medium is increased as well. So the majority must choose to include the identity, even before the identity can choose to do so itself. The point of the model is that there is a critical ‘rupture’ point, when the identity cannot no longer remain exclusive. In the next model, we will see a similar economic critical point.

Meme/Economics Model. Imagine the identity as a rationally optimizing entity. The identity’s measure of utility is total identity influence. Consider this the ‘selfish meme’ theory. (Two citations for this one. You probably already know them. If not, google ‘the selfish gene’ and ‘meme.’) The identity will act in ways that maximize its ‘size.’ The identity can grow in one of two ways. Direct growth is an increase in the population size of adherents to the identity. Indirect growth is the fractional increase of influence caused through indirect means (media, larger culture.) The identity can be lessened in two ways, as well. It can be directly lessened through a decrease in the population size, or a diffusion of population effects by intermarriage. It can be indirectly lessened by media and other means. Influence has significant economies of scale. At very small population sizes, there will not be enough identity to maintain any true influence. Indirect influence’s economies of scale are a result of alternate media and cultural structures. (If you have 12 people in a group then they probably wont have any Top 40 hits or Comedy Central TV shows.) These structures can be developed indigenously in the new environment (such as the institutions of African-Americans, which bear little resemblance to West African institutions, unless the reverse flow of American culture is taken into account… I.e. West Africa is more shaped by African-Americans than African-Americans shaped by West Africans.) Institutions can also be imported from countries of origin, such as with the Italian-American experience. There are also direct economies of scale… if there are not certain amount of people in the population, intermarriage will cause the identity to become so diffuse that it will be lost. Past this survival point, the identity expresses itself more strongly in intermarriage (the strong identity parent will more strongly imprint the child, and the majority culture member tends to have the weaker identity.) The identity can vary whether it has strong or weak barriers to entry. Strong barriers to entry preclude intermarriage and greatly diminish cultural exchange. Weak barriers do the opposite. Taking the economies of scale in account, up to a certain point, the identity does better with strong barriers. Past that critical point, though, the meme wields more influence if the walls are taken down. So at some critical population growth point, the identity is turned loose on the whole. (If the whole is oppressive or resistant, though, the cost curves get pushed up, and the critical point is pushed higher, and vice versa. If the identity group is favorable to assimilation, the revenue curve is pushed up, and the critical point goes lower (and vice versa.))

Identity Forge. I have a picture of this one, but I didn’t feel like scanning it. I can if you want. This one is basically osmotic membranes but quicker. If you let the reaction occur on top of a template, apply catalysts and heat, then you have an new synthetic identity much faster. For this one, I was thinking about Evangelicals and Catholics, brought together over abortion, and heated by persecution. The catalyst to that one should be interesting.

Implications. So these models seem to make certain predictions. The Mil-Mil multi-ethnic marriages seem to check with the models, as well as the fact that multi-ethnic marriages in churches in Boston seemed to be more common than in the population as a whole. Perhaps in Christian unity there is some ideal model of perfect reconciliation and total unity in diversity. So that was what I set out to explore. But once your feet leave the door, you never know where they’ll end up. Anyways, it seems what the models are more useful for is explaining the dynamics of assimilation of immigrant groups into American majority culture. So here is my segue way to enter the world of the normative.

There seem to be different pathways by which groups integrate into American culture. There seem to be to be some intriguing similarities between the completed Irish-American model and the developing Mexican-American model. Both groups found their place initially in the infrastructure, in the NCO corps, as Sergeants and cooks and maids. Both immigrations were sparked by economic necessity. There was a time when potatoes wouldn’t grow in Ireland. Except, back when potatoes wouldn’t grow, there was still an Ellis Island. Now the INS exists mostly to keep people out, rather than bring them in.

So back to economics. If you want to make a profit, you have to make more money from your capital than you spend on it originally. So education is basically human capital. An American high school education is expensive. You have to pay American teachers American salaries and buy textbooks at $40 each. So unless your American educated student ends up working at a job where he is able to pay that back, you’re losing money. There are a lot of jobs in this country that won’t pay back that investment that still have to be done. There are basically two models of dealing with this problem. We’ve tried both. The first option is to have a workforce functionally cut off from the larger franchise of the body politic. When America did this with slavery, it was to our great shame. There are more modern and subtle (and less virulent) forms of this, such as North Africans in France. Option two is a ‘rolling first generation’ model, sustained by new waves of immigration. In this model, the first generation of a new immigrant community takes those jobs, which in turn propels the next generations to success. This is admittedly highly simplified and idealized, and was not as pleasant for the Chinese workers who built the railroads, or for other many other groups who experienced oppression and racism and a host of other sorts of ugliness. Nonetheless, it is a more just model as it gives the working community an opportunity to advance. It seems as if we are at a crossroads, deciding which way to go. Riots in France, along with the prospect of an unassimilated community multiplying as the ethnically French population dwindles, come together to make option one not as attractive. Option two, for some reason, seems scary to some.

This is because option two involves change. Incorporation of any new group involves change to the whole. America would change. America has always changed, though. This is why we are not a Western European country. The way we speak would change. But very few of us speak British English anymore. The way we would look would change, but after the incorporation of Italian-Americans, we all looked a bit darker with a bit curlier hair. Change is what keeps us alive as a nation, and it is built into our national identity. Whatever Friedman thinks on settlers or immigrants, we are a nation that changes. It is one thing to be cosmopolitan. A place that is cosmopolitan is fun to pass through, but you stay what you were. We aren’t cosmopolitan. We are a chance for a new life. When you come for a new life, you become something new. We are certainly far from perfect, but we are somehow different. When we cease to be the city of refuge, we cease to be America. So here is the crossroads expressed differently: are we America, a last best hope for a better life, or America, a country which speaks and looks a certain way. In the dialectical process of identity formation, it is we, those defined by that identity, that will define what that identity is to become. The immigration question calls us to decide between the surface familiarity of the American culture and the deep hope of the American dream. Hope cannot be walled off and remain hope. We need to decide who we are.

Let me end on an even more controversial note (not that the rest of it hasn’t been controversial.) In deciding who we are, we need to decide who is more American, a white kid who wants to smoke weed and do nothing, but gets to be an American because he happened to be born here, or someone willing to risk life and limb for a better life for their family, who wants to come here to find it? So if someone is willing to risk their life to be an American, they should have an honorable way to do so. There are honorable ways of earning that right still, ways that would facilitate the entry of a large group into a larger society, ones that may meet a great coming need of the nation. But that will have to wait for another post.

Addendum: 'The culture of Christianity vs. the calling of Christianity.'

Thanks to Bill M. for this one. (I decided to write the names of my anonymous friends this way now instead. It looks more personal.)

Initially, I portrayed Christianity as a exclusive superstrate identity. This is an incomplete definition. It’s all about where you draw the axis. By the reckoning of ‘cultural Christianity,’ by Bonhoeffer’s ‘trappings of religion,’ Christianity is exclusive. Christians often self-identify by means of music, books, clothes, and language (Christianese.) I am not critiquing any of these points in particular (modesty is good, as are uplifting books,) but Jesus died for more than a niche market. We isolate ourselves at times, build our walls to keep ourselves safe. The Great Commission stands in direct contrast to this ‘fortress Christianity.‘ If you draw the axis between saved sinners and sinners, the identity is no longer exclusive. The Christian cannot see himself as saved, therefore not a sinner. A sinner saved by grace is still a sinner.

This view seems to be more in keeping with the message of Christ, and calls us to sacrifice some pride for some relevance. This does not mean, however, that the identity should be watered down. We are not of this world. The only way we can be salt and light (exercise indirect influence) is if we are holy, set apart for Him. So this is the Scylla and Charybdis we must navigate as the body of Christ. We must be in this world, but must not become of it. In order to do so, we must understand holiness. God set Israel apart to draw others in, not to keep them out. This is why He was so enraged in the Court of the Gentiles in the temple. To be set apart is to be a light to the nations, but you cannot keep a light hidden and have it truly still be a light.

Addendum: Overreactions.

Thanks to Tony N. for this one.

Exclusive Identities: Overreactions in Politics. The sundering process which breaks one identity into two distinct exclusive identities is rarely pleasant. Deep brokenness can lead to the rift, or can happen in the wake of the rift to crystallize the new identities. Because of the rift, though, the sundered identities are shaped in the sundering. If the sundered group had developed without the tearing process, it would look different. This is especially true when you consider that there were some reasons (shared space, shared structures, shared ideas) that the original identity was fused. So in order to strengthen the sundered identity, the commonality with the other previously fused identity must be downplayed. This results in both groups overcompensating, leading to complimentary errors. These complimentary errors can be seen just as clearly in a polarized system, where a group alienated from one side sides entirely with the other side.

To take this out of the theoretical, consider the saying ‘Democrats do more to get Evangelicals to vote Republican than Republicans do.’ The line ’why don’t you quit hating poor people and vote for us and by the way we hate you’ amazingly doesn’t get much traction. Neither does the incessant stereotypes of uneducated, toothless holy rollers that does so little to endear Evangelicals to the left. (Generally, these stereotypes are made in Ethics-type classrooms where Evangelicals are underrepresented [hence the stereotype.] They aren’t made so often in doctoral level Civil Engineering classrooms where we are over-represented. The stereotype is myopic. Ethicist-types seem to have a hard time making buildings that don’t collapse, or even arguments that don’t collapse, if Peter Singer is any indicator. That’s not my point, sorry, but even CSL had a soft spot in his heart for craftsmen in his essay ‘Good Works.’) Generally people don’t like it when you call them stupid. So because there is such a level of animosity toward the left on the part of Evangelicals, they vote pretty strongly against the left. This is misinterpreted as a strong allegiance to the right. In reality, I think it is more a strong animosity to the left. Because of the hostility toward the left, the individual issues are not considered so deeply (which works to the advantage of some.) This is starting to change (Environment, etc. becoming important to NAE, to the chagrin of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party.) The point remains, in a bipolar system of two exclusive identities, a group that is alienated from one identity will overcompensate to the other identity. So in the context of alliance, (white) Evangelicals show up strongly to the right. What, then, would we look like out of alliance?

Lets hypothesize an Evangelical voting bloc in a vacuum. (Say a million-party system with infinite gradations, like the perfect market of the economist.) We’ll use William Jennings Bryant‘s populism as a baseline. Throw in a few parts of free market economics due to the rise of the middle class and suburbia, a dash of national defense for the numbers of Evangelicals in the military-industrial complex, and a pinch of the politics of racial reconciliation (which took us way, way too long to figure out… we should have been leading the charge on that one…) Viola… you get Evangelicals outside alliances. Center-center on economics, (willing to spend money on causes yet not socialist,) strongly conservative on issues of morality, eclectic on social issues (Environment, etc.) Which, incidentally, looks a lot like Mexican-American voters. Which, oops, might go a long way toward explaining why the Libertarian G. Gordon Liddy types are so hostile toward immigration. The Cato Institute’s (Libertarian Right) worst fear is not the left taking over the government. Their worst fear is Evangelicals taking over the Republican party. But that’s a totally different discussion. Summary: we overcompensate due to our alienation from the left, and vote for things that we don’t necessarily agree with in order to vote against them.

This situation has a parallel with the Republicans and minority voters. When people like Pete Wilson get up as say stupid, ignorant things about ‘every Jose and Maria,’ then of course the groups he is offending wont vote for him. It is not as if the average Californian Mexican-American voter sat down and analyzed the party platforms and did a regression to figure out the standard deviation of each party from their interests. Nor did he vote as directed by a cultural icon… the days of Cesar Chavez are long gone. (P.s. nobody does that. People generally vote for the taller guy, or the guy who they think looks the best, except for local elections, where they vote for the person whose name they dislike the least. Oh, the wonders of democracy, the worst system except for all the others.) Like anyone would do, he looks at Pete Wilson, who just insulted him, and he says, ’I’ll vote for whoever is not you.’ Or associated with you. Which narrows your choices greatly in a two party system.

Another example of this is the gap between the issue preferences and the electoral preferences of the African-American community. Legislators from predominantly black districts are often pro-gay marriage, and pro-abortion, even when their districts are strongly against both. Example: Kreflo Dollar’s church in Atlanta. Because of the very effective campaign of the left to maintain a monopoly on cultural icons by stripping any challengers of their ethnic identity, and the stupidity of the right in trying to discourage turnout and in race baiting, there is a strong strain still of ‘we’ll vote for whoever isn’t you’ directed toward the right, leading to a strong delta between electoral preferences and issue preferences.

The most interesting (and least politically influential) application of this theory is the military. The military community, at least internally, has strongly progressive attitudes on affirmative action (even though we don’t call it such, and center-left attitudes on immigration. They are a largely conservative group, but are fairly internationalist on foreign policy. Prior to the Clinton administration, there seemed to be a significant (60/40%) preference for Republicans, but following that administration, the military became overwhelmingly Republican. The Clinton administration did so much to alienate the military (draft-dodging, Somalia, gays in the military, lying under oath, military pay and force cuts) that the hostility was not even on the issues level (experiences by Majors and up) but on the visceral level (Captains and NCOs.) This hostility still exists (Wesley Clark was received very poorly by the military demographic, while the left thought that he would play well. Same was true for Kerry, but this probably has to do more with his past.) It is fed from some pretty obvious sources (Chomsky and Zinn are not particularly likely to speak at the RNC anytime soon.) So from this gut feeling, a group with some surprisingly eclectic political views (in a vacuum) ends up voting overwhelmingly for one side of the political spectrum. This goes back to a pretty obvious political axiom: people vote with their hearts and not their heads.

Exclusive Identities: Models for Christian Unity. Overreaction between alienated/sundered groups is not confined to politics. Consider the unpleasantness surrounding the Council of Trent. Anything that even smacks of the other group is rejected. Martin Luther had to defend the use of icons. Luther-style reforms could not be mentioned in the Catholic church for some time. After all, there had to be some reason other than political power that Germany was bleeding itself dry over who would be Protestant and who would be Catholic. Therefore, all commonality had to be downplayed and all dissimilarity had to be emphasized.

Consider the current hesitance on the part of many Protestants to discuss Mary. She was called, in scripture, most blessed amongst women. Even this verse, though, is approached with hesitation. Hearing things like ‘Queen of Heaven’ (which is in the catechism) or ‘co-redemptrix’ (which is not,) one may shy away from the topic. Yet, In this overreaction, we neglect very important things. If she was important to Christ, then she should be important to us. To have reverence for Mary, who was the mother of our Savior, does not mean that we need to ‘worship the Virgin of Guadalupe.’ This may not be the only belief where Protestants cannot learn something from the Catholic catechism, if we learn to approach it with humility.

Consider the contemporary Catholic historiography concerning Luther. Most of Luther’s 95 Theses ended up being incorporated into the catechism (in a much modified form) by other reformers who stayed within the boundaries of Rome. (I think that Martin Luther, were he to be transported here today would probably be more at home in a Catholic church than a Lutheran church. Maybe.) Yet, Luther has to be all the way wrong, the schismatic heretic who broke the one church asunder. After all, how could the Spirit of God lead someone away from Rome? This is not quite the whole story. And it is the height of tragedy that the price of the construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral was the splintering of the church of Jesus Christ.

This brings us to narratives. Let’s talk about the Council of Trent. There are clearly conflicting narratives about what happened there. Somebody had to be right, and somebody wrong, after all. So it is one of two stories.

The Protestant script is the passing of the Gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles. The people who had been given the law had so fallen away from its truth that the anointing was passed to a different people group. So the covenant of Rome passes to this new group, leaving perhaps a remnant. (Of course, if that remnant really wanted to partake in the Spirit of God, they’d find their way out of the confines of the legalism of the old covenant.) These inheritors of this new covenant now take that message to the nations.

The Catholic script goes quite differently. The Samaritans worshiped the God of Israel, in a manner. Worshiping at Abraham’s campsite, they vicariously experienced His blessings. But they did not worship Him in fullness, at the temple in Jerusalem. They did not worship Him the way they were supposed to. So God pours Himself out on the temple in Jerusalem, and drops that splash from that faucet find their way to Samaria. So God pours his grace through the sacraments, administered by the priesthood of the new covenant, and scraps of this grace may find their way to schismatic churches. (Of course, if those separated churches really wanted to draw into the grace of God, they’d find their way back to the spigot.)

Unless, of course, it is not about who was right and who was wrong. Not the feel-good answer of ‘we were all right,’ but Isaiah’s answer of ‘we were all wrong.’ And the way that Jesus will reconcile the story is to humble both sides and exalt Himself. This story looks very different.

The promised land was given to twelve tribes. They were one nation. Yet, because of sin and brokenness, God split that nation. This was His accommodation of the sinful choices of the people, not His perfect will. Disunity always has its roots in sin. So the land was broken, and different parts of the inheritance were given to Israel and to Judah. The temple in Bethel and the temple in Jerusalem. (Ending up in Jerusalem.) And both nations were God’s chosen people. And both were divided by sin. Christ was the hope of reunion. If both nations had drawn into to Jesus, they would have been one again. This is our hope.

There are things happening now that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago. Conversations between groups of sundered Christians who used to hate each other. Praise God. The closer we draw in to Him, the closer we come to each other. Perhaps there was something we could see in the first seven councils. When we were all together. We always see through a glass clouded, but perhaps that glass got more clouded when we broke apart. And this is why there are not good answers. We live in the distance between His permissive will and His perfect will. In this tension, the paths are rarely straight. We divided the inheritance, and perhaps some of the answers we seek are in the sundered territories. Only together will we be complete. Jesus’ prayer was that we would be one, just as He and His Father are one. May He be the means by which that prayer is brought to pass.