Groups and "Others"...

I find it disturbingly paradoxical to talk about  "the other"," the Other" or "Othering". Why?


Groups form their identities by various distinctives. These are cultural differences, which define values. The problem comes when values conflict with another "group", which they inevitably will. Focusing on these differences and using them as forms of "entitlement" does not help those of a minority race to "overcome". But, it enables an entitlement mentality. Ethnic identities are a biological fact, but we don't have to promote the idea that their social status deserves special treatment! This is a nonesstialist position.

I read recently where the Academy has gone from "the other" to "the Other" to "Othering". It seems to me that "the other" is a particular individual that is different from you. "The Other" is another group, whether  defined by differences of interest or values, or a "people group", while "othering" is an action taken toward "the other", and/or "The Other". Discrimination is about distinguishing, while "othering" is looking at commonalities. Both are useful, but must be understood within the proper "frame.

Groups are dangerous to individuation, as they do pressure individuals to conform to certain standards, or values. While this is good for children, it can be deadly for adults. Deindividuation has illustrated how group behavior all too easily becomes "herd mentality" and "mob behavior". Mobs create unrest and undermine the ability to think critically for oneself. It is peer pressure, plain and simple. Such "group think" is the group's "protection", security or defense against "foreign bodies" and is useful to maintain their survival. But, "group think" can also provide a cover for oppressive government or abusive dictators to defend their "territory". In these cases, propaganda can be used to manipulate and marginalize those that ask questions, or think "outside the box". Social conformity, in these cases, create a society where oppression rules over creativity, and individuation.

An identity is formed by  one's values, which must be underwritten by liberty, not paternalistic government, that "tells you what those values MUST be", in areas that really do not make a difference in societal flourishing. Otherwise, the individual is left without the ability to choose his vocation, or compete for a particular job. Americans have valued this form of individual liberty. While it is true that not everyone has the same capacity to perform every job, it is also true that there is a wide variety of jobs or interests that should be open to the individual in a free society.

In America, the States determine many social norms or values, such as abortion, gay marriage, legal ages for marriage, and other such "standards". These "standards" are the "cultural norm" for a particular local culture. But, at the national level, diplomacy is always negotiation of differences between or among different interests, cultural values, or standards of behavior. And these are determined by international law. It does become problematic when certain cultures do not allow liberty of conscience to the individual, as to religious conviction/claims. These cultures have been given "special priviledge" or exception, to the Universal Human Rights Declaration, which is disturbing to the nonessentialist. The West has paid a high costs in tolerating "intolerance".

Both postmodernity and multiculturalism are anti-thetical to rationality. Rationality is the only way or means of finding a place for "law and order". Otherwise, laws will be conflicting and confusing, because they will defend a particular culture, while discriminating against other cultures....or individual values.. An exclusivist culture defends a particular Tradition, while an individualist defends biological propensity/genetic identity. It is probably that both social conditioning AND genetic identity make for the uniqueness of individuals across the globe. And reason, not tradition, is the only way to understand those differences.

I am only beginning to think through these issues, so I can form my own opinion, and not be led by a paternalistic "authority", that limits my ability to come to my own conclusions.

Universalism

Universalism can be understood in various contexts. Universalism as it has been discussed lately by Bell and the evangelical, is about supernatural salvation. What "God" wants to do to reconcile people to himself. But, the naturalist believes that humans believe in myth when they are framing their realities as children. Myth is know in anthropological terms as the way people frame their cultures. While cultures are human by-products, all cultures are not equal.

Universalism is about universalizing concepts about the world. Universalism is about human rights, global intiatives, and diplomatic efforts to resolve differences. It is "international relations". But, our world is fraught with complexities that are not easily solved. People disagree about what and how to go about dealing with these differences in the world.

Not everyone formulates their particularities in a universal frame, as it makes for discomfort. Identity is threatened by the "unknowns". But, universalization of identity is understanding "the human", which is understanding the generalities of mankind. The generalities of mankind (human development) cannot be universalized to the exclusion of particularity. And this is what liberty is about. Liberty understands particularity within the context of a Constitutional government.

How much of our cultural forming identity is internalized such that it inhibits a "re-framing"? Some are not bound to change their cultural values, even when faced with the facts of science. These are people that aren't open to understand thier own conditioning. Universalizers are those that push against the conventional understandings of "traditions". These seek to change the world in thier particular ways and impact society for different outcomes.

All of us are social transformers. We might not view ourselves that way, but what we do has impact upon others, whether we understand that or not. Humans have the need to belong and these needs are met within various social contexts. There is no one defined context in free societies, as individuals are allowed to choose their context/job/role for the most part.

Universalism has to be framed respecting boundaries of identification. The nation-state being the context of individual identification. Then, diplomatic action can be taken when there are disagreements about where one's values lie. Nation-states are to uphold international laws, which protect global concerns. International law defines terror. And terror is what happens to humans whenever laws are broken, because the laws give a certain expectation or hope for order. The human brain/mind seeks to order the world and laws give the needed context for a sense of security.

Laws that are defined by tightly defined religous or poltiical regimes are confining to individuality and limit possibilities of outcome under the guise of "order". These regimes hold control over society out of 'fear". But, such order undermines human value itself, which international laws seek to uphold.

Universalism is an ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all humans. But, it cannot be found apart from proper government, which allows such liberty. The West values liberty under law, or "ordered liberty", therefore, all cultures are not equal.

Don't Talk to Me About "Spirit"!

On another blog site it was questioned whether "God was able to speak" to the individual. I used to believe so, but have made my commitment to doubt it, because of the horrendous atrocities I have seen and experienced in such a claim!

 How can those that  "have a personal relationship to God" be distracted from what they deem to be "true"? It is subjectivism to the extreme. But, it is personalization of myth making and meaning forming "identity". These are hard places to break apart, as they are embedded within the person himself/herself.

People do irrational things when such belief is held. I sold all my possessions, and went to a mission organization. I broke up with my boyfriend who I'd dated for 4 years. I threw away a silver bracelet that was given to me as a gift which held much meaning. I used such scriptures as "loving god before father and mother, etc." to defend my irrational behavior. I was sold out to "Christ". I had surrendered all! But, my experience is not a "lone ranger" one, many have done such things in the name of "faith".

I just heard on the news that a mother had killed her child by performing an exorcism. She had given the child some "concoction" that she thought would alleviate the child from his "demons"! The child's body was found a week later! These are not uncommon occurances, because "faith" makes one believe beyond reason. The Oklahoma bombing, the Texas military post murders, and many others are driven by strongly formed beliefs about "hearing god"! It doesn't matter whether it is a Christian community, Muslim community, Jehovah's witness community", or what, all religious communities are formed and framed by claims and rationale that frame one's "world".

Whenever such beliefs are affirmed in a community, they become self-affirming and self-fulfilling "prophecies" about reality and life itself. One cannot "see" life in any other way. Those that are so conditioned are in "cults" or in "cultish thinking". Life is only viewed in one dimensional form, or ways. It is the ONLY right way to view things.

So whenever you talk about "spirit" my antenae goes up. And the questions start. One cannot live on faith alone.

Why Longings of the Heart Reasonates With Me

The "Longings of the Heart" was the title of the last post. Why did I choose such a title? The subject was about a eulogy of a Jewish scholar who'd impacted his students and their eulogies were memorials to his life. He lives on in their lives.

Humans all resonate with beauty, justice, and love. These are universal categories that are made vivid in a particular human frame. The longing of my heart was about the care these students had under thier mentor's tutlelege. Of course, their choice to pursue their speicified interests was what put them in contact with him in the first place. He had represented all of these attributes to them personally in their pursuit of a degree. Such stories resonate within the human heart.

Today, I had an exchange with an Eastern Christian, who said he identified in his particularity to Christ. His identity is defined by Jesus and his life. But, I had understood Paul's message about Jesus' life and Jesus life itself as a universalization (liberalization) of religion itself.  Religion defines itself by doctrine/behavior that defines people "outside" or "inside" (us/them). All groups define themselves in this way; families, community groups, ethnic identities, social clubs, professional clubs/guilds and national identifications.

 The geopolitical realm is not going to reflect such universalism, because we do define ourselves within our contexts of value. Individuals must discriminate to define themselves. And free societies allow individual to identify in many ways. In psychological terms, it is called individuation.

So, even though I did not know Alan Segal, nor did I read his works in depth, I found myself moved by his life, through those he had touched, he will live "eternally" through his efforts here on earth!

The Movie, "The Unknown"

I love action, mystery, and suspenseful movies. Such is the movie, "The Unknown". I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The questions about identity, reality and intentional deception was the topic that created the story line. Though I would never want to be in a real world scenario as the one painted, I did think that the director's did a great job in making the movie "real".

Let's just say that when one is faced with conflicting stories about one's identity and memories, it creates a disturbance of personality. I wondered how much one could take in a "re; creation" of one's identity. Would this be considered tolerable to the scienttific community, and for what reasons, would such re-framing be done? When would such an endeavor be considered abusive, totaltalitarian, and unethical? On what basis would one argue against such an under-taking?

Identity is created by the intereaction with the "real world" and the personal one. When these realities collide, there is a dissassociation of identity, or a questioning of "who I am" that has to be reformed, and re-framed. 

Children of Divorce

My grandchildren spent 5 days with me recently, as their parents had to work and one night was spent in the hospital with our grandson for some testing. By the end of their stay, Hannah was asking for her Mommy and saying how she didn't ever want to leave her Mommy, "ever again". I knew she didn't say this because she had not enjoyed her visit with me, but because she had a real need for her "Mommy". When I asked her what she would do if she got married, she just smiled and said," I'll take Mommy with me."

I know they love me, as they express this often, but their hearts belong to their parents. and so it should be. What happens to such hearts when they face a loss "they can't imagine". Would it be the nightmare of their lifetime? And how would it affect the rest of their life?

I know of a case where the parents were divorced because of the husband's infidelity. The little girl was only 6, but was affected so deeply, a psychologist suggested regular counselling. But, how was a single mother to afford such an "extravagance"? This little girl had three other siblings; an older sister, a younger brother, and one yet to be born. This was the time when divorce was not looked upon lightly. It was a great stigma.

 The children and mother moved to a house beside their maternal grandparents, so the mother could work and the grandparents be ready made babysitters. The grandparents weren't too easy-going with the children's newfound anxieties. And with the newborn, it was almost too much.

Several years later, the mother and children moved to a small house near the hospital, where the mother held down a job. They were dirt poor, and had to make ends meet by sharing clothes and eating the bare minimum.

These experiences left deep scars on the children. All of them grew up with an unusual need for material security, and the "finer things in life", which I suppose was due to the shame they suffered from being so poor.

The good news is the mother got re-married when the children had become young adults. The oldest daughter marrying a year later and the next eloping a few months after that. A child was born to the eloping couple 9 months after their marriage. The mother was only 17.

How did that 17 year old mother think? Was she able to be equipped to parent her little girl? Wasn't she even in the best of circumstances at a grave disadvantage? And didn't her background make it even harder for her to "care and nurture"? What about her need for counselling that had not been met? Was this need exasperated by such stress as a teen marriage and teen motherhood?

I can't imagine how hard it would've been to be in her shoes. But, I do know the little girl could not have gotten good mothering. She couldn't have. And how did that affect her?

Children of divorce are more likely to get divorced themselves. I have wondered the reasons. Is it because they haven't the example of commitment? are they emotionally immature? or is it that they sabatoge their own happiness? or do they fear intimacy? do they expect and perhaps, force abandonment? Do they mis-read and mis-communicate due to their anxieties? Do they manipulate for fear their needs won't be met? do they feel unworthy and have a low self-esteem? are they low achievers or driven persons?

I think all of these apply in indivdual cases. And even divorces that happen after children are grown still has a grave affect. I had a friend in her 30's suffer after her parent's divorce. She was disoriented. Her identity was traumatized. She didn't see it coming. And she worried for her own children's sake!

I have several other friends who live in the house with their husbands, but have no intimacy. Which is worse? What is the answer?

I have seen in my own family my grandmother, and three of her four children suffer divorces. And the dynamics that are normally difficult are doubly compounded. Divorce should never be taken lightly. It affects everyone.

Review of Eat, Pray and Love, with Julia Roberts

I love movies by Julia Roberts. She plays real life people and she does so, well!

Last night my family watched, "Eat, Love and Pray". The story was about a twenty/thirty something young woman that was seeking to "find herself". The problem was, she had committed to a marriage before she was really ready. She found that her identity was tied up in pleasing her husband and not based real world values, but a futile attempt to "find onself in marriage"! She learned a human lesson that many times ends "empty marriages"; co-dependency.

She eventually asks for a divorce, and ends up seeking her fulfillment with another male companion and a religious identity. Her shallow and under-developed ego grasped onto another relationship and tried to make her own meaning from another's meaning.  Her close friend advises her that her religious identity was another "way of escape "dressed up in different form"! She again, eventually faces the fact that she cannot escape her need to "find her own way". She plans again to escape a "wrong relationship" and made plans to travel to Italy, India and Bali.

In her travels abroad, she learns a new language, experiences the kindness of strangers, who become good friends, that offer her comfort, and a challenge to forgive herself for her failures and not to let her failures hinder her future happiness.

 She eventually meets her match in Bali. This man had raised his boys alone and she was captivated by his tenderness and kindness. But when he finally faces his own fear of "loving again",  she runs for fear of "loosing herself". She has to also face her fear of "love" and acknowledge that loving freely is a choice of value, which is not an enmeshed identity, but a offering of "self" to the other. Her fear of enmeshment was not ungrounded, but needed the challenge of others to help her overcome.

The end of the movie show her taking the challenge of "loving again" and one is left with a sense that this time things will be different. She and he will be free to choose, and live in open dialogue about their needs, fears and visions about their future. This is when love is healthy and of mutual benfit to both parties involved!

I would recommend the movie to anyone that is interested in a journey of  human courage and hope.