Posts
Here is Tyson's dinner prayer booklet, free for you to download. Go ahead, look it over! Despite entirely cynical preconceptions, I couldn't help but feel relaxed and warmed this sentimental little booklet.
On the other hand, here's an interesting video from inside one of Tyson's chicken processing facilities.
I am not so bothered by the visual, visceral sensation of a conscious chicken's head popping off in the rubber gloves of a weary factory employee. After all, eating meat has always involved the toleration of a certain amount of violence. It's the image of that moving belt loaded with hundreds of dead chickens, a few live ones freaking out--a mass-processing system that treats millions of living beings in every way as inanimate "food units" for their entire (short) lives.
What disturbs me even more though is how you and I deal with the disconnect between our personal comfort level and the reality of industrial meat production. I think that most of us have seen something like this at some point but we have to push the image to the back our minds, to the very edge of our consciousness, in order to contentedly eat a chicken breast. Maybe we westerners have been doing this in many areas of life ever since we had to start questioning the giddy utopianism of endlesss technological progress sometime in the middle of the 20th century, ever since we became vaguely and obscurely afraid that our lives might be negatively transformed by the elaborate systems and environments we've engineered for ourselves.
If we chose to look under the hood, we would most likely be disgusted by feces-littered pens crowded with obese chickens with clipped beaks. We might have to consider the unpleasant possibility that our international system of food production and transportation would find ways of perpetuating itself even after it ceased to be the most efficient, cheap or healthy solution. But why should I consider such complicated questions when I can easily opt for the comforting vision printed on the packaging of my chicken breasts? "Look, this food was raised on an idyllic village farm where happy, healthy animals wander around on the sun-warmed earth under the gaze of a watchful, benevolent farmer."
Corny marketing is not convincing, it's just an extremely convenient anesthetic for the chafing of our various ideals against the world as it is.
Flickr
My collection of photos on Flickr. Nothing new just yet, but check out the photo-mapping feature.
Hsi-an Monument
"Twenty-seven sacred books [the number in the New Testament] have been left, which disseminate intelligence by unfolding the original transforming principles. By the rule for admission, it is the custom to apply the water of baptism, to wash away all superficial show and to cleanse and purify the neophytes. As a seal, they hold the cross, whose influence is reflected in every direction, uniting all without distinction. As they strike the wood, the fame of their benevolence is diffused abroad; worshiping toward the east, they hasten on the way to life and glory; they preserve the beard to symbolize their outward actions, they shave the crown to indicate the absence of inward affections; they do not keep slaves, but put noble and mean all on an equality; they do not amass wealth, but cast all their property into the common stock; they fast, in order to perfect themselves by self-inspection; they submit to restraints, in order to strengthen themselves by silent watchfulness; seven times a day they have worship and praise for the benefit of the living and the dead; once in seven days they sacrifice, to cleanse the heart and return to purity."
The above is an excerpt from the Hsi-an Monument, set up in 781 AD to document the several-hundred-year history of Nestorian Christian missionaries in the East, where their influence had been praised and accepted by Emperor Dezong of the Tang dynasty. Follow this link for the full translation of the monument's text.
It's always fascinating to hear about ancient movements which speak powerfully to the current "missional" trend in Christianity. For unknown reasons, Nestorian Christian presence in China had pretty much disappeared by the 1800s. Did 1950s evangelical missionaries to China know of that region's long history of interaction with Christianity or did they imagine that they were the first witnesses of Christ in Asia?
Despite widespread war between all sorts of peoples and civilizations, it strikes me that there are a lot of surprising examples of religious tolerance in the 1000s. You've got Buddhists welcoming Christians in China, St. Francis studying prayer with Muslims, and the Ottoman Empire, an entire ethnicity-spanning Muslim civilization that was explicitly and legally tolerant of Christians and Jews.
Elsewhere in the Hsi-an Monument's explication of Christianity, there are a lot of inherantly cross-cultural themes. The cross, in addition to being described as the location which defines "the four cardinal points" (N, S, E, W), becomes "a seal... whose influence is reflected in every direction, uniting all without distinction."
The above is an excerpt from the Hsi-an Monument, set up in 781 AD to document the several-hundred-year history of Nestorian Christian missionaries in the East, where their influence had been praised and accepted by Emperor Dezong of the Tang dynasty. Follow this link for the full translation of the monument's text.
It's always fascinating to hear about ancient movements which speak powerfully to the current "missional" trend in Christianity. For unknown reasons, Nestorian Christian presence in China had pretty much disappeared by the 1800s. Did 1950s evangelical missionaries to China know of that region's long history of interaction with Christianity or did they imagine that they were the first witnesses of Christ in Asia?
Despite widespread war between all sorts of peoples and civilizations, it strikes me that there are a lot of surprising examples of religious tolerance in the 1000s. You've got Buddhists welcoming Christians in China, St. Francis studying prayer with Muslims, and the Ottoman Empire, an entire ethnicity-spanning Muslim civilization that was explicitly and legally tolerant of Christians and Jews.
Elsewhere in the Hsi-an Monument's explication of Christianity, there are a lot of inherantly cross-cultural themes. The cross, in addition to being described as the location which defines "the four cardinal points" (N, S, E, W), becomes "a seal... whose influence is reflected in every direction, uniting all without distinction."
Father Aelred
Father Aelred, Benedictine monk and founder of the Monastery of Christ in the Desert, says:
"The monastery is not a refuge, not a solution for dealing with problems of adjustment. Monasticism is a head-on collision with reality, and the more silent, the more solitude, the more head-on it is."
Withdrawal from the world gets all kinds of flack from people. Say what you will, the raw idealistic commitment of classical monasticism inspires respect from me. It attempts to hollow out a space within the dense, destructive weight of a fallen world, pulling at and stretching out an ever-thinning membrane that enforces the boundary between a sin-enslaved existence and one defined by absolute freedom to obey. Forced to admit the inevitably human anchoring in the present fallen world, fanatical monks struggle to live in sync with another, incoming world.
What does a contemplative monk do? Pray. Meditate. In a practical sense, nothing. It is by definition impossible for the entire body of believers to abide in this state and what a malformed body it would be if everyone tried to or wanted to.
Speculatively, we could say that contemplative monasticism is the nervous system of the body of Christ: A network of cells, flowing upwards and inwards, towards that central point of contact with the Brain, convulsing with electric impulses which are the first physical traces of another level of consciousness.
"The monastery is not a refuge, not a solution for dealing with problems of adjustment. Monasticism is a head-on collision with reality, and the more silent, the more solitude, the more head-on it is."
Withdrawal from the world gets all kinds of flack from people. Say what you will, the raw idealistic commitment of classical monasticism inspires respect from me. It attempts to hollow out a space within the dense, destructive weight of a fallen world, pulling at and stretching out an ever-thinning membrane that enforces the boundary between a sin-enslaved existence and one defined by absolute freedom to obey. Forced to admit the inevitably human anchoring in the present fallen world, fanatical monks struggle to live in sync with another, incoming world.
What does a contemplative monk do? Pray. Meditate. In a practical sense, nothing. It is by definition impossible for the entire body of believers to abide in this state and what a malformed body it would be if everyone tried to or wanted to.
Speculatively, we could say that contemplative monasticism is the nervous system of the body of Christ: A network of cells, flowing upwards and inwards, towards that central point of contact with the Brain, convulsing with electric impulses which are the first physical traces of another level of consciousness.
Declaration of Peace
During the past week I was fortunate to land a job shooting and editing some short (2-4 minute) documentary videos for the Declaration of Peace, a coalition of various organizations who planned a week of events to vocally oppose the US military campaign in Iraq. Here are four of the videos I made from the week; (please pardon the grainy/dull results of compressing the videos into a size that would be small enough to upload onto YouTube's servers):
Philadelphia, September 25th:
Press Conference at the White House (Kelly Dougherty), September 21st:
The Capitol, September 26th:
Interfaith Rally at the Capitol, September 26th:
If you're interested, you can find more videos on the YouTube channel we created. Oh and here's some press coverage from the Washington Post.
Philadelphia, September 25th:
Press Conference at the White House (Kelly Dougherty), September 21st:
The Capitol, September 26th:
Interfaith Rally at the Capitol, September 26th:
If you're interested, you can find more videos on the YouTube channel we created. Oh and here's some press coverage from the Washington Post.
“ ”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer says:
"Let him who cannot be alone beware of community... Let him who is not in community beware of being alone."
"Let him who cannot be alone beware of community... Let him who is not in community beware of being alone."
Sex and the city and the mob and the mall
"One of the causes of the downfall of Rome was that people, being fed by the state...ceased to have any responsibility for themselves or their children, and consequently became a nation of wasters. They frequented circuses, where paid performers appeared before them in the arena, much as we see the crowds now flocking to look on at paid players playing football...Thousands of boys and young men, pale, narrow-chested, hunched-up, miserable specimens, smoking endless cigarettes, numbers of them betting, all of them learning to be hysterical as they groan and cheer in panic unison with their neighbors--the worst sound of all being the hysterical scream of laughter that greets any little trip or fall of a player."
(R. Baden-Powell from Scouting for Boys, as quoted in Among the Thugs by Bill Buford)
The self-engrossed life of pure, stimulation-craving consumption seems to be the booby-trap along western culture's several hundred year path from radical social hierarchy to radical social individualism.
We commitment-phobic 20-somethings wander from place to place, looking for the next psychological fix. It may be a stage-show of immense pathos, an adrenaline-fueled splurge on a luxury that dangles just outside our means, an erotically-tinged connection with a world of fantasy and/or celebrity, some shade of numbed physical intoxication, or (as explored in Among the Thugs) a hypnotizing orgy of violence. In all cases, as in the Coliseum, sensational, engrossing, exciting, high-gloss, heart-racing entertainment is the prize and the cold, gray, mundane dungeon of boredom and obligation is the most frightening possibility for existence.
(R. Baden-Powell from Scouting for Boys, as quoted in Among the Thugs by Bill Buford)
The self-engrossed life of pure, stimulation-craving consumption seems to be the booby-trap along western culture's several hundred year path from radical social hierarchy to radical social individualism.
We commitment-phobic 20-somethings wander from place to place, looking for the next psychological fix. It may be a stage-show of immense pathos, an adrenaline-fueled splurge on a luxury that dangles just outside our means, an erotically-tinged connection with a world of fantasy and/or celebrity, some shade of numbed physical intoxication, or (as explored in Among the Thugs) a hypnotizing orgy of violence. In all cases, as in the Coliseum, sensational, engrossing, exciting, high-gloss, heart-racing entertainment is the prize and the cold, gray, mundane dungeon of boredom and obligation is the most frightening possibility for existence.
“ ”
The Buddhist master says:
"If you eat the moment you are hungry, you will never find out what your hunger is for."
"If you eat the moment you are hungry, you will never find out what your hunger is for."
An apocalyptic way to spend ten minutes
1. Download the following two songs by Woven Hand:
Sparrow falls and Bleary eyed duty
2. Once you've got them downloaded (it may take a few minutes), start them playing (preferably on headphones) and read the Wikipedia entry on the life of Keith Green.
Sparrow falls and Bleary eyed duty
2. Once you've got them downloaded (it may take a few minutes), start them playing (preferably on headphones) and read the Wikipedia entry on the life of Keith Green.
“ ”
Stephanie Coontz says:
"The beginning of the nineteenth century, however, saw a new emphasis on women's innate sexual purity. The older view that women had to be controlled because they were inherently more passionate and prone to moral and sexual error was replaced by the idea that women were asexual beings, who would not respond to sexual overtures unless they had been drugged or depraved from an early age. This cult of female purity encouraged women to internalize limits on their sexual behavior that sixteenth and seventeenth century authorities had imposed by force."
(from "Marriage, a history").
"The beginning of the nineteenth century, however, saw a new emphasis on women's innate sexual purity. The older view that women had to be controlled because they were inherently more passionate and prone to moral and sexual error was replaced by the idea that women were asexual beings, who would not respond to sexual overtures unless they had been drugged or depraved from an early age. This cult of female purity encouraged women to internalize limits on their sexual behavior that sixteenth and seventeenth century authorities had imposed by force."
(from "Marriage, a history").
As i scour the internet for reasonable air fare
Last night my mother gave me a fortune cookie for dessert. I was to find the following fragment of destiny within:
“ ”
Thomas à Kempis says:
"Blessed is that simplicity that leaves the way of hard questions and goes in the plain and certain way of the commandments of God."
"Blessed is that simplicity that leaves the way of hard questions and goes in the plain and certain way of the commandments of God."
What ever happened to tolerance?
Here is a thought-provoking article by Hanif Kureishi, published in the UK’s Guardian, in which he makes the case that our idea of tolerance must be more robust, a real exchange of ideas, not just a festival of food. I like how he constructs the relationships between issues that are on my mind--liberalism and fundamentalism, idealism and practicality, race and “the other.” Here’s a good summation of how some of these ideas fit together in his mind:
“I believed that questions of race, identity and culture were the major issues post-colonial Europe had to face, and that inter-generational conflict was where these conflicts were being played out.”
This sentence got me excited, particularly the part about inter-generational conflict.
From what we learn in his article, Kureishi’s personal beliefs about God could run the gamut from humanism to atheism. In any case, he seems to doubt an individual’s access to God via faith. Like the Christian, who’s ultimate goal in a pluralistic society is to convince everyone else to pursue relationship with the Living God, Kureishi’s ultimate goal of in this exchange of ideas must necessarily be the dilution of religious ideals to the degree that they become indistinct from general humanistic ideals. The underlying Nietzchean belief found here is that religion is valid (is nice) insofar as it is a vehicle for the progress of mankind. Religion is undeniably useful as catalyst for culture, for self-discipline and belief about the world. Religion galvanizes humans together. But the prospect of human myths about the personal-ness or designed-ness of the universe actually being true? That’s ridiculous.
In an even more direct statement of the goals of materialism, we have Dan Dennett, a philosopher and writer, who touches on his ideal version of society while giving a talk on the nonsense of looking for a designed purpose in life.
To me, these two thinkers embody an important discourse that is going on right now in America and Europe: Beyond the topic itself (of the truth or falsity of God), both authors are taking a stance regarding the question of whether or not tolerance is a valid way for people in disagreement to relate to each other.
Maybe tolerance is a continuum: On one end is outright bloodshed among warring cultures and nations, on the other end is an over-saturation of pluralistic subjectivity in which no one believes in anything but tolerance.
As I look around the world, I see what appears to be a growing animosity between Islamic fundamentalists and European materialists, a widening rift between American liberals and the Religious Right. My speculation is that the mode for the exchange of ideas seems to be trending towards the war end of the exchange spectrum.
If politics do indeed progress in this direction, it would mean resolution for the giant experiment in tolerance that America represents to many people. Perhaps more than any other particular country, America has been attempting to gather mostly non-violent consensus from a rather diverse group of citizens ever since it was pre-born in the 1600s, and an even more diverse group as time has progressed.
As battle lines get drawn, I’m not sure if in 20 years there will be many people around who are seeking a delicate balance of holding firmly to their beliefs on one hand as well as genuine tolerance, even love, for their neighbors on the other.
(Philosophically speaking, this experimentation with tolerance could be described as the human struggle to come to terms with the paradox that explains both the limits of our individual subjectivity as well as our essential need to connect to objectivity.)
“I believed that questions of race, identity and culture were the major issues post-colonial Europe had to face, and that inter-generational conflict was where these conflicts were being played out.”
This sentence got me excited, particularly the part about inter-generational conflict.
From what we learn in his article, Kureishi’s personal beliefs about God could run the gamut from humanism to atheism. In any case, he seems to doubt an individual’s access to God via faith. Like the Christian, who’s ultimate goal in a pluralistic society is to convince everyone else to pursue relationship with the Living God, Kureishi’s ultimate goal of in this exchange of ideas must necessarily be the dilution of religious ideals to the degree that they become indistinct from general humanistic ideals. The underlying Nietzchean belief found here is that religion is valid (is nice) insofar as it is a vehicle for the progress of mankind. Religion is undeniably useful as catalyst for culture, for self-discipline and belief about the world. Religion galvanizes humans together. But the prospect of human myths about the personal-ness or designed-ness of the universe actually being true? That’s ridiculous.
In an even more direct statement of the goals of materialism, we have Dan Dennett, a philosopher and writer, who touches on his ideal version of society while giving a talk on the nonsense of looking for a designed purpose in life.
To me, these two thinkers embody an important discourse that is going on right now in America and Europe: Beyond the topic itself (of the truth or falsity of God), both authors are taking a stance regarding the question of whether or not tolerance is a valid way for people in disagreement to relate to each other.
Maybe tolerance is a continuum: On one end is outright bloodshed among warring cultures and nations, on the other end is an over-saturation of pluralistic subjectivity in which no one believes in anything but tolerance.
As I look around the world, I see what appears to be a growing animosity between Islamic fundamentalists and European materialists, a widening rift between American liberals and the Religious Right. My speculation is that the mode for the exchange of ideas seems to be trending towards the war end of the exchange spectrum.
If politics do indeed progress in this direction, it would mean resolution for the giant experiment in tolerance that America represents to many people. Perhaps more than any other particular country, America has been attempting to gather mostly non-violent consensus from a rather diverse group of citizens ever since it was pre-born in the 1600s, and an even more diverse group as time has progressed.
As battle lines get drawn, I’m not sure if in 20 years there will be many people around who are seeking a delicate balance of holding firmly to their beliefs on one hand as well as genuine tolerance, even love, for their neighbors on the other.
(Philosophically speaking, this experimentation with tolerance could be described as the human struggle to come to terms with the paradox that explains both the limits of our individual subjectivity as well as our essential need to connect to objectivity.)
Gymnopedia, to be performed at least three times a day
This is a self-portrait of Erik Satie, the original bohemian.
The text reads (translated from French):
"Project for a bust of Mr. Erik Satie (painted by the same), with a thought: 'I came into the world very young, in an age that was very old'"
Part two in a two-part series
What if the advent of liberalism is not really the cause of the red state/blue state American culture war? What if American liberalism was adopted as a newer form of traditional conservative co-optation, a way for white people to attempt to deal with their cultural self-loathing by escaping from their own criticism?
Some things to consider: The Western, white, male perspective is the implicit target of Deconstructionist criticism. But most foundational Postmodern critics and many (not all) humanities professors are still white and a significant percentage of them male. President Bush is constructed to be the arrogant, ignorant, white, supreme-arch-nemesis of all that is Liberal. But most Democrats and almost all Democratic political candidates share more similarity than difference with Bush, being usually white, male, and middle-to-upper class.
Long before anyone mainstream in America cared about identity politics, white kids had been having this long-term love affair with black culture, a history that includes the co-option of Jazz and Blues, Elvis, and Johnny Cash, among others. Functionally for white people, it may be that the hippie movement predates any concern with identity politics. Look at photos from Woodstock and commune experiments: These weren't angry, marginalized minorities, they were recently straight-laced white kids that had a problem with the culture of their parents on a number of levels.
Then, after all of our parents returned to mainstream culture after their short-lived hippie vacation, they became the "oppressive authoritarians" and our generation developed its own reactionary culture (though it happens to be pretty mainstream itself ever since capitalism figured out that “alternative” is a market too).
Here we are in 2006 and conservative kids have two options: Stay in the conservative fold or seize your moment to run into the arms of The Other. Because it’s still just as hip to be un-white, to be anti-consumer, to read Marx, to listen to M.I.A., to wear dreadlocks or something, to dive into these things at least during a phase in life. Even the significant portion of college-age kids who stay conservative still dance to Jamaican dancehall on the weekends and blast Outkast on their iPods. It's almost entirely unavoidable: Co-optation of "the other" (esp. black culture) is nothing less than a coming-of-age ritual in our country for every generation since slavery ended (and perhaps before). (See this page of a related interview with John McWhorter that Davis brought to my attention).
Moving closer to home, the Christian microcosm of all this is conservative Evangelical kids who react against their parents by becoming liberal (or libertarian) Christians and getting involved in social justice and multiculturalism and international aid, trying to read and apply a wider section of their Bibles, if only because it was the opposite of the preceeding generation’s user-friendly prosperity gospel. And when reading the red letters, they saw that it said community was important, that poor people matter, and, like, something about Feminism.
I admit that I fit in somewhere along these lines: I question authority. I have been known to rage against the machine. And I generally think I'm right.
But putting the rightness or wrongness of liberalism (or Liberation theology) to the side, the important, self-analytical question that I am asking myself right now is about the origin of my embrace of it: I'm concerned that the core of this for me may be significantly reactive in nature. Not every Christian who cares about social issues was introduced to those issues reactively (some had liberal parents, of course), but it seems undeniable to me that many were introduced in this way, many more will be, and even the most authentically liberal Christians are powered by at least a strain of reactionary belief.
So while I am personally committed to thinking outside of “the box” and especially inside the gospels, I think it’s pretty important for myself and every Christian who finds their identity anywhere near the category of the “alternative" to consider the specific origins of their personal party platforms.
Being reactively-motivated is not something you or I should take lightly: At the very least can easily render anyone self-righteously asinine and likely to sell out. But it’s ultimate threat to white, American Christians is that it will put pride, generational issues, and our ever-present white identity crises before the gospel in our hearts and actions.
I hope that Jesus’ core values continue to permeate my life and those of my fellow Christians. (As a matter of fact, I hope His values permeate everyone's lives). I hope that they outlive and erode mere reactionary sentiment. If they do, I am confident that self-loathing will necessarily be dissipated and the passing on of culture between generations will start to become more harmonious, a process of growth rather than one that is cyclically dissonant.
Some things to consider: The Western, white, male perspective is the implicit target of Deconstructionist criticism. But most foundational Postmodern critics and many (not all) humanities professors are still white and a significant percentage of them male. President Bush is constructed to be the arrogant, ignorant, white, supreme-arch-nemesis of all that is Liberal. But most Democrats and almost all Democratic political candidates share more similarity than difference with Bush, being usually white, male, and middle-to-upper class.
Long before anyone mainstream in America cared about identity politics, white kids had been having this long-term love affair with black culture, a history that includes the co-option of Jazz and Blues, Elvis, and Johnny Cash, among others. Functionally for white people, it may be that the hippie movement predates any concern with identity politics. Look at photos from Woodstock and commune experiments: These weren't angry, marginalized minorities, they were recently straight-laced white kids that had a problem with the culture of their parents on a number of levels.
Then, after all of our parents returned to mainstream culture after their short-lived hippie vacation, they became the "oppressive authoritarians" and our generation developed its own reactionary culture (though it happens to be pretty mainstream itself ever since capitalism figured out that “alternative” is a market too).
Here we are in 2006 and conservative kids have two options: Stay in the conservative fold or seize your moment to run into the arms of The Other. Because it’s still just as hip to be un-white, to be anti-consumer, to read Marx, to listen to M.I.A., to wear dreadlocks or something, to dive into these things at least during a phase in life. Even the significant portion of college-age kids who stay conservative still dance to Jamaican dancehall on the weekends and blast Outkast on their iPods. It's almost entirely unavoidable: Co-optation of "the other" (esp. black culture) is nothing less than a coming-of-age ritual in our country for every generation since slavery ended (and perhaps before). (See this page of a related interview with John McWhorter that Davis brought to my attention).
Moving closer to home, the Christian microcosm of all this is conservative Evangelical kids who react against their parents by becoming liberal (or libertarian) Christians and getting involved in social justice and multiculturalism and international aid, trying to read and apply a wider section of their Bibles, if only because it was the opposite of the preceeding generation’s user-friendly prosperity gospel. And when reading the red letters, they saw that it said community was important, that poor people matter, and, like, something about Feminism.
I admit that I fit in somewhere along these lines: I question authority. I have been known to rage against the machine. And I generally think I'm right.
But putting the rightness or wrongness of liberalism (or Liberation theology) to the side, the important, self-analytical question that I am asking myself right now is about the origin of my embrace of it: I'm concerned that the core of this for me may be significantly reactive in nature. Not every Christian who cares about social issues was introduced to those issues reactively (some had liberal parents, of course), but it seems undeniable to me that many were introduced in this way, many more will be, and even the most authentically liberal Christians are powered by at least a strain of reactionary belief.
So while I am personally committed to thinking outside of “the box” and especially inside the gospels, I think it’s pretty important for myself and every Christian who finds their identity anywhere near the category of the “alternative" to consider the specific origins of their personal party platforms.
Being reactively-motivated is not something you or I should take lightly: At the very least can easily render anyone self-righteously asinine and likely to sell out. But it’s ultimate threat to white, American Christians is that it will put pride, generational issues, and our ever-present white identity crises before the gospel in our hearts and actions.
I hope that Jesus’ core values continue to permeate my life and those of my fellow Christians. (As a matter of fact, I hope His values permeate everyone's lives). I hope that they outlive and erode mere reactionary sentiment. If they do, I am confident that self-loathing will necessarily be dissipated and the passing on of culture between generations will start to become more harmonious, a process of growth rather than one that is cyclically dissonant.
John Perkins and my DSC-P72
Genre photos! Media cliches! They're all around us! Have you noticed? This month it seems that every time I turn around I am assaulted by photo sets of empathetically-(tearfully?)-smiling Christian white kids surrounded by a small crowd of black street urchins (who they appear to have just befriended).
What are the photos saying about us?
If the digital point-and-shoot camera is apt to become the poor man's creativity crutch, the digital SLR can easily become the rich man's "Art" crutch. But neither device is merely for art, it also has the potential for documentary, which gives it street cred and accessibility. And relevance!
Who is this strange beast, the Christian Day-Tripper? He/she parades around the (third) world, building little cinderblock houses and capturing an obscene number of confused little black children inside of a camera, eventually returning home to broadcast this evidence of association across all forms of digital image technology in order to share the experience of their poverty in some small way. In some small way indeed, since we viewers are not really capable of experiencing their poverty at all. For that matter, are we really even capable of experiencing “the other half” when we travel abroad for a week, a month, a year?
The likely, terrifying possibility is that there may be a whole lot of personal pleasure getting mixed in to something that was supposed to be service. Who’s really getting served? Might it be the one who stops in to visit, who documents their association with the poor, and who steps off the plane on the return to their comfortable hometown deafened by a moral fanfare?
I’ve never been on a real mission trip, but the only thing I ever hear is “Well, you know, I gave up so much to do this, but in return I received far more than I gave.” Well maybe this is actually true, maybe we Christians are actually receiving more than we're giving. Maybe our mission trips are really gathering trips. Maybe we are really stealing from the poor a second time over, this time of the authenticity implied by the poverty we imparted to them.
I've got a hypothesis about the commodity, the new treasure that we’re digitally mining out of the third world: It’s that new, post-modern, coveted value known as “The Grime Factor.” Just as fashion has progressed from plastic-slick, technology-fetish costumes of the 80s into faux-ripped Abercrombie & Fitch authenticity, the rest of our interests are quickly growing tired of that ever-present, oh-so-commonplace polished, industrial gloss. Enough opaquely computerized keyboard bleeps, give me real drum kits floating in a sea of gentle vinyl pops! Better yet, go ahead and resample old soul records on that new Kanyeyed Peas track—-oops, I mean "record": The sampling's worth at least two points, since vomiting up black music from the 70s exploits “the other” twice over: The second time blaxploitation rolls around we'll call it vintage. And OMG, second-hand shops are so funky-fresh! Forget the orgasmically-minimal international style, we want classic lofts, you know, renovated stone fronts that scream “this building has character!” After all, for all we know poor black folks probably lived in this very building this at some point!
Let's be honest with ourselves: We’re apathetic, alienated, disaffected, over-disinfected rich people, alternately bored of and devastated by the world we've created for ourselves, seeking to associate with another world. We’re bustling around on our kitchen linoleum, which by the way seems to be starting to wear. We’re making calls and placing ads, trying to get rid of the old Mies van der Rohe dining set as quick as possible because the fact that it is horrendously sterile-looking just dawned on us. Unfortunately we just can’t find anything to replace it with, so milking culture from the tiny, chafed teats of the poor man that we keep in a cage in the garage will have to do for now. Better yet, maybe we can find an old loft in to move into, along with the new-vintage couch.
Why should we delude ourselves about the good we're doing on our short-term missions projects? Why should we stroke our overworked little social consciences like this? If we think about it, we may find that we are actually, literally benefiting from our "third-world encounters."
So rather then deny this fact, why don't we start applying Christian ethics to this situation:
In the best-case scenario, we’re taking because we perceive that we are in need. Which is fine for us to admit. But if this is the case, the first thing we should do is to admit this to the people we’re taking from:
“You have something I need: Perhaps it’s spiritual vitality, perhaps it’s a breath of fresh air outside of our pleasantly-stifling sphere of consumption, perhaps it’s a stimulus for deeply-rooted nostalgia about the wholesomely simple pleasures of our agricultural past (we’ll just gloss over those nauseatingly fixed cultural roles that it was built on for now). Let’s trade: I’ll try my best to re-distribute my amassed wealth and privilege, hopefully lessening my drain on the earth’s resources and people I am oppressing, like you. In return you give me a day-to-day life that has more space, is more sane, is less drunk on the quickly souring Kool-aid of industrial progress.”
Absurd? Yes, indeed! but at least it's a start at moving away from the condescension to the “third-world” that is necessitated by the lie that we’re primarily selfless in our efforts. The most significant thing your average youth group short-term missionary is offering the "third world" is the commodification of poor folks’ way of life as an accessory to wealth, as a bullet point alongside a six-figure future income.
In the best-possible-case scenario, we might even find that in attempting to re-access real authenticity and humility, we actually are able to offer our poorer neighbors some resources of value.
And as hesitant as I am to admit it, perhaps short-term missions have a value, perhaps it makes some backwards ethical sense to spoon-feed digital deaths and pre-packaged, frozen, third-world moments to the rich in order to finance this blunt, systematic exchange of resources.
It’s fine if mission trips do have a value, but first, at the very least, it is time to admit that the value is not only passing from the rich man to the poor man, but also vice versa.
What are the photos saying about us?
If the digital point-and-shoot camera is apt to become the poor man's creativity crutch, the digital SLR can easily become the rich man's "Art" crutch. But neither device is merely for art, it also has the potential for documentary, which gives it street cred and accessibility. And relevance!
Who is this strange beast, the Christian Day-Tripper? He/she parades around the (third) world, building little cinderblock houses and capturing an obscene number of confused little black children inside of a camera, eventually returning home to broadcast this evidence of association across all forms of digital image technology in order to share the experience of their poverty in some small way. In some small way indeed, since we viewers are not really capable of experiencing their poverty at all. For that matter, are we really even capable of experiencing “the other half” when we travel abroad for a week, a month, a year?
The likely, terrifying possibility is that there may be a whole lot of personal pleasure getting mixed in to something that was supposed to be service. Who’s really getting served? Might it be the one who stops in to visit, who documents their association with the poor, and who steps off the plane on the return to their comfortable hometown deafened by a moral fanfare?
I’ve never been on a real mission trip, but the only thing I ever hear is “Well, you know, I gave up so much to do this, but in return I received far more than I gave.” Well maybe this is actually true, maybe we Christians are actually receiving more than we're giving. Maybe our mission trips are really gathering trips. Maybe we are really stealing from the poor a second time over, this time of the authenticity implied by the poverty we imparted to them.
I've got a hypothesis about the commodity, the new treasure that we’re digitally mining out of the third world: It’s that new, post-modern, coveted value known as “The Grime Factor.” Just as fashion has progressed from plastic-slick, technology-fetish costumes of the 80s into faux-ripped Abercrombie & Fitch authenticity, the rest of our interests are quickly growing tired of that ever-present, oh-so-commonplace polished, industrial gloss. Enough opaquely computerized keyboard bleeps, give me real drum kits floating in a sea of gentle vinyl pops! Better yet, go ahead and resample old soul records on that new Kanyeyed Peas track—-oops, I mean "record": The sampling's worth at least two points, since vomiting up black music from the 70s exploits “the other” twice over: The second time blaxploitation rolls around we'll call it vintage. And OMG, second-hand shops are so funky-fresh! Forget the orgasmically-minimal international style, we want classic lofts, you know, renovated stone fronts that scream “this building has character!” After all, for all we know poor black folks probably lived in this very building this at some point!
Let's be honest with ourselves: We’re apathetic, alienated, disaffected, over-disinfected rich people, alternately bored of and devastated by the world we've created for ourselves, seeking to associate with another world. We’re bustling around on our kitchen linoleum, which by the way seems to be starting to wear. We’re making calls and placing ads, trying to get rid of the old Mies van der Rohe dining set as quick as possible because the fact that it is horrendously sterile-looking just dawned on us. Unfortunately we just can’t find anything to replace it with, so milking culture from the tiny, chafed teats of the poor man that we keep in a cage in the garage will have to do for now. Better yet, maybe we can find an old loft in to move into, along with the new-vintage couch.
Why should we delude ourselves about the good we're doing on our short-term missions projects? Why should we stroke our overworked little social consciences like this? If we think about it, we may find that we are actually, literally benefiting from our "third-world encounters."
So rather then deny this fact, why don't we start applying Christian ethics to this situation:
In the best-case scenario, we’re taking because we perceive that we are in need. Which is fine for us to admit. But if this is the case, the first thing we should do is to admit this to the people we’re taking from:
“You have something I need: Perhaps it’s spiritual vitality, perhaps it’s a breath of fresh air outside of our pleasantly-stifling sphere of consumption, perhaps it’s a stimulus for deeply-rooted nostalgia about the wholesomely simple pleasures of our agricultural past (we’ll just gloss over those nauseatingly fixed cultural roles that it was built on for now). Let’s trade: I’ll try my best to re-distribute my amassed wealth and privilege, hopefully lessening my drain on the earth’s resources and people I am oppressing, like you. In return you give me a day-to-day life that has more space, is more sane, is less drunk on the quickly souring Kool-aid of industrial progress.”
Absurd? Yes, indeed! but at least it's a start at moving away from the condescension to the “third-world” that is necessitated by the lie that we’re primarily selfless in our efforts. The most significant thing your average youth group short-term missionary is offering the "third world" is the commodification of poor folks’ way of life as an accessory to wealth, as a bullet point alongside a six-figure future income.
In the best-possible-case scenario, we might even find that in attempting to re-access real authenticity and humility, we actually are able to offer our poorer neighbors some resources of value.
And as hesitant as I am to admit it, perhaps short-term missions have a value, perhaps it makes some backwards ethical sense to spoon-feed digital deaths and pre-packaged, frozen, third-world moments to the rich in order to finance this blunt, systematic exchange of resources.
It’s fine if mission trips do have a value, but first, at the very least, it is time to admit that the value is not only passing from the rich man to the poor man, but also vice versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)