I found the chapter on the history of race in the
Similarly, Emerson and Smith quote a Christian publication c. 1900 arguing that Jim Crow laws are really in the best interest of African-Americans, and so black outcry against the laws is laughable. This sounds strikingly similar to arguments against affirmative action, or arguments for abolishing the well-fare system: the powerful justifying a change that is in the interest of the powerful by portraying the objection of the oppressed as laughable and irrational while maintaining that you are really acting out of altruistic motives.
Reading the history of race in
Feb 27, 2006
post-script to Divided by Faith reading response
Divided by Faith reading response
The recurring question in my mind as I read Divided by Faith was how can white evangelicals be brought to see structural issues and not just individual problems in race relations? This lead to a second question, viz. how have I learned to see structurally and not just individually, because in the not so distant past I was a prototypical white evangelical. I remember thinking many of the things that Emerson and Smith heard from white evangelicals, e.g. “We don’t have racism here. I think it’s in your big cities” or “yes there’s a race problem here, but it’s not as bad as people make it out to be.” In particular, I recall thinking about problems completely individualistically, that if individuals just tried hard enough they could overcome their disadvantages etc. Somehow, however, my thinking changed over the last ten years and today I tend to think more like Marx than Horatio Alger.
The pressing question for me, then, is how did that happen? How did I as a white, more or less evangelical, Christian come to see differently? Because if I can figure that out maybe I can help other white evangelicals think differently.
To be honest I probably need to chalk something up to my cynicism; it just makes sense that the system is rigged, prejudiced against certain groups. However, my cynic nature would not have been stirred without the education I have received. Ironically, education is a notoriously difficult variable to predict; for example, according to James Loewen, people with a college education disproportionately supported the
If education alone does not answer the question, the kind of education may offer helpful clues. For example, I certainly learned much more than history while taking a class in Latin American history. By the time I took the course my mode of perception was already significantly changed from my former western liberal, free-will individualist view, however learning the history of countries that have very much been forced down over and again by global structures and western hegemony cemented a more structuralist way of thinking. In this way, learning the stories of individuals, groups and countries played a significant part in opening my eyes to structural sin.
Let me shift gears and briefly note some other questions that the book raised for me. The latter chapters, 6-8 in particular, sparked several thoughts. Emerson and Smith’s analysis of religion in the
Feb 24, 2006
Communication
A night or so back my wife and I were talking about communication, particularly in the context of marriage and relationships.
This is a stereotype, and as a result imperfect and only marginally helpful, but it does illustrate a few things. First, the differences in communication styles (direct/indirect) reinforce each others frustration. The man is frustrated because he knows something isn't right but the woman just won't come out and say what is wrong, while the woman feels that the man is being insensitive. (incidentally, this thought process stems from the conversation my wife and I were having, which began with me having to probe carefully to figure out what was wrong. That took time and energy, and I realized that it would be tempting to just leave it at "yes I'm fine"). This scenario is similar to the situation professor
two things I noted from these scenarios, two things that are needed for authentic communication to take place. 1) One must put the other before the self, and 2) communication requires perserverance, an emotional commitment if you will.
In the above examples, for communication to proceed one or both parties needs to begin thinking of and for the other, and make the needs of the other important enough to stop everything and make sure that communication takes place. One can ask the question "is something wrong?" without significantly changing one's thought process and direction, but when the other says "I'm fine" when it is clear they are not one is faced with a decision. One can break off what one was thinking/doing/planning and make the other's concerns one's own, or one can shrug it off and go on with one's day. To communicate here will require more care for the other; one cannot approach this instance of communication simply with one's own interests in mind. To truly communicate here requires one to break pace, pull up and "wait a minute"--something is not right and the other needs assurance that one really want's it to become "our" problem rather than just "their" problem. This thought could be pursued further along the lines of "bear one another's burdens."
Bound up with the commitment to the other is a commitment to persevere, a commitment of emotional energy and concern. It takes some strange emotional and mental "oomph" (yes, that is the technical term--oomph) to try to open up communication with another when something is clearly not right. There is a concern that "maybe I'll just make things worse" or "what if it's my fault?" as well as the simple issue of having to give up one's own concerns for a moment to share the concerns of another.
I break of the train of thought here to note that we need to better understand what our goal is. When I asked my wife "is something wrong?" I did not simply want a "yes" or "no," i.e. my goal was something other than knowledge. May I suggest that what we seek in communication is communion? Russian philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin wrote "to be is to be in communion." The question then shifts to, what is communion? Not knowledge of the internal states of another, though that is a mediating step perhaps? Bearing each other's burdens--this seems to have something to do with communion; not just burdens but joys as well. These are some questions that we could/should raise...
Returning to requirement 2, the need for emotional commitment/perserverance, we see some interesting implications for our intercultural communications. For example, communication between Anglos and African-Americans will require a particularly large amount of emotional strength and resolve because questions like "maybe it's my fault" or "are they angry at me?" are much closer to the surface. To return to the analogy of marriage, it is more difficult to communicate if I know full well that I have some how hurt my wife than if I have not (to the best of my knowledge) hurt her myself. Even in the latter case there is the nagging question, "was it something I did or said, or didn't do or say?" When cultures that have hurt and been hurt by each other attempt to communicate--to commune--the stakes are higher, consequently more emotional oomph is needed.
Feb 20, 2006
Church Visit Report
I visited the Iglesia Episcopal Anglicana Nuestra Sra De Guadalupe (http://hometown.aol.com/rhaje/iglepisgpe1.html) in San Jose California for their Sunday morning mass. The church is located in downtown San Jose, right by St. James Park and the light-rail line. The congregation meets in the Trinity Cathedral (http://www.trinitysj.org/) which claims to be the oldest such building in California and is home to an English speaking, Episcopal congregation.
I observed and learned in two ways, first as an observer and secondly in talking with some of the congregation after the service. The entire service was in Spanish, so my ability to observe was limited to the nonverbal. My first observation was that the service began on stereotypical “Latin American time,” about ten minutes late. I was also struck by the number of small children and young families: almost every pew had a baby carrier or toddler. The service was marked by a sort of porousness as people came and went through almost every door throughout the whole mass. This informality was striking in contrast to the formality and structure of the liturgy. I observed that the congregation was able to enjoy symbolism, structure and liturgy without reverting into rigid formality. In contrast to most Anglo Roman Catholic or Episcopal services I have attended this service was full of life and joy.
My wife commented that it was inspiring to see the Eucharist celebrated with such joy. The term “celebrate” is always used in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper, but many churches do it in a somber and solemn way. This congregation actually smiled as they “celebrated” the sacrament. The music lent itself to this atmosphere, strongly rooted in Mexican folk music with lively guitar and accordion accompaniment.
After the service I talked with a few people, and was eventually pointed towards one of the founders of the parish. The man was an Anglo who had spent several years as a missionary to Mexico before returning to his native San Jose and starting an Episcopal Latino congregation in 1994. His adopted son (born in Mexico) served as the priest early on, and is presently a church planter. The congregation quickly grew from a few families to over 1000 members. I was told that about half the congregation were Anglicans from Mexico, while the other half were brought into the Anglican church through evangelism.
Many of the folks in the congregation say the Episcopal Church is what they were always looking for but didn’t know existed. It has the liturgy and symbolism they are familiar with and love, but is more open to liberation theology, social justice, and family planning than the traditional Roman Catholic Church. I was told that there is a saying in Mexico, “I’ll become Catholic when the Pope will support my 14 children.” I was told (since I could not understand the homily) that the sermons consistently deal with liberation theology and the social gospel.
The congregation was actively working to overcome Anglo domination of Latinos. I was told that the greatest gift the English speaking Episcopal congregation gave the Spanish congregation was not telling them how to do church. It was also clear in how the celebrant (an Anglo due to the dearth of ordained Latino priests) deferred to the Latino leader (presently in seminary to be ordained). The celebrant visibly deferred to the Latino leader, stepping in only at the point of breaking the bread. Even without speaking Spanish I could see that the Anglo priest was consciously subordinating himself to the non-ordained Latino leader.
The culture of family as opposed to the Anglo culture of individualism was also a key part of the church and its practices. I was told that early on many Anglo churches pressured them to do house groups, because that is the accepted method of church planting among Anglos. They found that it did not work in the context of Mexican immigrants because the house, family and church work in profoundly different ways there. For Mexicans, ones family is one’s house group, the branch of the church at home. What they found did work was to have families sponsor mass in their homes around Lent, because this drew in extended family. Once one couple began coming to church, their family often followed, but it was in the church that they extended ties beyond the family, not in house groups.
rough draft for history if immigration etc.
cheers,
Daniel
History of Latino/a Immigration
The topics of Latino’s in America and immigration are closely bound in the minds of many Euro- and African-Americans, but this link is somewhat misguiding. Much of the South West was settled by Latino’s (both peninsulares and mestizos) long before Anglos arrived, and many Mexicans found themselves suddenly U.S. citizens after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Thus it is incorrect to view Latinos in the U.S. as essentially “immigrants.”
Nevertheless, no story of Latino’s in the U.S. would be complete without telling about the experience of Latino immigrants. Mexicans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans represent the three largest groups and will be covered briefly below. The last few decades have also seen increased immigration from Central American countries. Juan Gonzalez notes that there is a push-pull phenomenon that has and will continue to compel Latinos to immigrate. On the one hand, a persistently bad economic situation in much of Latin America drives Latinos to seek a livelihood elsewhere, while on the other hand the demand for cheep labor and the media barrage from the United States draws them here (Gonzalez, p.205).
Cuban Immigration
Historically Cuba and the U.S. have shared close ties. Cuba produced large amounts of sugar that the U.S. craved and the U.S. in turn profited from exporting goods to the island. Before Fidel Castro took power many of the elite in Cuba had foraged close ties in the U.S. thus after the 1959 revolution many looked northward. Furthermore, during the height of the Cold War the U.S. was willing to extend many favors to Cuban immigrants that it did not extend to other Latino groups. The first wave of Cuban immigrants were well educated (often from U.S. universities) and aristocratic, and the bulk of them settled in Miami and Dade County. In the 80’s things began to change, however, as large numbers of poorly educated and economically destitute Cubans began to show up off the coast of Florida, called the Murial boat people. The arrival of these unskilled, poorly educated Cubans began to change national sentiment towards new immigrants from that country, and in 1994 President Clinton brought an end to the special treatment of Cuban immigrants.
Puerto Rican Immigration
Puerto Rico stands in an ambiguous place, a product of manifest destiny and colonialism that is unwanted by the now neo-colonial United States. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth, yet are consistently treated as second-rate citizens at best and foreigners at worst. In the post WWII years Puerto Ricans settled predominantly in New York City and New Jersey, though subsequent generations have formed enclaves elsewhere.
Mexican Immigration
People of Mexican descent represent by far the largest single group of Latinos in the U.S. (Juan Gonzalez claims two out of three Latinos living in the U.S. is of Mexican heritage). The history of Mexican-Americans (also called Chicanos) and Mexican immigration is also key to understanding the story of Latinos in California. Furthermore, Mexican-Americans can claim the distinction of having the longest presence on this soil of any ethnic group besides Native Americans. Many Mexicans found themselves suddenly citizens of the United States after the Mexican-American war and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made much of the South West (including Texas and California) United States territory. Thus many Latinos can claim deeper roots in this land than most Anglos.
Since Guadalupe Hidalgo the U.S. has experienced several waves of Mexican immigration, often followed by corresponding anti-immigration backlash. As Gonzalez puts it, “Mexicans…have historically been ‘pulled’ here only to be treated as easily deportable labor” (Gonzalez, p. 202). The first big wave of migrant labor from Mexico followed close on the heels of World War I, when large growers began to increase their profits by hiring cheap Mexican labor. Things changed with the onset of the depression as the dust-bowl drought and subsequent exodus of large numbers of whites from the dust-bowl regions to more prosperous regions such as California and Washington created competition with the Mexicans working in these areas. Political pressures lead to the rounding up and deportation of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans (including many who were now American citizens) through out the early thirties, and to make matters worse the decade saw a precipitous decline in wages.
Post WW II Immigration Boom
With the arrival of WW II came shortage of white men to work farm jobs, once more creating a demand for Mexican labor. This war-time demand lead to the construction of the bracero program, in which Mexico and the United States cooperated to import migrant labor from Mexico—the US provided the transportation, jobs and related benefits, and Mexico provided a ready supply of workers. Unfortunately this program turned out in reality to be a tool for the growers, with which they could keep the labor market sufficiently flooded to depress wage levels. This negative effect was felt most deeply by Mexican-American workers, who found themselves edged out of the market by their non-naturalized counterparts. Merle Wells notes, “bracero contracts had offered growers an option to replace domestic workers any time that union efforts might be made to improve migrant wages and conditions” (Wells, p. 69). This program was eventually discontinued in 1964, but was interrupted by a draconian backlash termed “Operation Wetback” in ’54 when the U.S. government, without due process, deported between 1 and 2 million immigrants in a matter of months (Gonzalez, p. 203).
As Gonzalez noted, the push-pull phenomena will only continue to compel Mexicans (and other Latinos) to el Norte (the North). An article from 1986 observes that “as risky as these crossings have become, the Mexican continues to view the United States as a sort of economic magnet where his financial travails will be alleviated. Tragically he will often face exploitation, discrimination, and risks to health and life. He is willing to suffer these…in an attempt to improve his lot and that of his family…”(Machado, p. 64).
Recent Immigration Issues: Proposition 187 and Minutemen
The last decade has seen a marked trend in public opinion against Latino immigration, particularly against Mexicans. The debate has focused on illegal immigrants, who have been viewed with particular suspicion in the years following 9.11.2001. In California voters passed proposition 187 which aimed to stem the flow of immigrants by denying undocumented individuals access to various social services, including health services and education for children. While this proposition later died in the courts, its passage at the ballot box has been seen as an indication of the shift in public perception.
More recently, several citizens groups have organized to take boarder patrol into their own hands. Groups like the Minuteman Project organize groups of individual civilians to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border and report illegals, as well as staging protests and petitioning governmental officials. The rhetoric of such groups tends towards the xenophobic and reactionary, nevertheless Jim Gilchrist, the founder the Minuteman group, recently garnered 25% of the vote in a special election for Orange County’s 48th congressional seat. Such recent events illustrate that there is a pressing need for the church to seek to understand Latino immigration.
Mexican Labor in California
Early on Mexican and Chicano workers played an important, albeit poorly paid, part in this profitable enterprise. Reisler quotes a 1930’s produce executive on the key role Mexican labor played in agriculture at that time: “Large-scale production would be impossible without Mexican field labor. Without the Mexicans costs would be increased 50 percent.” However, Chicanos were not always unskilled laborers. At the signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 there were very few Anglos living in California and Mexican ranchers owned most of the land. In 1849 the gold rush brought a flood of Anglo immigrants, who rapidly became the majority. The excellent online book Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California, published by the National Park Service, notes that as the fledgling state drafted laws Californios (pre-conquest Mexican Californians) repeatedly got the short end of the stick. The tax system disproportionately taxed land instead of production, which disadvantaged Californios who sought to continue their livelihood as ranchers. Most glaringly, the 1850’s “Foreign Miners Tax” classified Californios as foreign, even though the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo supposedly made them U.S. citizens.
As a result of these and other anti-Mexican laws and attitudes, Californios found themselves loosing their land, being forced out of their traditional trades, and relegated to unskilled or semi-skilled labor. The Park Service book concludes that, “Loss of land contributed heavily to relegation of Mexican Americans to the lower echelons of the California socio-economic system. The loss eroded their economic base, undermined their political power, and displaced ranchworkers. …Many found employment in railroads, construction, and food processing.” It is striking that Mexicans and Chicanos as a group are often associated with such labor to this day.
Movements to organize farm workers have a long history, beginning as early as 1928 with the Imperial Valley strike, however they did not gain much momentum until after the bracero program came to a close. In the wake of the Bracero program came efforts began to organize the migrant workers without governmental oversight, most notably Cesar Chaves and his United Farm Workers. Chaves’ Union lead strikes against California grape producers from 1965 through 1970, gaining contracts with the majority of wine and table grape producers. Such movements are still underway, most recently Taco Bell came to an agreement with their tomato suppliers that aimed to improve the lot of farm workers.
Chicano Movement
Mexican-Americans first began to organize groups to promote their causes and defend their rights early in the twentieth century. The first major group to form was the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) which provided legal support to Mexican Americans and fought for their rights. The Vietnam era and civil rights movements of the 60’s saw the development of a distinct Mexican-American self-identity, called the Chicano movement. The term Chicano is a truncation of mexicano, and in earlier eras was used as a derogatory term. The term was subverted and deconstructed by Mexican-American activists and has since been used to promote Mexican-American identity and culture, along with the term la raza (the people). In many ways Cesar Chavez became the spiritual leader of the movement, much like Martin Luther King Jr. lead the African-American struggle for civil rights. The Chicano movement has promoted Latino interests in politics as well as economic and social projects.
Cultural Implications of Latino History
The history of Latino’s in the United States, both as immigrants and as citizens, has profoundly effected the group as a culture. Thomas Weyr in the introduction to his book Hispanic U.S.A. notes that pessimism and despair have marked Latino culture (Weyr uses the term Hispanic). As a result of centuries of struggling up-hill against hostile structures and systems Latino culture, according to Weyr, has become skeptical and pessimistic about its future social and political prospects in this country.
However, there are other ways to read the effects of history on Latinos. Silvio Torres Saillant notes that one thing that unifies Latinos (an extremely diverse social group) is the common theme of oppression, inequality and exploitation in their histories. “We share the experience of being uprooted by large socioeconomic forces from our original homelands. We come from societies with a history of unequal association with the United States, a country that has influenced and sometimes even dictated political behavior in Latin America." Ultimately, both observations have a modicum of truth. Their often tragic and unjust history helps to define what it is to be Latino for good and ill.
Finally, some alarmists have noted the tenacity of the Spanish language and culture: whereas former immigrant groups have assimilated within the first few generations, Latino’s have maintained their cultural and linguistic differences over centuries. One writer suggests that Latino’s will be the immigrant group that “crack the melting pot”; because of the longevity and vitality of Latino culture, it poses a serious challenge to the hegemony of the dominant, Euro-American culture. Some have read this apocalyptically, however one might also suggest that Latino culture may pave the way for the U.S. to become truly pluralistic and multicultural by overturning the claim that “American” culture is essentially Anglo.
I would suggest that this cultural tenacity is a result of Latino history in the U.S. Latinos have lived here as long or longer than any Euro-American group, indeed Anglos were the immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century. Consequently, Latino’s are in many ways not immigrants and so there is no reason for them to “assimilate.” Furthermore, the Spanish language has serious ground on which to challenge the dominion of English, both in terms of history and breadth of usage. In short, there are serious grounds on which to challenge the concept that Latino’s are immigrants at all in the normal sense of the word. Perhaps Latino’s are outsiders and immigrants in concept only, and perhaps it is high time Euro-Americans abandoned this incorrect perception.
Feb 18, 2006
Response to Martinez on Individualism and self-perception
Dr. Martinez focuses this article on two aspects of the dominant conception of self in North American society, individualism and anti-structuralism. Western society since John Locke has tended to reify the individual and place “it” at the center of society. Concordantly, westerners tend to understand ethics, politics, self-identity etc. along individualistic terms and without reference to the social or relational sphere. For example, we define ourselves by our achievements, not our social bonds, and “moving out” serves as a primary marker of adulthood in our culture. Anti-structuralism is integrally related to individualism, and is the tendency of Euro-Americans to be unable to see structural issues, e.g. systematic racism or systems of global economic injustice. We tend to interpret problems on individualistic terms, and consequently our attempts to fix those problems tend to operate on the individual level rather than on larger, systematic levels. Martinez also notes that pragmatism also plays a significant role in our perception, causing us to be more interested in functionality than on ideals.
Part 2: Personal Reflection
A fairly common experience related to these issues is going off to college to live in a dorm and then returning to ones family for the summer break. I recall very distinctly the readjustment that would take place each time I came home for the summer—almost as a rule it took me about two weeks (often somewhat frustrating weeks) to slide back into my role at home. This experience (shared by most of my friends back in college) both illustrates the concept of western individualism while at the same time shows up tensions and contradictions within our culture. As a freshman I and many others were excited to “discover” a new sense of self, to be able to assert and form a unique identity away from home and our old social groups where we seem so rigidly defined. Yet invariably, come the end of finals, we found ourselves quickly entrenched in our “old” identity, showing that who we “really are” is not as easily separable from our social bonds. Identity it seems is formed out of the tension and conflict between self-perception (who I “really am” in adolescent parlance) and the social realm of roles, bonds and other’s perceptions rather than by individual assertion.
Part 3: Implications for Ministry
One of the difficulties facing us for ministry is the invisibility of foundational assumptions like individualism and anti-structuralism to those who hold them (often ourselves!). Yesterday I was looking over some material for a Sunday school class my father is teaching on marriage for young couples and noted that it did not directly address the issue of individualism, which underlies many of the problems and issues the material seeks to address. One of our challenges, then, is to better understand how our assumptions of individualism impact our lives and help our brothers and sisters see these more clearly. This is a potential benefit of multiethnic congregations, because the collision of worldviews can make our assumptions more apparent. In many of the churches I’ve been in perhaps the most immediate challenge is to disabuse white believers of their anti-structural assumptions, encouraging them to address the broken systems of our society.
Feb 13, 2006
Branson reading on Worldview
Branson provides us with a handful of concepts and terms to help us first recognize and then to navigate worldview differences. A worldview is that web of beliefs usually residing in the subconscious background that shapes how cultures and individuals see the nature, super-nature, human beings and time—it is something every culture has and each individual has, and in our society many worldviews coexist side by side. Branson introduces the concepts of lifeworld and world concepts from Habermas. A lifeworld is fairly similar to a worldview, something that is preconscious and usually not recognized by the people living in it. World concepts help to “problematize” the lifeworld, slowly bringing it into view. These world concepts fit into three different worlds, the objective world, subjective world, and the social (ethical) world. To achieve communicative competence, says Habermas, one must be able to address each of these worlds with integrity.
The most distinct interaction between radically different worldviews that I can recall was in my undergraduate Metaphysics class at
This example only addresses the difference between worldviews, and doesn’t shed much light on navigating those differences, which is what Habermas and Branson want to encourage. In my Metaphysics class, we could set aside some of the urgency that such differences create and simply listen to the different accounts. At the end of the day we didn’t have to agree on some collective course of action. But imagine that the situation was a church meeting, where a significant portion of the congregation was Indonesian (or some culture with a similar worldview) and another significant portion was more scientific/western in their worldview. The Indonesians feel there is some form of demonic oppression and the church needs to fast and pray, but the westerners are completely baffled because they do not see or sense anything. In such a case it would be helpful to keep the three worlds of Habermas in mind, the objective, subjective and social. Assuming we are all receiving the same raw data, we might begin to address the issues of the objective world by seeking to articulate more clearly what we see and how we see it. This will be very difficult, because both the eastern and western groups will tend insist “don’t you just see/not see it?” But perhaps there are certain connections that are being made between different events and objects. If we can identify these we can begin to make sense of each other. We would also need to turn to scripture, to remind the westerners that most of the bible was written by people who had a worldview perhaps more similar to that of the Indonesians than the westerners; there are demons and witches in the biblical text. Finally, it would be helpful to have each group articulate their personal (subjective) concerns. The westerners may well be concerned that once you admit a demon in one place people will be “seeing” demons everywhere. But the Indonesians may be deeply concerned about ignoring the demonic because they have known people who were possessed by demons—they know the price of ignoring the warning signs. Such a discussion would be difficult, but might help this group begin to understand each other better, perhaps even see a little of the world through the lens of the other.
Feb 7, 2006
Culture, Family and Personality
Families (nuclear and/or extended) and individuals exist in cultures, which makes this a difficult question. Might it help to think of families and individuals as a nexus between cultures--for example if my father is Italian-American and my mother is Latina, my family traditions and practices will span both cultures. I heard an interview a year or so ago with a man who was born in India, grew up in an LA suburb, was educated in British boarding schools, and now lives and works in Japan. Is his culture simply "PoMo," or does the individual transcend culture itself? Does culture inevitably subsume the family and/or individual, or do both exist at once within culture but able to transcend it?
Reasons why families/individuals seem to be able to transcend culture in a limited sense:
Individuals and families can criticize their culture. If culture simply enveloped and determined families and individuals then there would be no means of development beyond interaction with other cultures. But it seems likely that even an isolated group of people constituting a culture (say, living on some island before the invention of radio, satilte, etc) would have various subcultures, and that these subcultures would originally develop because of personal differences. Perhaps this is completely wrong.
Is it possible that a small, isolated group of people could create a mono-culture that made personal or subcultural variation impossible?
Just some thoughts to throw out there for any of my classmates.
Feb 6, 2006
Response to Martinez readings
In his chapter on defining social relations Martinez provides some key areas of difference between Euro-American cultural assumptions and common assumptions from other cultures. The “myth of equality” Martinez argues blinds many Euro-Americans to the fundamental differences in privilege and status between different groups in North America. This creates a situation in which no-one in the dominant needs to overtly discriminate to perpetuate a system of inequality and injustice. Martinez also notes that white Americans tend to see problems in individualistic terms, rather than in terms of social system. The Euro-American concept of fair play further blinds white Americans to inequality because they assume the playing field to be level, the dice to be fair. But the dice are loaded, the game is rigged. Because they try to understand a rigged game in terms of fair play Euro-Americans assume that an individuals struggle to succeed is a matter of individual ability, not of social systems.
Gifts and social obligation are another potential area for miscommunication between Euro-Americans and people from other cultures. Euro-Americans tend to avoid social obligations and do not have a deep sense of reciprocity, of a gift obligating the recipient to respond with an appropriate gift. Similarly, many cultures assume social structures such as patronage which obligate wealthy or otherwise privileged members to help out those who are struggling. For example, a Korean-American student explained to me that in Korean culture, older students are expected to help out younger students, coaching them and giving them old class notes and so on. A Korean-American who has developed a more western mindset, in which obligatory social roles are avoided, might easily feel put upon by Korean students who expect to be helped out in this way.
Euro-American and other cultures also differ in how they understand friendship. Martinez notes that white Americans tend to view friendship as spontaneous, based on mutual affection, essentially something that is chosen. These relationships tend to be rather shallow in non-western terms, where friendship implies something more like mutual dependence. Similarly, Martinez notes that Euro-Americans tend to need to be liked. We take affirmation and acceptance as an indication that we are doing well, succeeding in whatever it is we are doing. However, in keeping with the Euro-American aversion to obligation, being liked does not imply reciprocation—it is something earned, and thus given upon merit rather than on the basis of social obligation.
A cultural difference with significant potential for misunderstanding is how Euro-Americans and other cultures deal with problem solving. Euro-Americans tend to be direct and confrontational, and easily appear rude and reckless to people from cultures with more indirect communication styles and problem solving strategies. Formality versus informality can also cause confusion. Euro-Americans tend to use informal communication in all situations, speaking to children, elders, pastors, employees and employers all alike. In some ways this communication is shallow, because it collapses all relationships into one mode of speaking it leaves no room for indicating both intimacy and deference.
Language and Non-Verbal Behavior
Martinez begins by noting that most white Americans have an essentially referential, or mechanistic, view of language—that is, they imagine that there is a direct relation between words or what is said, and what is meant. Another way of saying this might be that Euro-Americans tend to not speak, and therefore not read, between the lines.
Martinez notes the implication for intercultural communications of Whorf’s hypothesis, both strong and weak. The strong hypothesis is that language determines how we understand reality. On this view, if I don’t have a word for or a way of speaking about something then I cannot form a concept. The weak hypothesis is that language, thought and perception interact in a complex and dynamic relationship. This suggests to us that our language itself shapes how we understand reality, and therefore when people are speaking different languages (or, even if they speak the same “language” if they are speaking different dialects so to speak) they bring radically different concepts and categories to the table. Thus when looking at the same problem, two groups may “see” two entirely different things, and when one party “says” one thing, the other “hears” something entirely different. We cannot assume that what we mean to say is what gets conveyed to others, especially when they are from a different culture.
Grammar, notes Martinez, shapes how we think. For example, English uses a subject/predicate grammar that emphasizes fixed relationships between a subject and its properties, a certain polarization of reality, and cause/effect relationships. Similarly, how we conjugate structures how we think, and so American English speakers tend to be unaware of the social relations and personal intentions that Koreans have built into their language. The linguistic system American English speakers use does not have built in categories for these concepts, so Americans have difficulty even conceiving them in the first place.
Similarly, non-verbal cues do not play a large role in American English, and so Euro-Americans tend to be fairly illiterate when it comes to non-verbal communication. Martinez uses this to help explain the protestant aversion to iconography—because they tend not to “speak” symbolically, they have difficulty comprehending that icons communicate anything beyond idolatry.
American English does not easily recognize social distance. Many languages have different ways of addressing ones elders, social “betters,” religious or political leaders, and so on. By collapsing these diverse people and relationships into “I/you” English does not easily communicate familiarity verses polite distance, or respect, deference, etc. Similarly English is ill-suited for navigating relationships where there is a power differential. Thus the differences tend to go unrecognized, often with the result that communication breaks down.
Martinez finally applies these observations to the problem of ministry in a multilingual context. Biblical translators and missiology have long dealt with the tension between the belief that the gospel can be translated into any language or culture on the one hand and the reality that there is never a one to one correspondence between systems of meaning. This is further complicated by the fact that even while two groups may superficially seem to speak the same language, they may be using that language in very different ways. For example, an immigrant from India may speak fluent English, but is speaking Indian English, not American English.
revized cultural autobiography
WASP: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. On the surface, this term, usually a pejorative, fairly well describes me. I am white, descended from immigrants from the
Culturally and ethnically I know most about my fathers side of the family tree. As recently as my granddad’s generation the family was dirt-poor subsistence farmers from the remote regions of
Growing up I was exposed to a lot of bluegrass, Appalachian and folk music, and have come to find these genres are a part of my culture and cultural self-perception. Songs about sharecroppers, coal miners, racial tensions and the people, good and bad, of the south were made a little more poignant knowing that my granddad more or less lived in the world of these songs. A lot of songs that have since become well known and popularized are ones that my great-grandmother, my granddad and great-aunts and uncles grew up with. For example, a few years ago I was playing the song “Where Did You Sleep Last Night” (a.k.a. In the Pines; brought to the MTV generation via Nirvana’s “Unplugged in
Songs are also an apt marker of my involvement in the church. Both my mother and father are musically inclined and have been involved in leading worship for the entirety of my existence. When I moved out and began college I quickly found myself also involved in leading worship. It has surprised me, since I have never felt called to music ministry and consider myself very much a dilettante in this area. Retrospecting, perhaps it is not that surprising—my mother and father before me valued music, hymns and instruments and that has rubbed of on me. As I have developed as a worship leader I find myself gravitating to the songs and melodies of my cultural history—“I’m just a poor wayfaring stranger”, “In the morning when I die, give me Jesus”, “Come thou fount of every blessing”, “What wondrous love is this, O my soul?” These are the words I have learned to worship in and the melodies my soul resonates with—Spirituals, Appalachian and Southern hymnody. Thus leading worship has made me more aware of my own cultural history.
Music has helped give me a sense of cultural grounding and depth; it has helped me be aware that I have a distinct culture as a genericly white, middling North American, and a cultural history goes deeper than the recent post-war, consumerist/capitalist sub-urban culture of immediate memory. Music is also one of the most basic ways a culture tells its story and records history and a look at the songs of my culture demonstrates its sketchy and soiled history. From the south come laments of slaves and stories of lynchings as well as of freedom and simple faith. Thus awareness of my ethnic history is bitter-sweet.
I have also been made more aware of my culture through interactions with people from different cultures. My parents are very hospitable, and growing up we had people in our house from literally all over the world. Some were missionaries and others were colleagues of my father who was a professor of Physics for the better half of my growing up years. I particularly remember some interactions with his Russian friend Eugene and his wife, Olga. When they first moved to the states my family helped them find a place to live and begin to make sense of North American life. I particularly remember Olga being utterly exasperated at the grocery stores here. In our “more is better” culture we have five brands for everything, and multiple varieties of everything, e.g. reduced fat, single-serving, extra-pulp, no-pulp, and so on. Olga exclaimed in frustration “I just want yogurt!” The variety of consumer-culture was overwhelming to her practical, Slavic mind, and her reaction helped open my families eyes to our own cultural reality.
Spending a week living with a family in former
One can also become aware of one’s culture when one inadvertently transgresses against it or attempts to live against its grain. I most distinctly felt this form of learning when I mentioned to my father than my wife and I were thinking of moving to live with or near some close friends of ours when we are done at Fuller. The four of us did almost everything together in college and have all felt that it would be silly to not continue that relationship. My father simply couldn’t understand why we would try to hold onto a friendship like that. In his mind, beyond the nuclear family, you just have to be practical and move wherever life takes you. Since the chances of “life” taking both couples to the same city or even the same state are slim, to try to continue living together would be impractical. Furthermore, in his mind, this would likely interfere with “God’s plans.” My father didn’t advise us against it, but he simply couldn’t comprehend our reasons for thinking about it. My culture values the nuclear family, but also values mobility and a lack of social obligations. The nuclear family provides people with just the amount of social stability that most people need to stay sane while at the same time allowing for a reasonably mobile and transient population.
Such experiences have helped me begin to see myself and my situation. Without these experiences I would be at a loss to see myself—like a man without a mirror I could never see my face. Some of what I see concerns me: the consumerism, the pragmatic emphasis on mobility and nuclear family over all other claims, and so on. With the help of this mirror I am trying to transgress these boundaries, to begin to think (and more importantly, live) differently, and to some extent I am succeeding. Other aspects of my cultural heritage I have found new respect for by looking at them in this mirror. To return to a musical example, I find the theme of “wayfaring stranger” or “pilgrim” imagery in American folk music and folk hymns quite powerful. It reminds me that longing can be a good thing, not merely something to be sated through consumerist consumption. It also humbles me, reminding me that I need something beyond myself and my world.