In the form of a few stories from the Jubilee weekend (no, 2/3 world countries were not forgiven their debt), I wish to pose a question to all of you...or really just state my opinion on it and hope that you all agree.
1. I attended the workshop with David Dark on the everyday apocalypse. If you want to know more about this, ask me. But while there someone asked him what he thought was holy. David responded with "the world and everything in it" (Betsy, I think you might like this guy). Connected to that, he mentioned that he once saw someone talk (I don't remember who) that when asked a question would stare at the asker for at least 6 seconds, say "thank you," and then respond. David was emphasizing the importance of really listening; listening without judging, engaging in dialogue without assumptions, and then responding in the purest fashion we know how. Anyhow, all of this said, some kids in front of me managed to think that David was generalizing, locked in a Western worldview, and excusing such atrocities as female circumcision. Now, mind you, David's workshop was on the media and pulling truth from all forms of media, not just Christian media (hence his more general definition of "apocalypse"). These students claimed that David was not seeing from a wide enough worldview that accounted for other cultures. They asked, "So if I go to, say India, and they are mutilating women I'm just supposed to stop and listen and do nothing? That is ridiculous. Some things are just wrong." (They also used the word "espoused" which really fired me up. Not because I don't know what espoused means - yes, Colin, I actually know that one - but because they were cocky hipsters that must have just taken a 1000 level class in culture). Anyhow, what do you all think? My thought is that we are called to go to India, see the mutilation and stop and listen and think. Only after that are we then to decide if, no, I think this is still wrong, and yes, we should do something about it. Otherwise, we are more Western than the line of thought that David espouses (ooh...word usage).
2. I had a girl come up to me and ask me if I really thought that war was not the answer. I told her that I didn't and gave a few reasons why. At one point I said "I don't think anyone is really fully behind war in that no one is for lots of people dying and suffering from psychological casualties...I don't see war as the only answer or the first answer, but rather may at times be needed, but only after other alternatives have been exhausted." To which she replied "I believe war is the answer." Thoughts on that? How would you respond? She is from a military family. Oh, also, in the middle of the conversation she asked, "Are you Asian?" Yes, racism is still alive. Well, at least that's how I took it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks, Katie. A few things for ya... As for the first point, I have some to say on that as a former SOC/ANTH major. I think female genital mutilation is to ethics what WWII is to Just War Theory... it is ALWAYS invoked. The discipline of anthropology has shifted some on this in the last 30 years. They used to be ALL cultural relativism... it was THE paradigm in the discipline. And it has its place. But during Vietnam, they realized that inaction is action, and as globalization grew, anthropologists realized it wasn't enough just to go to a people, ask questions, listen, record stuff, try not to "change" them, and walk away and write and ethnography and get tenure. This "hands off" impulse is from a good place (and a reaction - in part - to old school Xian missionaries not differentiating between Xianity and Westernization), but in the end, they realized that change is the only constant, and these cultures that they invested years documenting were going extinct on their watch. So anthropology did 2 things: first, they adopted an ethics statement, a crazy thing for the most secular of the disciplines. Second, anthropologists became advocates, fighting for "rights" and for the peoples who were being run over by the West, colonialism, globalization, etc. So while those hipster kids were hauling out the age-old arguments, I think they were on to something in the sense that even the most secular of the disciplines had to realize that there is no neutral ground and that everyone has an ethic. Listening is still good, but we wouldn't be activists and advocates if we thought that all was well and that free-market morality and extreme cultural relativism reigns. I think it is a matter of audience... some groups need help with the listening first part, and others might need a kick in the ass to do something.
About the war thing, I can relate in that I once met an American guy when I was traveling in Israel who was also pro-war. Just as quick as we like to go to the Beatitudes, he went to OT verses about God being a God of war and the Israelites getting the land by killing folks. Like the one character in Munich says, do you think we got the land by being nice? As weird as it seems, I really do think that some folks are really pro-war if that serves to accomplish what they see as the ultimate goal of history. I also struggle with Islam in that way... I just don't know enough about it, but some say that it is violent at heart, while others claim the opposite. I know Christianity is not above reproach, but I do worry about a faith that rewards the killing of oneself and innocents as a means to an end. I'd love folks' thoughts on how they understand Islam...
Thanks Bob. However, I think you misread (or I wasn't clear enough) what I wrote. The difference between the kids and I wasn't should there be action or no action, or can we say that something is wrong or not wrong, it was that they failed to realize the importance of cultural sensitivity. I felt like they missed the necessity to engage in a culture first (this doesn't mean years and years of observation, but at least a simple mind exercise in perspectives) and then after that make your decision as to whether or not you are against it because it is not your culture or if you are against it because it is wrong and conflicts with some absolute moral truth that you believe in. I thought that they were somewhat hypocritical in accusing David Dark of being too western because he didn't think of some places in other cultures where to listen is the wrong thing to do, yet they were very western in their placement of western values on cultural practices that are not their own. In the end, they may disagree with, say female circumcision, but it shouldn't be "That's so bad, I think it's obviously wrong." But instead a sort of "Why do they do that? What are the benefits of it in that culture? How would it affect those who did not participate?" And then, "Do I still think this is wrong?" Everyone has to decide where they draw their line. One of mine happens to be female circumcision. But if you don't set in place a good process of deciding where you draw the line, suddenly everything different becomes bad. There are definitely some practices that are not as extreme as female genital mutilation where it really is a challenge to decide if it should be okay or not. And that's another thing: it is one thing to decide that you think something is wrong and it is another thing to decide if we should put in place laws that prohibit it. For example, in some cultures children start "working" at a very young age. But their life stages are very different from ours in the west. We have child labor laws and blah blah blah so should those kids fall under that. But then there are abuses of it as well, so that's important.
Anyhow, that was long. I was more frustrated with the kids in their hypocrisy and their process than their ultimate conclusion. And I don't think David Dark was espousing some crazy idea of "We should just watch and listen and never change anything or think anything is wrong." I'm pretty sure he would think certain things are very wrong or contradictory to his morals. They made him into a relativist when that wasn't even the topic of the workshop. We were talking about western media and how Christians don't need to only enjoy Christian media. It's just too bad they missed that because they were too into their own intelligence. (I'm such a jerk).
I know none of us actually look at this blog anymore, but I was just looking back through it a bit, and I wanted to be sure and say - I currently kind of go to school with David Dark! He's in the PhD program at the Grad. Dept. of Religion at Vandy. I believe he started the same year I started in the MDiv program, or maybe a year before.
Post a Comment