Divine Plagiarism - boring_theories_social_sciences_

The Different Flavors of Neo-Colonialism.

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:49:43 -0600

In many ways, individuals and cultures are similar. I suppose that it only stands to reason that the patterns in the microcosm would be reflected in the macrocosm. Both define identities for themselves, staking out a self distinct from the other. Both project that identity to others, carving out a place for themselves in the larger whole. And both are generally oblivious to the fact that their own identity changes over time. We live in the ‘forever now.’ Our concept of self is very rooted in today, and in order to maintain a coherent concept of the self, we assume that the us of today was the us of yesterday, and will be the us of tomorrow. While this assumption brings us stability, it is not entirely accurate. In reality, the ‘me’ changes greatly over time. In fact, the ‘me’ of right now probably has more in common with the ‘me’ of one of my current friends than the ‘me’ of myself in 1979. In my world of the ‘forever now,’ I am practically blind to this. I assume that I am unchanging, and therefore any change is to be feared, for change will destroy the ‘me’ of right now, which is the only ‘me’ I know at this point in time. And this is true, in a way. Each time I go to sleep, the ‘me’ of that day dies to make way for the ‘me’ of the next day. I constantly am passing away and being reborn. The moment I stop doing so is the moment I become stagnant. We can only hold our breath for so long. We have to let one breath pass away in order to make room for the next. Only the dead no longer exhale. Stagnation is death. So in order to live, I must allow myself to die daily.

We look at people groups with the same assumption. The lines we have today are the lines we have had and will have forever. But they are not. Cultures are constantly changing. Consider the Celts. When we hear ‘Celtic,’ we immediately think of Ireland. Alexander the Great would have been greatly surprised at that association. In his day, the Celts were the northern neighbors of his Macedonia, nestled snugly in the Carpathians. Over time, they move to the north and the west, and find their way to Eire. There, their characteristic red hair is donated by the Vikings through rather uncivilized means. Through St. Patrick, who is now an icon of Irishness now yet was not Irish at all at the time, another cultural distinctive is added to the island. On and on it goes, and at some point we end up with the Celts of Boondock Saints, the Irish that we know. As someone with Irish ancestry, I look at a Celtic latticework in many ways the same as I look at a baby picture of myself. I assume that the person in the picture is ‘me’ in a very real way, yet there is a universe of changes between me in diapers and me in a leather jacket. In the same way, the Celts that made that latticework would have very, very little understanding of a present day Boston Irish Heritage parade. The Celts of the Carpathians have passed away at least a hundred times to be reborn in the next generation over and over. But they were never reborn exactly the same. If a generation of Celts refused to let the Celt-ness of their ‘right now’ pass away, then all of Celt-ness would have passed away forever when that generation died out. A people group, just like a man, must die to itself over and over again if it is to live.

So it is with all cultures. No one is indigenous, ultimately. Humanity has one homeland, but we earned exile from that place long before any of us can remember. From that day on, we have been shuffling from one wasteland to another, shoving other groups of refugees out of the way. When we think of the Vietnamese, a certain people group comes to mind. Most likely, that group is not the Dega people, or Montagnards as they are more commonly known. They were the (more) indigenous of Vietnam. They were moved out of the way for the next group, as they moved the last group. Tragically, this people group largely only survives in the United States. They were exterminated for allying themselves with America in the Vietnam conflict. When we run, our friends die, for our enemies show far less mercy than we do. There is no ACLU to restrain them. This is not the point, merely a consideration. The fact remains that groups change, locations change, and customs change. Even bloodlines change. Consider Italian-Americans. Once Sicilians, Romans, men of Naples and of Parma, then united by Garibaldi into one people and one bloodline. That people finds their way to a new country, and eventually that bloodline mixes with others, and what once was a separate group becomes a part of a larger group. The old identity dies, and is reborn in its changed form.

Who is and who isn’t is never static, nor is what they are. Change is a natural part of things, for it is inseparable from growth. We make a dangerous error when we try to hold on to something that is passing away. (Reference C.S.L. in Perelandra.) To close our hand around where we are at, to wish to enshrine it in perpetuity is to call disaster upon ourselves. But we do it nonetheless. There are many sins, many mistakes that seem to be set in opposition to each other but in reality are only different facets of the same error. How many evils have come from man’s desire for immortality? It is no different with cultures. Cultural immortality tells one country that they should subdue and convert all cultures to their own so that theirs may last forever. Flip the coin over, and it tells a country that they can never do anything to change any other culture, so that all cultures may last forever. We have a bad coin on our hands.

Colonialism is the one face of the coin of cultural immortality. It comes in different flavors, French being the classic one. A country decides that their culture should be static, and they start exporting that culture by influence or force. Happening upon another people group, the classic flavor of colonialism rides roughshod over the (more) indigenous culture. Through language, music, philosophy and art, the native culture is crowded out and the native elites bought off. The colonial culture advances toward immortality through the obliteration of more vulnerable identities. There is, of course, a more concentrated form of this brew. When the Nazis overran Slavic countries, they had planned to liquidate upwards of seventy percent of the population of the occupied lands. The idea was to break the spirit of the culture so that the people could be used as slave laborers. For those who can’t quite stomach the espresso, there is a Caffe Americano blend. When the British went abroad, they brought roads and schools with their flags. They brought with them the idea of civilizing a place, defined by British standards of civilization. By civilizing the world with British political and social institutions, the most important aspects of British-ness would be preserved in perpetuity. Regardless of the brew, colonialism was a one way process.

Influence in a real relationship flows both ways. I change you as much as you change me. Colonialism did not allow its own culture to be changed in its changing of other cultures. The only way to justify such behavior is to declare your culture valid and the target culture invalid. Therefore, in order to begin its campaign, Colonialism must start with the assumption that its own culture cannot be wrong. This is an idolatry of culture, ascribing infallibility to the fallible. Colonialism ascribes to culture the place reserved for God, sometimes taking His robes to do so. The ‘imperial missionary‘ is amongst the greatest of villains for contemporary sociology. His faith is merely a Bangalore to breach the walls of the native culture, opening the way for the imposition of Spanish rule or British law, depending on the century. Or so the story goes. But even in the vilest of slanders there is an element of truth, and there is some truth here. There were those who could not leave their own culture behind when spreading the Gospel, and many of these chose to induct converts into their own culture when they introduced them to Christ. They mixed an eternal message of hope with a very temporal understanding of language and culture, lessening both in the process. And this returns us to the heart of the problem. Temporal things are not meant to be eternal. Just like in the Silmarillion, the desire for immortality leads the culture to steal from the Immortal. Colonialism is an idolatry of culture.

Cultural relativism is the other side of our cultural immortality coin. No culture on this side of eternity has a corner on absolute truth. Cultural relativism takes this one step further, asserting that no culture has any claim on any absolute truth. Therefore, no culture ever has the right to make a truth claim on the culture of another. Hence, no culture should ever do anything to try to change someone else’s culture. The greatest of all sins is intolerance. So if a people group decides to eat with their right hand, who are you to enforce forks and spoons on them? Or if a people decides to structure its society along rigid caste lines, who are you to tell them that social mobility is more just? And if a people group to your south feel like owning other people like property, who are you to tell them they can’t? Yet the abolitionists are heroes, not villains.

This presents a significant problem for cultural relativism, for the abolitionists were largely from the educated culture of the American Northeast. The slave owners were the landed gentry of the South, a different cultural group entirely. One group tells another that the basis of their economic system is unjust, and goes to war to change that system (an admittedly gross oversimplification.) We look back on these men as pioneers. Cultural relativism logically should be attacking these men for violating its prime directive of non-interference, but it cannot. Something inside us revolts at calling Gandhi and Dr. King enemies of mankind. In this problem we find the paradox of change within cultural relativism. Where colonialism ignored the right in the culture of the other, cultural relativism ignores the wrong in the other’s culture.

The similarities begin to show themselves. In order for the system to work, there can be no reformers. Cultures must remain forever fixed. In other words, cultural relativism demands cultural immortality. By each culture excusing the sins of every other culture, all cultures can go on forever unchanged. Culture trumps all other considerations, including morality, dignity and human rights. Cultural relativism tells us that that indigenous culture can never be wrong. Which means that culture takes the most important place in our universe, a place traditionally reserved for God. We are back to the idolatry of culture. Instead of deifying Western culture, now we deify (more) indigenous cultures. The primary threat to this new god is the real God. There can be no missionaries, imperial or otherwise, in cultural relativism. Except, of course, for the missionaries of the new religion of culture. In reality, sociology’s objections to the ‘imperial missionary’ is an intramural discussion: simply one idolatry competing with another.

This brings us back to first things and second things. Culture is a good thing, and it plays in to salvation’s history. But it is not itself salvation’s history. There is a difficulty here for us as Christians. On one hand, you have the Pharisees, who confused culture with worship, and incorrectly worshipped culture. On the other hand, Christianity has always changed cultures. As with any other first things question, we need to keep things in the right order. So we must respect culture, but we must respect God more.

We must not put our own culture on a level with the Gospel. It is a good thing to be proud of your own culture. Jesus was proud of His heritage as a Jew, embracing many of the cultural distinctives. But He never let culture supercede God. It was Jesus, the Jew, who healed men on the Sabbath. Jesus, the Jew, who called the prominent cultural figures of His day ‘children of the devil.‘ He was willing to lay down His culture to reach people with the love of God. The greatest missionaries have done likewise. Consider the mission to the Cherokee, who laid down their rights as citizens to die with the tribe they loved.

We must not fear the change of a culture as a result of the Gospel. It is a good thing to respect the culture of another. Paul learns enough about the Athenians to find that they have a temple to an unknown God. He quotes Greek poets to Greeks. But Christianity changes a culture. Consider Paul and the Silversmiths. With the changes that Christianity wrought, the once profitable business of idol-making fell into decline. He denounces the prostitution at the temple of Aphrodite in another letter. Paul was less concerned with preserving cultural distinctives, and more concerned with the Gospel. In a fallen world, there are evil things woven into every culture that must be cut out and discarded as God moves. The fruits of syncretism are bitter. There can be no compromise for ‘old times sake.‘

Sometimes, the solution is far simpler than the problem. The simplest solutions often slip past us because we are looking for something difficult. In the false dichotomy between colonialism and cultural relativism, we have another bad coin. So we should discard it and find a better one. The Great Commission will work, I think. Go ye into all the world and make disciples of men. We should not add anything to that command, but neither should we fear any changes the command brings.

The New Frontier: Suburbia Addendum.

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

Thanks to Zach for this revision.

For better or worse, the American national identity was shaped by the frontier experience. The economic life and the growth middle class, the ‘rugged individualism,’ and the high degree of social mobility can all be traced to the availability of cheap land. Before everyone freaks out, I know where the land came from. I’m not arguing the morality of the westward expansion, I’m only analyzing its economic and sociological effects.

Marx’s understanding of Capital and Labor assumes that those who have the money to buy capital have enough money that they do not really need to labor. Those who labor do not have enough money to buy capital. Hence the dialectical materialism and the like. And hence the extreme dislike of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are kryptonite to the workers revolution. They own capital, yet provide labor. Sometimes, they may even labor with their own capital to produce their own profit. These people have no interest in government nationalizing everything, because they’d rather keep their house. So if you have a country where nominal amounts of capital are available to anyone, you end up with a really big middle class.

Social mobility is tied to economic life, and the same governing dynamics exist. If someone from any class can acquire nominal capital within a generation, then they or their children will be able, at least in principle, to do whatever they want. Hard to maintain a caste system when the untouchables can ignore the Brahmin and go and get their own stuff. Consider England. Somebody owned the land since forever. So if you worked the land, and you didn’t like your landowner, you’re screwed. You can’t just stake out a claim in the North Sea. So you just deal with it, and accept the premise being shoved down your throat that the nobility who happened to be born with a certain last name got to do whatever they wanted and you couldn’t. But imagine now that there’s a ton of cheap land that you can just move to and claim. If your landowner is a jerk, you can tell him to screw off and jump on the Oregon Trail (the bears give you like 2000 lbs of food. At least on the Apple 2e.) So social mobility is high, and class consciousness stays low.

18-whatever America. Big frontier. Not like the Russian frontier, where Sarmatians and Mongols and Covenant Elites just come through and kill everybody every once in a while. You don’t have to live in a fort and obey some dude with armor and swords. You have your gun and pretty much nobody messes with you. So you get to do your own thing. This works out really well in an agrarian economy. You own land. You work land. You get food and you eat it and sell some. You are the proto-small-business man, the proto-bourgeoisie except without the snootiness. Socially mobile, middle class, all that stuff.

Problem hits when we move from away from the Agrarian Economy. So we move into industrialism… problem is that you can’t just go west and stake out your own textile factory. You have to work at some dude’s factory. Now were back to the landowner thing. Especially when you consider that now you have to live near where you work, which means that you’re not going to be able to buy land, you’re gonna have to rent. You’re doubly screwed cause you have to rely on public transportation, and you’ll have a hard time getting the population densities on the outskirts of the city high enough to get lines out to the ‘burbs. So the previous dynamics start changing: class consciousness develops and Marx is taken seriously by somebody other than spoiled Cambridge rich kids. Remember that the IWW ‘Wobblies’ were alive and well during this time period. So we start turning into a European country, something like an England with a second person plural in its language (y’all.)

There’s cheap land out there, you just can’t get to it practically and still get to work daily. Beyond the outskirts of the city is the new frontier, but there’s no Oregon Trail (or Apple 2es.) So the limfac is transportation. Once that limfac is removed, the frontier is accessible again. So the car hits, the frontier opens up. Eventually, you get into mass stock ownership and the like, but the initial nominal capital investment starts with the home. (Which may imply some sort of internal dynamic in the traditional domestic economy where the male purchases and finances the capital with his external labor, while the female provides the internal labor. This remapping of production might start to recognize the tremendous and largely unrecognized economic contribution of females in traditional families. But that's beyond my current scope.) Anyways, cars allow nominal capital ownership. Nominal capital ownership kills Marxism. So the car killed the Wobblies, not Stalin or the New Deal or anything like that.

So this works until that new frontier hits practical carrying capacity. Then you need a new means of transportation. Which brings us back to the rest of the post. Ibid., Q.E.D. and all that. See ya. Peace out. Or something.

Craniums and Containers. (Language and Group Identity.)

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:10:00 -0500

So pilots, especially fighter guys, talk funny. Not just on the radio. There is some governing dynamic to this. Considering how young aviation is, this gives us a very interesting offshoot of English from which to study language’s cultural and functional evolution. A more fascinating study would be the tactical dialect of aviation, but for reasons that should be self-evident, we won’t be deconstructing that here. Instead, we’ll use ICAO (civilian) pilot-speak, as well as out of the cockpit fighter-speak. Of course, by using fighter pilots as a case study, I won’t be doing any favors to my previous argument that the military is not misogynist. But that is neither here nor there. The real point is at the end of the post, but ‘ya have to read through the rest of it to get there. I’ll spoil it a little: its about Christians being relevant to their culture.

“I was flyin’ out at Nellis, doin’ Dark Grey WIC support,
I was out there by my lonesome ‘cause my buddy was a mort,
And I saw that big, fat ****** in a turn off to my right,
He was either lost or he was looking for a fight,
So I put him in my HUD, and I almost flipped the switch,
But then I thought, how could I miss, ‘cause that’s a huge *****,
And only a big ***** would use two Fox ones,
It’s time to get medieval, Im goin’ in for guns.”
- Dos Gringos, 'Goin' in for guns.'

The most fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s universe is the interplay between language and culture. Races develop a language to suit their world, yet that language shapes them even as they are shaped. Activities require words to be described, yet the words available in turn shape the activities, which writ large shapes culture. Because of this, you can tell much about a people’s culture and environment by their language. Specifically, the language will tell you much about the world it was shaped in, and the concerns of the people who shaped it. Language, then, becomes a stabilizing force to a culture, as it is difficult to form thoughts outside of the mainstream functional areas of the language. Language changes over time, as environments change and cultures change. This process can be unintentional, due to mountain ranges or migrations, or can be the intentional result of linguistic politics, a tool to establish cultural boundaries and an exclusive identity.

Most languages developed during a time when work life was the same as home life. There was then no need to have two vocabularies to describe two different worlds, as there is in the more segmented world of modernity. MBA-speak or computerese will not do much to ask one’s wife how the day went or vice versa. Therefore, as a function of the modernistic split between work and home, we have uniquely ‘work’ dialects. These evolve to represent the rapidly changing world of technology. There is an interesting parallel here between the technological world and the tribal world here. A language that evolved in the far north may have many words for snow, while an equatorial culture may have no words for snow. When confronted with snow for the first time, that culture may have to conglomerate the word for snow from a few extant words (e.g. very cold rain.) They may simply incorporate the word into their language from another language for the new concept. The technological word faces the unique challenge of creating things that have never existed anywhere before, for which no other languages have words that can be appropriated. They have to use the conglomerating tactic. Note, however, that instead of using clunky English combos, they generally go back to Greek and Latin for the roots to words. Latin seems to be a more ethereal language than English, where abstract concepts can be communicated more precisely with fewer words. There is an important point here. Within a language, the central concepts to its developing culture will be the easiest to express.

Consider this in English. Old words like ‘live, die, eat, buy, kill, love, war,’ are very short and easy to express. Words like ‘confiscate’ take longer to communicate, and are a bit clunkier. To a more highly structured and authoritarian culture than the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps a less unwieldy word would be used to describe that concept. So it seems that simplicity of words can be used as a measure of what is considered most familiar to an originating culture. Prefixes and suffixes adapt these words, but the root word is definitionally older, hence generally more central. Precision of words can also be considered. Where English has one word for love, the Greeks used four. Therefore, the Greek description of love can be considered more precise than the English description, which would imply that love was a more significant concept to the Greeks. So, as a closet engineer with a half-hearted MBA, I start to see metrics here. Let’s define some axes by which we can classify a language and learn about its originating culture.

Metrics. So I’m making this up as I go along. This ended up being more interesting than I thought it would be. I still fully intend on talking about airplanes. I’ll get around to it. Four metrics seem to work: reflectivity, grounding, precision, and flexibility.

Reflectivity. This axis is defined by the language‘s ability to communicate thoughts rapidly. One side of the spectrum is the reflective language, where it takes a long time to say anything. Consider the language of the Ents. They sacrifice quickness of communication for depth and deliberation. The other side of the spectrum is an operative language, where data is conveyed very rapidly so as to be quickly applied. Here is pilot-speak. A pilot desires to communicate maximum data in minimum time, and sacrifices depth to do so. A language’s position along this spectrum can be assessed by measuring memes (thoughts) expressed per unit time. On a macroscopic level (between languages), this variable tells much about the ‘speed’ of a given culture and the demands placed on it. On a microscopic level (within the language), areas within the language which are more operative indicate subjects which demand quicker responses within the cultural context, and more reflective areas indicate topics the culture deliberates upon.

Grounding. This axis is defined by the language’s ability to communicate ethereal thoughts easily. One side of the spectrum is the ethereal language, one specifically adapted to communicating abstract concepts. Latin and Japanese could be considered ethereal languages, where the theoretical is expressed with ease. The other side of the spectrum is the corporeal language. Consider English, Anglo-Saxon or Aboriginal languages, where words like dirt are easy, but words like philosophy are hard. A language’s position along this spectrum can be assessed by measuring the relative effort (syllables or time) it takes to communicate an abstract concept (analogies, theories) vice a concrete concept (things you can touch.) On a macroscopic level, this variable tells us much about the demands of economic life on the culture, ie. The more agrarian the culture, the closer its language will be to the dirt. (Etruscan v. Latin would be an interesting study here.) This variable doesn’t do us that much good on a microscopic level, because it uses a relative measure within the language. (I’m using a totally parallel structure for this section because I’m lazy and didn’t pay attention in writing class.)

Precision. This axis is defined by the ability to use different gradations of words to express a concept. One side of the spectrum is the precise language, where multiple words are available to describe a single concept. Consider the four words for Love in Greek, vice the one in English. The other side of the spectrum is the general language, where context forms the basis for understanding gradations in words. Spanish would be a good example. (I would guess that general languages prefer tenses to cases, but I don’t know enough to speak meaningfully to this.) A language’s position along this spectrum can be assessed by measuring the average number of words associate with each core concept in the language. On a macroscopic level, if you want to kick it like Weber, you could associate the ‘accuracy’ of the culture by this measure. On a microscopic level, it tells us what things the culture spends effort on describing in detail, and hence what it needs to describe in detail.

Flexibility. This axis is defined by language’s ability to adapt structures and words to describe new (foreign) concepts. One side of the spectrum is the rigid language, where more effort is required to accommodate the new concept within extant vocabulary and structures. English is such a language, which is why we need to take technology words from Latin and Greek. The other side of the spectrum is the flexible language, where new concepts can be rapidly incorporated within the language. (Note that in such a language, words for new technologies would sound more natural and less foreign.) Russian is a flexible language, though it takes the German tack of making really, really long words with a lot of prefixes or suffixes. This variable can be measured by determining what degree the language has to borrow words from other languages to describe newly evolved concepts. On a macroscopic level, perhaps if were going to rock the Durkheim party, we could try to assess the premium the culture places on progress with this variable. (This doesn’t seem to fit with the Russia example, but the Russian linguistic adaptability is a function of Stalinism and its progress fetish. Czarist Russian didn’t play the pronoun game to the same degree. ) On a microscopic level, perhaps this tells us something about where the culture is progressing the fastest. Note that this somewhat changes the French critique on ‘too many English words spreading.’ Most English techno-words aren’t really English, but Latin or Greek words placed into English grammar. Anyways.

Case Study. Now we have metrics. Yay. (This is somewhat ironic, given my diatribe against the quantitative fetish of social scientists in the last post.) Back to airplanes, and our case study of Pilot-speak and Fighter-speak.

‘Southwest 1359 is final approach fix, with the gear, for the option, will follow company traffic.’

What? Doesn’t make much sense, does it. Here’s the thing. Language always requires context. You don’t make words for things you never encounter, because you don’t have any need or reason to. If you’re a pilot flying on instruments, coming in for landing, it means a lot. So let me translate, and then we‘ll deconstruct later. I promise.

‘Southwest 1359.’ - The speaker is identifying himself.
‘is final approach fix,’ - They are located at a point in space along the approach to the runway.
‘with the gear,’ - They have lowered their retractable landing gear.
‘for the option,’ - They are intending to either stop on the runway, or take off again after landing.
‘will follow company traffic,’ - They will fly behind another Southwest aircraft on the approach.

So before deconstructing, let’s figure out the grammar. Here we are faced with a choice, this Pilot-speak is one of two things. It could be an ‘acronymized language‘, simply an abbreviated English, where words are omitted or shortened, but grammar is unchanged. The other option is that Pilot-speak is a pigdin form of English, a unique form of the language where both words and usage are changed. If this were true, Pilot-pigdin would have different grammar rules than the original language. So let’s go back to our translated sentence, and see if we can just add words and reconstitute the meaning. (In a sense, an acronymized language is ’freeze-dried,’ if you add words according to some standardized structure, you get the root language and meaning back.) If we can’t transform the Pilot-speak into normal English by adding words, then it is a pigdin, a uniquely transformed language. (This, in turn, would mean that the originating culture of the pigdin is actually significantly different in some regard from the general community of the language.) Let’s play.

‘Southwest 1539’ - [This is the] Southwest [flight] 1539. So far so good.
‘is final approach fix,’ - [the aircraft] is [located at the] final approach fix. A little more work, but okay still.
‘with the gear,’ - with the [landing] gear [down.] Still works, but ‘our’ instead of ‘the’ would seem to work better.
‘for the option,’ - […] for the option [to land or do a touch-and-go] Hmmm. ‘For’ seems to be an action verb here, but according to English, ‘for’ not a verb. Let‘s put a verb in here, and see if it works, like ‘bought shoes for running.’ [Approaching the airport] for the option. Oops. This is not what the phrase means. If a pilot were to explain ‘for the option,’ they would not describe it like this. Problems starting… it doesn’t look like we can add any reasonable sequence of words that will let us retain the meaning within English rules of grammar.
‘will follow company traffic,’ - [we] will follow [the] traffic [from the same] company. Problems. First, the word ‘traffic’ here is non-standard usage. Second, we have to restructure the sentence in order to get the word order right. Most importantly, though, we have to do backflips to make the tenses of the entire sentence agree. ‘Is’ seems to signify 3rd person, but ‘will’ here implies agency and hence the 1st person unity between the speaker and action. There seems to be much looser tense rules here, implying somehow a unity between the pilot and the aircraft. In order to reconstitute this sentence, we need to do some pretty significant grammatical gymnastics. Let’s try another one.

‘Texan 43, request start clearance on Alpha 1, with information Oscar, clearance on request.’

‘Texan 43’ - Same deal as before.
‘Request start clearance on Alpha 1,’ - [I/we] request clearance [to] start [engines, we are located] on [parking spot] Alpha 1. Sort of awkward. Non-standard usage of ‘on,’ where ’at’ would be more appropriate. The other awkward part is the big chunk in front of the on. What was one coherent fragment needs to become two in order to be reconstructed.
‘with information Oscar,’ - [we have] information [from the ATIS, of the designation] Oscar. Not good. Split one coherent fragment into two upon reconstitution, ‘with’ seems to mean ‘we have.’ Very non-standard usage, though evolution of the thought can be traced.
‘clearance on request.’ - Not even going to try. Doesn’t work.

Different grammar, non-standard usage, this isn’t really English. At least, not the kind of English that I’m currently writing. This isn’t just an instance of just filling in the blanks on a form. We aren’t just missing some vocabulary. We actually changed grammar here to suit our purposes. We have adapted English to suit our needs. One of the hardest things for a student pilot to learn are radio comms. It isn’t just learning to expect certain things at certain times. It’s actually learning a language. You start with canned radio calls, but just like with any new language, the structures start to make sense after a while. This seems to lend credence to the idea that this Pilot-ese is a pigdin. So, if it is really its own language, what can this language tell us about the culture from whence it came? Let’s try out our metrics.

Reflectivity. This is an almost totally operative language. A language for a culture that favors data flow over deliberation, for a fast paced environment. Precision. This language is tremendously precise for certain things. (Landing = Full Stop, Touch-and-go, Stop-and-go, Land and hold short, Low Approach, or the Option.) This language is for a culture tremendously interested in accuracy in certain things, and not so interested in other things. Grounding. This is a very strongly grounded language, one for practitioners, not theorists. Well suited to a culture and an environment which understands concrete outcomes. Flexibility. This language’s syntax cannot readily adapt to new concepts outside of extant parameters. ILS becomes MLS or LAAS fairly easily, but anything outside the bounds of normal aviation experience cannot be adequately described in Pilot-speak. This is a language for a very structured culture, where certain things happen at certain times. An operator’s language, one built for an environment and culture that is practical, perfectionist, and fast-paced. Check.

Evolution. Remember when we were talking about the bifurcated work/home life of modern society? Here’s where it comes back into play. English is a language built for farmers and peasants. The world that an IT professional faces is far different from the world of an English serf. Languages change over time, as do cultures, but technology creates a unique challenge to the adaptive abilities of a language. The IT world is simply different from the real world. The IT type who has a life outside of that world (which is, of course, not all IT types) must have a different language for dealing with work and real life. Work language is full of jargon and acronyms, shaped by a small group with unique shared experiences. Real life language is more generally understandable, more the common tongue defined by the larger culture and experience. So we see in this a practical function of language, developing modifications of root languages to allow sub-groups to deal with the uniqueness of their situation. There is also a cultural function of language, which unites a group as a whole (excluding those outside the group.)

There are two paths for linguistic development we have seen so far. First is the ancient pathway, where the practical language and the cultural language develop indistinguishably along parallel paths. The second is the pathway of specialization, where as a culture branches out into differing professional areas, a common cultural language is maintained as the street and home language, where the practical language is developed by sub-groups to suit the reality of their work, and is usually left at their work. Note that the function of cultural language in the second pathway here is inclusive. The IT professional probably wants to downplay his professional language if he is to get dates… he wants more to be seen as a member of the society as a whole than to distinguish himself as an IT professional. Say, for the sake of argument, you had a group who thought their job was so cool, that they wanted to continue the evolution of their practical language into a cultural language, distinct from the society as a whole. Then, interestingly, the group would be using language as an exclusive tool to proclaim sub-group identity (hence reducing allegiance to the group as a whole.) Let’s look at a case study of this: Fighter-speak.

First, I should explain Fighter-speak. As an out-group person myself, I am not going to get it all the way right, but let me give it a shot. Fighter guys (gender neutral) don’t ever say ‘head,’ they say ‘cranium.’ They don’t ever say ‘box,’ they say ‘container.’ They point with their elbows, so as to not have three fingers pointing back at them. Finally, whenever anybody says anything which remotely has any sexual connotations, such as ‘I’m going downtown,’ a fighter guy has to say ‘so to speak.’ Fighter guys don't ever call their aircraft by their official designation... a F-16 pilot will call their aircraft the 'Viper,' never the 'Fighting Falcon.' (Viper comes from the original Battlestar Galactica series, which was coming out about the same time as the -16.) Also, fighter pilots will refer to themselves generally as 'fighter pilots,' but not as pilot in regard to their specific airframe. When talking about flying their specific aircraft, its always 'driver,' like 'Viper driver,' or 'Mudhen driver.' I probably forgot some stuff. With that done, let’s explore the functional and cultural categories of language further to apply them to our case study.

Functional Language. Functional language is an adapted language by which a sub-group deals with the peculiarities of that sub-group’s experience. This can be due to geographical isolation, professional realities, or any other reason that causes the sub-group’s experience to be different from the experience of the root language members as a whole. This is a necessary adaptation which allows a culture to grow. The functional language will be more different as the experience of the sub-group is more different. The world of aviation is very different than the world in which the mass of users of modern American English reside. Before aviation, we had no need for words to describe what it looks like on the inside of a cloud. The need for such a descriptor (IMC) is a reality of the aviator’s function. We have already discussed the peculiarities of Pilot-speak.

Cultural Language. Cultural language is the language used in daily life. It can be used by the culture as a whole to enhance unity, through the inclusive function of language (everyone speaking the same language on the streets.) It can also be used by a sub-group to set themselves apart, using the exclusive function of language (the cool kids talk like this and you don’t.) The variations that groups use to set themselves apart usually arise as a function of practical language and make their way into professional language. With enough time, if the sub-group’s professional language may seep into their cultural language. (‘Let’s leave.’=‘Pull chocks.’) This pathway is regulated as a function of the strength of the sub-group identity vice the group as a whole. For instance, IT professionals might go pretty far out of their way to not talk like computer programmers in bars. On the other hand, there is a pretty common joke about pilots: ‘How do you tell if there’s a pilot at a party? Don’t worry, he’ll tell you.’ For the latter group, the peculiarities of their professional language (though softened to a degree where communication becomes possible) become the defining characteristics of their cultural speech. For fighter guys, this difference is even enhanced by replacing common use words like ‘box,’ with ‘container,’ in order to express certain things about the way they see the world (like through the eyes of a really smart, immature and very competitive 15 year old. Which is funny, usually.) These words are not functional, but rather anti-functional, as they impede out-group communication, and have more syllables, slowing in-group communication. Yet, these words set the group off from the whole, announcing a strong exclusive identity. These words function as markers. On a much less light-hearted note, we can see the roots of linguistic politics here. (Ukraine, Slovakia.) In these cases, peculiarities in language are so emphasized that they legitimate an identity split between groups previously united. The application point here is that a group interested in effectively communicating with the larger culture will partake more strongly in the inclusive function of the larger culture’s language, in diminishing its cultural linguistic differences. A group interested in setting itself apart (toward either elitism or secession,) will emphasize its sub-group’s linguistic differences in order to take part in the exclusive function of language.

Academia. Academics have their own unique language, as well. Theirs stands in pretty much diametric opposition to Pilot-speak. Academic-speak is a deeply contemplative and reflective language, one that reflects a high degree of nuance, one very comfortable with ethereal concepts. One much closer to Entish, for trees grow slowly and nothing in the academic world happens faster than the speed of sound (except, perhaps, in physics labs.) Given the nature of academic work, this language was developed as a functional dialect. It was necessary for a very speculative group to have a very speculative dialect. I would argue, however, that the academe, similar to pilots, uses its practical language as a means of establishing an exclusive cultural language. ‘Problematic’ does mean something other than ‘bad,’ but is used interchangeably with ‘bad,’ in most academic circles. Words like ‘dynamic tension,’ (I’m a total hypocrite here) indicate ‘I have some sort of advanced degree.’ Here’s the thing. A lot of stuff, especially MBA-stuff, isn’t as hard as the cultural dialect would lead one to believe. Multi-syllabic words become the linguistic distinction by which the sub-group ‘academe’ separates itself from the larger society. This isn’t normative yet, but of course I have my biases. It isn’t hard, so to speak, to tell what they are (pilots.) You can’t beat the view out of my office. (I still kind of like academics, though, but I totally won’t admit it.)

Christianity. I am going to be very normative now. This was sort of my point all along, and everything else was just the long, meandering path to get here. There is a functional language to Christianity. We need words to describe concepts like grace, sanctification, and predestination. It is simply too clunky to try to use normal culture words for that sort of internal dialogue. This is why functional language exists, to allow a sub-group to more effectively deal with their unique environment. Here’s the thing, though. The point of the Great Commission is to bring other people into this unique environment, so we must consider our interaction with the larger society in that light. There is without a doubt a Christianese dialect of American English. We use it to set ourselves apart culturally. We appeal to the exclusive aspect of language, and strongly self-identify in away that keeps us safe. This is not holiness. We are not set apart by culture. This is the mistake that Paul so aggressively addresses in his discussion of circumcision. We are set apart by the Spirit of God, and He calls us to be in the world, even as we are not of it. This is a call to relevance. We need to consider what effects our language has upon our ability to interact with the larger culture. Our practical language, by definition, must be our own, but we must take on an inclusive cultural language. A missionary would learn the language of the culture they set out to reach. We must learn to do the same. Jesus Christ understood more about sanctification and grace than any of us ever could. Yet when He spoke to farmers, He told them of spiritual things in the language of farmers. We should go and do likewise.

Addendum to Craniums.

Thanks to Corban B. for this one.

We can examine language groups, sub-groups, and perhaps individuals with these metrics. We can apply them to different levels of analysis, as long as you set a baseline appropriate to the level of analysis. We can look at a culture by examining their language in the context of other languages. We can examine a sub-group within a culture by examining their dialect against the baseline of the root language. We may be able to analyze an individual by examining their manner of speech vice that of their sub-group. In each case, we will look to the offsets from the baseline. There will likely be resolution issues, though, in the case of the individual. There may be individual discrepancies between the language imprinting process and the individual development of consciousness which would cause the application of these metrics to become problematic (not bad) past a certain point. Above this level, though, there should not be a problem applying these metrics to different levels of analysis.

External and Internal Identities.

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:05:00 -0500

I am fascinated by the formation of synthetic identities, where regardless of background, one can be considered a full member in an identity through some voluntary process. Where the identity is composed entirely of volunteers, merit seems to consistently emerge as communal capital. I see some fascinating analogies between American military culture (juxtaposed with the American civilian society) and America itself. This is not to say that America has the only synthetic identity out there. Liberia’s initial national identity formation is intriguing, as are the struggles to create national identity in post-colonial states. France makes an interesting counterpoint to the American identity; to be American is to buy into American ideals, to be French is to buy into French culture. This has the interesting effect of some Chadian elites referring to France as ‘home,’ even though they have never been there. Also, commercial flights between Niger and Chad go through Paris, even though the two countries are neighbors. (I would chalk this up to the French intentionally ordering to their own continuing benefit the consequences of their colonial adventures (usually to the detriment of the former colonies.)) The point being that the American identity has something to do with voluntary acceptance of a set of ideals, and this has much in common with the identity formation patterns involved in a professional military.

How can understanding this benefit us? There are some very interesting social dynamics that occur in the military that would generally be considered as positive if the construction of a meritocracy is considered an American ideal. In terms of promotion, the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy in this country. There is far less in the way of whispering of ‘he just got the job because he’s X,’ and the like. In the dispensing of justice, the military consistently stacks up favorably to civilian courts in regards to being color-blind. The military has differences in the ethnic composition of its officer corps and its enlisted force, but because a commission is a function of a college degree, a large chunk of this can be ascribed to educational inequities in the society as a whole. When this is taken into account, the military stacks up favorably to the civilian world, not in some small part due to aggressive promotion of education in the enlisted corps and Green-to-Gold type commissioning programs. Citibank does not take promising tellers and send them to Wharton to come back as executives. The military does. If we can understand this culture of meritocracy in the military, perhaps we can in some way use that understand to reduce inequality in the country as a whole. (I love the irony, an overwhelmingly conservative group achieves progressive metrics more effectively than groups that call themselves progressive. By the same token, the K-School Christian Fellowship was percentage-wise the most diverse group on campus, and we weren’t even trying.).

Let me first say that I am totally and unequivocally opposed to the use of the military as a social engineering tool or as a sociology laboratory. Let me also annotate that the military is far from perfect, as it is composed of human beings. This is not a apologetics or propaganda exercise; I am not trying to write Henry V type inspirational speeches here. Most of the sociological work on the military has been second-wave feminist type stuff accusing us of all sorts of misogyny, and attacking us as the last bastion of traditional maleness. Of course, I find most of this stuff offensive and ignorant, suffering from in-group/out-group problems. I also find a conspicuous lack of charity in the research, normal benefit of the doubt that would certainly be extended to any indigenous group is totally lacking, as is any real cultural context or understanding. Something akin to ‘I watched ‘The General’s Daughter’ once so I understand the military, which is equivalent to the totally offensive assertion that ‘I watched ‘Spanglish’ so I understand the experience of a Mexican illegal immigrant.’ An example of this was the incessant questions about the USAFA Scandal while at the K-School. As my female friend B. points out (who worked on the assault crisis hotline at USAFA,) the static average rate of assaults at Harvard College was higher both per (female) capita and in absolute numbers than the Academy at the height of the scandal. Zero is the only acceptable rate, and I want to express my absolute abhorrence of that horrific crime, but if USAFA is to singled out, then a discussion of context is appropriate. Context didn’t matter much to most of the people who confronted us about it, they had already made up their minds. That is a much longer topic, one that I don’t care to discuss. The military is not the only place where in-group/out-group understandings of identity exist, though, it is the only place I can speak to them meaningfully (although the movie Something New addresses the in-group/out-group identity issue in depth.) So that is the real topic: the difference between the identity that is presented to the out-group and the identities that exist on the inside of the group. All the rest of that was background. Don’t you wish I had said so earlier? Hahaha.

If anyone wants to plagiarize this, feel free… I’d recommend taking out all the parentheses or making them footnotes…(you still probably won’t get a good grade, though.)

So you roll up to some people who are arguing about something or other. You try to insert yourself into the dispute, but you are surprised to find that when you do so, the fissures between them magically disappear as they assert themselves as a united front against you? Yeah, I don’t recommend doing that. But it illustrates a point. In West Side Story, the cop asks two gangs who were obviously just fighting with each other what was going on. He clearly favors the WASP-ish gang against the Puerto Rican gang, and offers to pin the whole thing on the Puerto Rican gang if the WASP one will give him some information. Both gangs, previously occupied by bashing each other’s skulls in, now present a united front against the clearly out-group cop. They stake out a very opaque perimeter around their identity, ensuring that the out-group member does not have access to internal group politics or information. Let’s call this a ‘perimeter identity.’ A specific brand of exclusive identity, usually a super-strate identity, the perimeter identity ensures external uniformity while allowing (even facilitating) internal diversity. It increases the span of an inclusive identity by allowing it to manage a higher degree of tension within its bounds. The perimeter identity correctly identifies that the gravest threat to its continued existence is not its internal fissures themselves, but external exploitation of those fissures. By maintaining an opaque screen to the outside world, the perimeter identity ensures that external forces will not be able to exploit these fissures. The perimeter identity has three critical aspects that we will explore here: external unity, internal diversity, and transition processes.

External Coherence. The perimeter identity, viewed from the outside, is without fissure. It is unitary, and any attempts to create division are resisted fiercely as interference from an interloper. The identity group members will have distinguishing characteristics which to the external observer will indicate sameness. The window to the internal workings of the group will be opaque to non-group members. Before passing through the identity ‘membrane,’ the group will seem to move and act as one. Note that this does not necessarily mean that those actions will seem rational to the outside observer. Identity politics (in the broadest sense of politics) has as much to do with the interactions between the sub-groups of the identity as they have to do with rational plans of the whole. Without access to any understanding of or information about the sub-groups, the actions of the group will seem at least to some degree mysterious to the observer. This is not unintentional, as it greatly limits the influence an outsider can wield in group workings. The observer has to be brought into the group, transported through the membrane, before he is allowed a window on group understanding. This barrier can be constructed through dialect, space, or external identification (clothes, etc.) The barrier can be transparent (limits functional access but not information,) but the stronger boundaries are usually translucent to opaque (limiting both access and information.) Using military culture as an example, five USAF Academy graduates / Kennedy School students were attending a lecture on harassment in the military. These five students were fairly diverse, in terms of backgrounds and political views. Yet when the discussion turned inevitably into an inquisition on the USAFA scandal, the Academy grads answered basically as one to the accusations leveled. Any of the Academy grads’ answers to any question were basically interchangeable with what the others would have answered. It was amazing to see five people who were so different all at once become one fissure-less united front. (This does not mean that we were not forthright, much to the contrary. But we moved as one instinctively when the identity was questioned.)

Internal Diversity. Once one spans the gap from outsider to member, they see all the internal diversity of the group that seemed so fissure-less from the outside. The same distinguishing characteristics that indicate sameness to outsiders actually indicate difference to the group members. We will explore this point further through the use of the uniform later. The opaque membrane belies tremendous complexity in its internal workings. The external narrative may differ greatly from any of a number of internal narratives. Actions that previously seemed mysterious will intuitively make sense, although in the process of crossing the membrane some degree of objectivity will likely be lost. There may be a tremendous degree of dynamic tension contained with the identity, which may be the engine by which it moves or adapts. Fostering internal competition can be a regulatory mechanism, and one that would be transparent to the outsider unable to understand the differences. Within the bounds of the identity, difference may actually be emphasized rather than mitigated in order to take advantage of this dynamic tension. Therefore, the perimeter identity in some ways serves as a containment vessel for a group. In terms of this internal diversity, consider the tremendous differences between the Army and Air Force sub-cultures contained in the perimeter identity ‘military.’ Or consider the rivalry between the F-16 and the F-15C communities contained in the very strong perimeter identity ‘fighter pilot.‘ To the outside observer, one might say, ‘what’s the big difference,’ but to the Viper driver, the difference is enormous. Internal and external identities can be layered. Under military, you have Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps, all of which see themselves as tremendously different from the other. Under Air Force, you have rated (flyers) and non-rated , both of which go out of their ways to emphasize their differences. Under rated, you have pilots, which see themselves as very different from navigators. Under pilots, you have fighter pilots and heavy pilots. Under fighter pilots, you have F-16s and F-15s. Under F-16s, you have different squadrons. This may be the limit of resolution, unless one wants to make the fairly conclusive argument that the fundamental unit of analysis for the fighter pilot is the self.

Transport Mechanisms. If a perimeter identity is to maintain itself (other than by simple reproduction,) it must have some mechanism by which an outsider becomes an insider. This should be one-way (barring excommunication,) and must cause the outsider to take on whatever defining characteristics indicate sameness to the outsider and difference to the initiated. There must be a socialization process by which the new group member is stamped. Rites of Passage are one common socialization method used to imprint and indicate entry into a group. An example of this military basic training, or the barriers to exit involved in gangs, not that this makes the most complimentary analogy. In the transport mechanism, we can understand why these identities are usually the stronger ones. An identity with weak barriers to entry can be redefined fairly easily by those without strong allegiance to the group (a sort of Bleeding Kansas of identity definition.) However, one with such strong barriers to entry ensures that only the ’true believers’ of the group will be able to define it. (This sets up a possible principal-agent problem when the gatekeepers from the Osmotic model of the last post act in their own interests a la Sharpton.) Equally importantly, the imprinting process ensures that the ‘defined by’ rather than the ‘defining’ part of the identity dialectic is strongly favored in the acolyte, at least initially. In this process, the perimeter identity enforces its dual roles as containment vessel and defense mechanism. It ensures only authorized members will reach positions where they can shape the identity, for interlopers will be identified and be rejected as foreign intervention.

Uniforms. I find the uniform as a case study fascinating. It is the quintessential symbol of the perimeter identity. They are an indicator of sameness to the outsider, but difference to the group member. The function of the uniform is not to eliminate differences, but to standardize and confine them. To the military member, much more information can be gleaned from a uniform than from street clothes. In fact, in the same way that uniforms may look the same to a civilian, civvies may look fairly similar to a military member. Consider a flight suit. Almost all of it is the same, but the differences are all in the same places. One patch is for wings and names, where the way the name is written may indicate information about the community the wearer is from. Another patch indicates command, another for unit, another for a flag or a weapons school patch, depending on whether the wearer has earned it. The shoulders indicate rank, confusing to the uninitiated but instantly identifiable to the member. The modifications on the flight suit indicate community as well. Interestingly, the different levels of identity are allocated their own territory on the uniform (command, wing, squadron, etc.) Whatever area remains unregulated becomes a nexus for expressing individuality. This could be haircut, or the Velcro on the pen pocket, usually used for humorous morale patches. Therefore, a uniform does not eliminate differences, it just standardizes them and assigns space to them. The uninitiated will be unable to read the language of the uniform, therefore the overwhelming sameness of it will be the only thing he sees. Therefore, the uniform allows the perimeter identity to camouflage itself in plain sight. The military uniform is not the only uniform out there. Gangs certainly uses uniforms, as do corporate types or punk rockers. I can’t read a corporate uniform. A Brooks Brothers suit and a J.C. Penney suit look about the same to me. Yet this difference conveys information to those who can detect it, as do college rings and a doctor‘s white coat. This method of standardizing differences within an overwhelming sameness does not only apply to uniforms, but after 3 minutes I couldn’t think of another good example, so I’m going to keep going. Anyways, the uniform epitomizes the semi-transparent boundary by simultaneously informing difference between the initiated, and portraying sameness to the uninitiated.

So that’s the theory. Perimeter identities. I haven’t figured out how this is useful, and considering my closet engineer teleological fascination, this frustrates me. Wait… here’s one. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research. There seems to be a quantitative fetish amongst social scientists. While quantitative research offers a better degree of objectivity and allows higher degrees of certainty, there seems to be an element of compensation in this. There seems to be a deep insecurity about being ‘real’ scientists, the way ‘hard science‘ types are. So to be cool and taken seriously like physicists, there is a strain within social science (UCLA’s Poli Sci department) that wants to have the certainty of numbers and laws. I think that is why there is such a ruckus about Democratic Peace Theory or whatever (the one that says that democracies never go to war with each other.) While generally true, there is still this desire to make it a Maxwell’s Equations-type law, 100% right and all. The gymnastics it takes to do this (American Civil War, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia) leave me somewhat unconvinced. What I mean to say is there is some strong preference for quantitative research over qualitative research. As a guy who likes numbers and hard science-type laws, I sympathize to some degree, but if you don’t know where to find the variables, your regression won’t work out. If you use the wrong variables, then you will probably reach the wrong conclusions. Qualitative research tells you which are the important variables. Qualitative research allows you to crack the shell of a perimeter identity. While you can’t ‘go native’ doing quantitative research, quantitative research can’t always wrest reliable conclusions from inside an opaque identity membrane. The two methodologies complement each other. Chaotic hypervariate problems require intuition to get a handle on them (consider donut solutions from Chaos theory.) Once you have pinned them down, then pull out your F-stats and R-squareds. Point: Qualitative research is good and necessary.

Next time we’ll conclude our ‘sociology of the military’ discussion and steal a page from Tolkien in order to examine the interaction between language and culture. Good times.

Inclusive and Exclusive Identites

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:05:00 -0500

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.

Questioning No-Fault Divorce

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:40:00 -0500

Divorce is so prevalent in our society that the assertion that it is a right is accepted as a truism. Perhaps, instead of seeing it as a tragic necessity, we should stop and question the construct of divorce. I know this is a touchy subject. And I know that I sound about as puritanical as can be right now. Before you push the ’gasp, stop thinking’ button, though, I would challenge you with the fact that both Susan B. Anthony and Elisabeth Cady Stanton were both vehemently against no-fault divorce. They argued that divorce hurt women. Alimony is an attempt to reconcile this hurt, but even if alimony could balance things between the former spouses, it does little to recompense the children of the marriage for the damages they will suffer as a result of the divorce. Divorce hurts children. They have rights too. I am not arguing for paternalistic policies on marriage. I think libertarian concepts work just fine. I just think we did the math wrong.

Libertarianism is a useful vantage point from which to understand the law. It is particularly useful when trying to understand contract law and tort law. You willingly enter into a contract. As a function of that contract, you promise to do certain things, and are promised certain things in return. In entering into a marriage, we create an entity which has its own formal and informal economic life, an entity that is granted legal recognition (taxes, etc.) In this way, a family is similar to a corporation.

Imagine two people come together and create a corporation. They pool resources, and both invest time and energy in the corporation. Say, for the sake of argument, one decides they no longer like the other person, that they are no longer interested in being part of the corporation. Say, as well, that the corporation cannot continue to exist with only one party. The corporation would fail, and be carved up to be given back to the two original stakeholders proportionately. Rights are balanced as well as they can be, and our libertarian construct holds. It is sad the corporation didn’t work out, but things are as fair as they can be.

Let’s say instead the corporation did very well, and made enough money that the two original stakeholders decided they should take the corporation public. So they open it up, though they decide to retain majority shares. The shares are eagerly bought up by investors. Say now that time goes by, the corporation stalls. The two founders are still critical to the operation of the corporation, without them it will fail. Imagine now that those founders decide they have irreconcilable differences. They are the majority shareholders, and together they vote to dissolve the corporation. Now imagine that after they dissolve the corporation, they sell off its assets and split it between the two of them, cutting out the shareholders entirely. This doesn’t sound right. The shareholders have rights, and should have a share in the settlement. Here is the problem. We like to call half-libertarian constructs libertarian. We cut people out of the deal to enlarge our chunk of the pie.

Alimony came into existence as a recognition of the contribution of women to the economic unit of the family, as well as a recognition that the woman could expect certain duties from the man within the marriage. Traditional domestic roles, though historically ignored by economists, incorporated a high degree of value added to the family unit. If the woman was managing the house, the man could earn money outside the house. This is not meant to be normative, only to say that fuzzier terms were required to see her stake in the arrangement. Additionally, the woman generally had do make greater sacrifices on the behalf of the relationship than the man. A pregnancy sets a woman at least six months behind in career advancement. Domestic activities do not increase her profitability on her own. Ultimately, her chances of remarriage traditionally were less than the man’s, so she sacrifices more in the way of prospects than he does. She has a right to certain duties from the man in the relationship. If the relationship is ended, he needs to provide compensation for those duties.

Children have certain rights, as well. They are the complicating factor. They come into existence as a function of the family, and become stakeholders in that family. They have, in effect, been implicitly signed into the marriage contract by their parents. There are certain duties due them, as part of that contract. The most apparent duties are already addressed by the law: basic clothes, food and shelter. But there are more duties. The parents need to provide the children a home. This is a subjective term, just as the economic contribution of the wife to the household is somewhat subjective. This does not make it insignificant. Studies overwhelmingly show that divorce has a negative effect on children. They incur harm in the dissolution of a marriage, as they are deprived of their right to an unbroken home. They cannot forfeit this right, as the children have no veto on a divorce, and have no legal agency with which to exercise any veto. Therefore, they should receive restitution if the marriage is dissolved from both parties to the dissolution.

Here we turn to policy. What would this right of recompense look like? For this, let’s turn to the idea of irreconcilable differences. Currently, this idea is something of a mockery. It means anything and everything, and has become a catch-all to legitimate all divorces. This was not the intent. Returning to the original intent, the idea was that if a marriage was so totally broken that if the couple could not salvage it even by exhausting all reasonable avenues, then at the end of their frustration they would be allowed to scuttle it. In this we see the difference between good faith and negligence. This is a useful distinction. If the parents try their utmost to save the marriage, they are acting with good faith toward their children, and this should be considered in the settlement. If they ’just don’t love each other anymore,’ which was never a pre-condition for the fulfillment of the duty to the child of providing a home, then their actions take on an air of negligence, and the law must be more directive in delineating stakes in the settlement.

How, then, do we quantify a good faith effort? To some extent, as with any proof by ordeal, this will have to be somewhat arbitrary. Marriage counseling is a universalizable and effective tool of salvaging a marriage. One year is long enough to prove a serious commitment to working through problems. Therefore, if a couple is willing to undergo one year of intensive marriage counseling, they should be considered to be acting in good faith. This counseling would be subsidized, though not free. In order to ensure that counseling does not become a rubber-stamp or a formality, counselors would have to be certified by some means. Reasonable metrics should be applied to this process (I.e. 99.9% of cases ending in divorce is probably not a counselor that is very interested in success.) If the counselor assesses that the couple is not making a good faith effort, then they will be considered in breach. They can choose either to be assigned to another counselor (up to a total of 3) and restart the year of counseling, or proceed to the delineated settlement (to be explained in the next paragraph.) If one party is clearly not trying and the other is clearly making an effort, this will be considered in the proportioning of the settlement, to recognize the good faith of the party who is trying. If at the end of the year of the counseling, the differences remain irreconcilable in the eyes of the counselor, then the parents are to be considered as acting in good faith. In that case, an argument can be made that in such a home, brokenness is already extant to such a degree that the parents would not be performing any duty to the children by maintaining a nominally intact home. A divorce with a traditional alimony and child support arrangement would then be appropriate. Preferably, though, the parents actually resolve their difficulties, and the marriage is saved.

Counseling cannot be compulsory. This opens up too many cans of worms. Therefore, there must be a more direct option for couples who decline counseling or who do not act in good faith in counseling. As tort law, this cannot be punitive (although the law having a deterrent effect is not the same as a punitive law.) It must simply balance shares of the settlement between the stakeholders. We will call this the ‘delineated settlement.’ The children are entitled to an unbroken home. If they are deprived of this right, they should receive recompense. The most objective means of this recompense would be money. The amount would be derived from anticipated lifetime counseling bills, lifetime reduction in wage earning potential, and emotional distress on the part of the child. Consideration would also be given to proportionality with the parents’ income. Percentages could be assessed regionally and tweaked for the individual cases. This money would be set aside in an interest bearing account, and made accessible to the child when they reach the age of majority. Consideration could be given to limiting the fund to educational purposes (college, trade school, etc.) The idea of equalizing pain is less than ideal, but it works as a libertarian concept of torts.

There is the danger of unintended consequences. The most significant being possible facilitation of abusive relationships. Abuse is a criminal law matter. If abuse exists in a relationship, and is established in a court of law, then the option will be given to the abused party to proceed directly to the delineated settlement with an automatic assessment of the totality of the damages to the children against the abusing party. If the perty accused of abuse is not convicted in a criminal court, there will remain an option to try that party in a civil court at a lower standard of proof. This could lead to the unintended consequence of spurious charges of abuse. In order to discourage this, frivolous charges of abuse will be considered as acting in bad faith, and will be considered in the settlement.

Policy is always concerned with outcome, just as law is concerned with justice. We have looked to libertarian constructs for justice. Let us then look to outcomes. Having ‘irreconcilable difficulties’ actually mean something increases the opportunity cost for divorce. Just as any supply/demand graph will tell you, this will reduce quantity. This incentives resolving problems, by deterring divorce. It makes it worth sorting things out, and provides families an avenue to sort things out. So it will save some marriages. The family is the foundation of the state, as it pre-dates the state, and is a super-ordinate institution. The rights of man come before the rights of the state, because man is more important than the state. If the man ceases to be man, then the state will fail. The family exists between man and the state. Man makes family. Families make states. No conception of the state is possible without the idea of some form of family (not necessarily nuclear.) Without the family, the state will fail. A state where half of marriages fail is not a healthy state. So if we can same some marriages, we increase the good.

Let me end on a more emotional note. I thank my parents for their courage and for their willingness to stick it out when things got tough. Because they chose to love each other even when they didn’t feel like it, I had the privilege of growing up in an intact home. Most of my friends (and my father) were denied that privilege. I will speak for many here. We had a right to have two parents at the same time. All of us did. We had a right to have families when we were growing up. We should not have to make songs like ‘Broken Home’ because of the choices of people who had songs like ‘Imagine.’ If we were robbed of that right, we should be paid back for the things that we were robbed of. But how much better would it have been if it wasn’t so damn easy to get a divorce. We spend so much time building escape hatches and ejection seats. We make it so easy to give up and run away. Maybe, we should spend some of that time trying to make things work. Maybe, if we chose to honor each other past the point where it ceased being fun, we might find that we could actually learn to trust each other. Maybe, if we actually tried, we might find out that we actually love each other. And then we’ll have somewhere to start from.

Dragons (Addenda.)

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:40:00 -0500

Uno. There is a fourth check on our actions. The check of conscience. There is a knowledge of the moral law written on the heart of man. We are made in the image of God, and part of His stamp on us is His law. But even this, in a way, is an external check. It does not come from us, but from God. As we sever our ties to Him in our rebellion, we lose our ability to hear the call of conscience. We abandon the safety of this check when we abandon Him.

Dos. There is also a more formal logic-esque way of critiquing the moving of boundary stones. (Yeah, I use made up words. Like redongculous.) First, we tell someone that the value of the life of his unborn child is less than the value of his convenience. Second, that man assesses the value of life of his unborn child to be greater than the value of a stranger’s life. Therefore, by simple transposition, he then assesses the value of life of the stranger to be of less than his convenience, and acts accordingly. He is correct for data. Given the set of assumptions handed to him, he simply completes the equation. We punish him, not for getting the answer wrong, but for following the answer through to its conclusion. And in that conclusion we are offered a preview of our own destruction. So that man is the thermometer, the shape of things to come. But we would rather believe that man got the answer wrong than question the equation. We are afraid to follow our equations out to their logical conclusions, because we know where they go. Consider Nietzsche. He is correct for data. Without God, there is no conclusion possible other than nihilism. We are simply afraid to follow our paths where they need. Perhaps, if we don’t like where they lead, we should simply find new paths. Perhaps narrow ones.

Threve (A combination of the numbers three and five. Simply stunning.) It is our constraints that keep us safe from ourselves. That keeps us in check. But they are an accommodation. They are not as we were meant to be. I believe that we were unshackled when we were in the garden. That there were no constraints, nor need for them in that place. The constraints exist as an allowance for the error we created. Perhaps like training wheels, the constraints will not remain on forever. Perhaps, one day, this world will be un-childproofed. When God’s great story is told, then our hearts will be allowed to seek whatever ends they desire. Without death, and with infinite time, the distinction between intent and act may cease to exist. These things are beyond me, but perhaps in His plan, we inherit a measure of His omnipotence when all is said and done. Not the throne of a king, but the throne of a viceroy. One who rules in His Name. That on the other side of this life, He provides ways for us to express His omniscience, through seeking forever after Him, His omnipresence, forever expanding to claim all of His universe in His Name, and His omnipotence, able to do all things through Christ who strengthens us. I do not believe I can usefully understand much of this on this side of eternity. But I do think that Heaven is a place where we are free to pursue Him without constraints. Unfortunately, as a corollary, hell must then also be a place where people are unconstrained. A place without either God or restraints would be an unimaginable nightmare. We question God for creating hell. But this is the irony. We are the ones who will create hell. If we are determined to live without Him forever, then there is no more reason for the shackles. The training wheels come off, and we make the world we wanted, a world without Him, a world all about us. This is the most horrifying thought imaginable. So He gives us a choice. Perhaps, there will be a day when the child locks come off this world. On that day, we will get what our hearts desire. If we desire ourselves, that is what we will find. A very small universe that will be. If we desire Him, then we will find everything we could ever desire in Him. Forever will be ours to explore the infinite reaches of His glory. What more could you ask?

Mesoamerican Agriculture and Religious Ritual. (Not my idea.)

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:20:00 -0500

I am continuously amazed and fascinated by the people God brings into my life. One of my friends, who is a nav and a prior enlisted marine (People who challenge stereotypes are awesome...) was describing to me a thought he wants to develop into a paper or a thesis in his graduate work. (He has been published in a few journals already.) Since there is a tremendous difference between not citing sources and actually taking someone else's idea, I will not attempt to fumble through his work, but he did have a fascinating archaelogical perspective on the role of religious ritual on the development of agriculture and the subsequent development of cities in Mesoamerica. I look forward to reading the article or the thesis. Im sure it will be outstanding.

There is a Talal Asad book on the role of religious ritual that I am currently (and finally) finishing. I think I'll send it his way, he can probably make more use of it. I wonder if the books I exchanged for that Asad book two years ago ever got read. The Book of Five Rings and The Art of War, theyre not just for breakfast anymore, kids. Of course, that is part of a larger and currently verboten story. It is fun to say you have read them, though. It makes you sound smart. :)

On the Leashing of Dragons...

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:35:00 -0500

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Jesus (as told by Matthew)

We think we can tame sin. We think that we can ascribe to it boundaries. ‘This far, and no farther,’ we tell our pet vices. And this line separates the good people from the bad. Trespass across that line, and the wrath of the society descends upon you. Not because you have gone in a different direction than anyone else, but because you have followed everyone else’s direction closer to its logical conclusion. Thus, we govern with the gallows. And we have done so since the fall. But the problem is not trespassing across the lines, but the lines themselves. We want to keep our dragons on a leash. But they never become tame. They are patient. And they grow. Some day, they will outgrow their chains. This is why nations fall.

A long time ago, we didn’t need to worry much about governing ourselves. ‘If men were angels…’ Well, once they were. In a manner of speaking. It didn’t last. So we find ourselves on this side of the fall. We are no longer angels. Soon we found that we could not have societies without laws. That the consequences of each man doing as he saw fit was disastrous. So there had to be a line, a critical point of sin. Sin could not be allowed to run its course, but we could not eliminate it. So we made the line of ‘manageable sin.’ Past this line, the society would fall. Whatever sin was inside of the line was considered allowable. Here we see the beginnings of law. And in this, we begin to make a mistake. Instead of seeing the line as a necessary evil, we being to see the line as the delineation between the good and the bad. Walk all the way up to the line, tiptoe to the ragged edge, you were good. Step beyond it, you became bad. We began to believe that we could be good. That the evil within us could be exterminated, not just managed. But we were neither willing nor able to part with sin. With our lines, we could have our cake and eat it too. We could call ourselves good, yet could still enjoy our private vices. In fact, we began to call our vices rights. We could walk the path of sin, but we would always stop short of the good/bad line. Well, usually. And when we took that one last step, (and couldn’t hide it) we found that the price of the maintenance of this line was the total destruction of those who stepped across the line. When you became ‘bad,’ you were entirely to blame for the consequences of the entire path of sin.

The problem is that these lines became somewhat arbitrary. When law was given by a Higher Power, it was inviolable. Outside the reach of human redistricting and jerrymandering. There was an anchor to keep the lines just. Over time, though, people forgot that the line was about controlling evil, and began to believe those who stayed within the lines were 'good.' And as 'good' people, they began to believe they could set the law where they saw fit. They felt comfortable doing what was right in their own eyes. So salients began to emerge, places where the 'good' people would rename license as rights to appropriate that which was not their own. Legal contructs became antrhopcentric and flexible. Depending on the society, certain sins were considered manageable and certain ones were not. But these lines were not static. Over time, the lines tended to push farther and farther, until at some point the society was not able to sustain itself. Grey fades to black. Generally, those with power drew the lines, and did so in their favor. Here began another problem: there are neither infinite resources nor infinite rights. And past a certain point, our license begins to steal the rights of others. And here we get both oppression and war. When one group started to push their lines into the territory of a much weaker group (the unborn, or West Africans, etc.,) the oppressing group generally renamed their license a right. This generally remained the case until the oppressed group found the means to resist. When a group began to move their lines into the territory of another group with the means to resist, they often found themselves at war. The more powerful group would generally define the lines in the aftermath. Until, of course, the tables turned and the losing group became more powerful (Holstein wars,) when the conflict would be revisited. Remember that mankind desires power above all else. Power wrote the lines, and a balance of terror maintained them. And power is arbitrary. Therefore, so were the lines.

Here is the problem expressed. We create a society where it is considered a right to murder the unborn for being inconvenient. So we tell someone born in an inner city that he can kill his own child for convenience’s sake, but he cannot kill a stranger driving through his neighborhood for the convenience of stealing his car. So the inner city resident must ask himself, if the value of the life of someone I am close to (my child) is less than the value of my convenience, how can it be that the value of a total stranger’s life is less than the greater convenience of having his car? And he would be right to ask this. All that man has done is draw a straight line where the lines of the law were crooked. He has smoothed the salient. It is not that he has done something different, only that he has taken the course of action we started with abortion to its logical conclusion in murder. The terribloe consequences of our vices are expressed through those who carry them out to their logical conclusions. These are generally the weakest, most vulnerable to the vices, or those farthest from the imposed constraints, those who live where rule of law has failed. Unfortunately, we cannot maintain our nominal good/bad split and still acknowledge the link between our vices and their consequences. Therefore, when he steps across the line from abortion to murder, the wrath of the entire society descends upon him, as much to maintain the fiction of the line as to punish him for his crime. We do not care so much about stopping murder. We care more about convincing ourselves that our murder is different, and somehow justifiable. We make him the scapegoat for our own sin. We act as if he has done something totally unthinkable and contrary to society, when in reality, he has just tiptoed one step too far on a line all of us were already traveling. We need to see ourselves as good, so those who cross the line become bad, become different. And here is the myth. The difference between him and us is nominal. He has just followed his sin closer to its logical conclusion. I am not questioning the construct of law, or advocating leniency on crime. Far from it. I am questioning the construct of the line. I am not saying that bad people are not really bad. I am saying all of us are bad people.

Consider someone who engages in sexual crimes. We live in a society that tolerates pornography and strip clubs. These things teach us that it is okay for us to make other people into objects for our pleasure. That our pleasure is more important than their dignity. What is the difference between this and a sexual crime? The act alone. The intention is the same. Or murder. To hate someone is to find their existence offensive, to wish that they had never been born. The only difference between this and actually ending the person’s existence is the act. The intent is identical. And in the difference between act and intent we convince ourselves of our own righteousness. But this is entirely false. We believe that our own inability to carry out our desires is counted as righteousness. We are wrong. We are simply ineffective in our evil desires. The fact that we are constrained by our own limitations is God’s mercy. Do not confuse this with any possible ’goodness’ on our part. We are simply not terribly good at being bad. And this is why societies can exist.

What is the difference between act and intent? Our legal system makes much of it. And this is a necessary distinction in a post-fall legal system. Intent cannot be punished on this side of eternity, because then there would be none who were innocent. But it is limitations and constraints, not some magical goodness that keeps intent from becoming act. First, there are practical limitations. Consider hate and murder. There is a good amount of logistics involved in actualizing that intent. Not to be macabre, but you would have to acquire a means, and protect yourself from your intended target’s means of defense. Perhaps this would convince us that it would not be worth the time, effort or danger. Death is the ultimate 'physics' check. If we could live forever, then even the most evil dreams could be brought to pass with enough patience. Second, there is the soft check of social conventions, the significance of the opinions of others. If we act in certain ways, others will disapprove of us, and perhaps will exclude us. Due to our desire to be accepted, we may constrain ourselves if we decide the benefits of our actions do not outweigh the costs to our social networks. Finally, there is the hard check of the law, of imposed penalties. In this check, physics and social checks are combined. Social conventions are armed with the power of death and pain, to be applied to transgressors. Fear of the gallows may arrest our evil desires, if nothing else will. Notice that each of these three layers have different (and progressively more restrictive) lines associated with them. (I.e. you may receive disdain for spreading rumors out of hate, but you will not merit the wrath of the law.) But the principle remains the same. These constraints hold us back. They are not built in, we have to create them. So there is nothing in us that is good. Only things that hold us back from being bad.

We are complex beings. We are a mix of potentiality and actuality. The important part of Aquinas to this discussion is the fact that we as complex beings can have both act and intent, and have them be different. God is a simple being. He simply is. There is no mix of act and intent in Him. Everything He desires He does to the highest degree logically possible. There are no constraints on Him. For Him to intend to do is for Him to do. There is no differentiation between act and intent for an infinite being, for there is nothing to constrain the desires of the Omnipotent. This spells death to the idea that we are good. If there were nothing to check us, no constraints on us, then our intent would be act. Every hateful thought would be murder, if there were nothing to stop us. If you could do it with a thought, if nobody would think less of you, if there were no consequences, then hate is exactly the same as murder. Then every sin would be followed to its logical conclusion. And this is why we are terrified of the prospect of omnipotence. Because if we could do whatever we wanted, we would make hell. Remember the book Sphere. We cannot handle omnipotence. We cannot leave behind our checks and constraints. Because somewhere deep down, we know what would happen. If we were to ascend to the throne of the Most High, we would create hell. There is nothing in us that is good. (To follow a rabbit trail, Terminator also touches a deep historical fear of ours… that the creation would rebel against its creator. This story scares us because we know it so well.)

Let’s return to the lines. The lines exist as a check on our evil. This is not to say that the lines are bad. The only post-fall governance that works is one of the gallows. We must remember that the law does not make us good, it only stops us from acting out our evil desires. If we continue to move the lines, to blur them, we will eventually move them past a critical level of sin. At that point, the society will no longer be able to maintain itself. In this is the rise and fall of societies. The dragons grow with time. They convince us they have been tamed. But thyey never forget who they are. The death that is a check on the individual then becomes the check ont he society, through its own choices. We invite our own destruction as we move the boundary stones. As we push these lines, as we blur them, we will surely reap the consequences. We construct the scales we are weighed on. We pronounce judgment upon ourselves, and we are our own executioner. Violence in the womb leads to violence in the streets. The dragon grows, and its bite becomes more dangerous. Its tantrums become more destructive. This is true for any sin we tolerate. It will not be tamed. So the lines must be made clearly, and they must not move.

Laws must have an origin beyond mere human sentiment, human interest, or even human necessity if they are to remain fixed. Only by remembering the Law-giver can the law stay true to its intent. Without Him, the law drifts into vice, and the dragons are let out of their cages and put on leashes. Only by keeping our eyes fixed on Him will we keep the lines of the law fixed. His law is merciful. It safeguards us from ourselves. The law is only half of the solution. The lines can only keep the dragon in check. A small and malnourished dragon is less of a threat, btu the law cannot kill it. Even if we legislate every sin away, sin will resurface somewhere else, and pride will destroy a civilization as surely as any other sin. The best that a perfect law can give us is a stalemate. When that perfect law was given, we could not keep it. We are the problem. Our evil hearts are the natural habitat for the dragons. We need to given new hearts. This is not an naswer we can find inside ourselves. Someone greater brought the law of death. It will take Someone greater to bring the law of life. (To be continued in Death and Rebirth...)

Studying Sociology and Latin America (By Accident.)

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:35:00 -0500

So in one of the continuing ironies of this story, I find myself in the course of personal and professional studies learning about both Cultural Anthropology and Latin America. This was unexpected. In a way a comic irony… one of the things I had said in the last less than pleasant parting was that ‘it will be as if we had no past, only lessons learned… after all, what commonality could there be between [what I do] and [what she does.]’ It seems, as usual, that things did not turn out as I expected. In the course of doing what I do, I have had more classes in her area of expertise than while I was in grad school. And in the course of doing what she is doing, she ends up studying a place where my area of expertise is of critical concern. That didn’t quite go the way I thought. I was partially right, though. That it would be as if we had no past. Everything that needed to be said was said. The prayer is that we meet again for the first time. And two people meeting for the first time have no past. I am enjoying my studies, though. I do wish that she and I could have been reconciled before this executive course. I think she would have enjoyed it as well.

The class is fascinating. Brilliant lecture by Prof. Miguel Angel Centeno of Princeton. Would discuss, but non-attribution and all. His book, however, is not non-attribution. Blood and Debt: War and Statemaking in Latin America is an intriguing view on national identities and historical narratives. Open Source Papers are also not non-attribution. And this one is pretty good. And encouraging… that even old rivalries can be forgotten, at least for a while…

The Origins of Security Cooperation in the Southern Cone
Joao Resende-Santos
Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 44, No. 4, (Winter, 2002), pp. 89-126.

Another admittedly simplistic point. As simple (and over-simple) an answer it is to blame American intervention for the problems of Latin America, consider El Salvador. The Salvadorian government prevailed in their civil war not because the United States provided better weapons, but because the United States advisors pushed the Salvadorian military to follow the traditional laws of armed conflict. With a decrease in human rights abuses, the insurgency lost much of its momentum. Also consider that once someone is provided with training, they retain their free will. Reference News Clip about the Zetas. Remember that we as humanity veered from our advertised purpose as well.

In another certain irony, the American political party which has traditionally championed democracy over dictatorship finds itself having to advocate against democracy in its fervor to oppose every policy of the current administration. I find this especially humorous, given that I respect the current administration. Especially his very unpublicized policies dramatically increasing aid to Sub-Saharan Africa, and doing it in ways that no longer resemble patronizing colonial guilt. But that is a topic for another time…