Year: 2015

Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis on the “Clash of Civilizations” is a seminal work in political science. The work describes a post-Cold War theory of conflict that occurs between groups of nations, monolithically bound together by their ideologies. No longer were individual states warring against each other; the industrialized and post-colonial countries now warred over cultural differences, not for the pursuit of territories or economic properties.

Huntington’s thesis was countered by Edward Said in his “Myth of the Clash of Civilizations”. Said’s primary criticism of the thesis was that it grouped cultures too homogeneously. In his speech, Said outlined his criticism thusly,“Huntington defines Islamic civilization reductively, as if what most matters about it is its supposed anti-Westernism. I mean it doesn’t matter to him that Muslims have other things to do than to think about the West with hatred. But you get the impression that that’s all they are thinking about is how to destroy the West, bomb it and destroy the whole world really.” The myth that Said makes reference to ought to be broken by examining the more nuanced and individualistic qualities of cultures. One must break a culture into sub-cultures and further break this sub-culture into sub-sub-cultures ad infinitum.

Although, as academics, Huntington and Said would be repulsed by the suggestion that a proper approach to the foreign entity might be found in the middle-ground between the two philosophies, that is exactly what I would suggest.

When one begins to address a foreign entity – sex, race, political philosophy, country, city, town, club, group, team, major, etc. – one must begin as Huntington suggests, defining a culture by its known tropes and stereotypes. Truly, there is no alternative. We cannot separate our deeper prejudices, whether good or bad, without complete emotional reservation. Where we must differ from Huntington is in how we treat our judgements.

Firstly, we must not allow any prejudice to keep us from pursuing a meditation and understanding of the entity. Every culture, no matter how violent, intolerant, or dull it appears to be, is worth a deeper examination. There are always motivations for every aspect of a society. One can rarely be too granular in dividing a culture into parts. Even the motivations of individuals may be subdivided at least once or twice.

Secondly, we must allow for the possibility that our judgements will change. One must admit that one’s understanding can, at any point in the process, be wrong. Perhaps you think physics majors give their opinion pieces pretentious titles. Here you would have some evidence in your hands, but in order to understand that culture properly, you must be open to the idea that next week another physics major will publish an opinion piece with a non-pretentious title. It is a definite possibility.

Through these steps, we apply Said’s thesis, breaking a culture down into sub-cultures. However, these subcultures cannot be understood without some application of generalization. Therefore we are required to take Huntington’s approach of stereotyping again. This is then followed by Said’s in a cycle that breaks and constructs new deeper cultural understanding with every iteration. This approach is applicable to any foreign entity, even to an individual.

In practice, you select a group, let us say “people who hang out in the coffee shop”. Look at what assumptions you can make about the group: they drink coffee, they are college students, they listen to music on headphones, they use laptops, etc. Don’t let any of these assumptions keep you averse from getting to know “people who hang out in the coffee shop”. Dive into learning about this group. Find that not all of them use laptops. Develop two categories: “people who hang out in the coffee shop who use laptops” and “people who hang out in the coffee shop who don’t use laptops”. You begin the process again, splitting these groups even more until you reach the absolute limit perhaps, “woman who hangs out in the coffee shop who uses a laptop, listens to Arcade Fire, drinks black coffee, wears jean jackets, runs every now and then, has read Camus, etc. etc. etc.”

You might be able to see a few problems with this. The perspective is wholly superficial. Despite this, there isn’t enough time in the universe to fully analyze everyone in the coffee shop in this way.  The finished description is non-plastic; it can’t contain the person’s changes throughout their life, only those that are present at a precise moment.

Despite these known limits, a moderated application of this Huntington-Said cycle works against prejudice and toward a better understanding of the foreign other. It is this understanding that must always be sought. It brings a greater peace between people and cultures.

One of my favorite Christian bloggers is beginning a review series on Tim LaHaye’s (author of the Left Behind series) book How to Win Over Depression, a self-help manual popular in conservative evangelical circles.

LaHaye’s work is a reflection of common misconceptions that Christians often hold about people with depression. With chapter titles such as “Self-Pity and Depression,” followed by “How to Overcome Self Pity” and even “Depression and the Occult”, LaHaye promotes the idea that depression stems from an individual’s character flaws. In the introduction he even states: he is “certain that most depression (is) caused primarily by sin, a faulty thinking pattern, or some failure on the part of the individual to claim the promises of God.”

This lie cannot be tolerated any longer.

Depression is not brought on by a character flaw, failing to love Jesus enough, or not having memorized enough Bible “promises”.

Rather, depression is one of those awful things that happens for reasons we cannot always explain. Depression is like a tornado, and just as a tornado may destroy a homeless shelter yet leave a crack house standing, sometimes good, loving, kind people, including Christians, are chemically imbalanced or experiencing major life difficulties. The jerks who deserve to be depressed are probably out skipping in a sunny field somewhere.

Even Christians who understand this may still cling to another destructive idea: that depression is a hindrance to faith. For a Christian to be useful to the Kingdom, depression must be “dealt with” ASAP.

Yet when I read the Scriptures what I am presented with is quite different. Instead I see Job and Naomi, two people who suffered tremendously yet found the love of God in the midst of long term despair.

In two sudden series of tragedies, Job lost his family, his wealth, and his physical and emotional health. He went from being a respectable man to being a horribly disfigured nobody. His friends who sought to care for Job found him on the ground, self-harming with a sharp piece of pottery. (Job 2:8)

Contrary to what many would assume of a depressed person, Job the wallowing, depressed cutter came face to face with God. He asked Yahweh deep questions and received profound answers in return. While many flip to the end and think that Job’s redemption came when his heirs, belongings, and health were restored, the actual redemption Job experienced happened in his hold-nothing-back dialogue with God. This communion with God occurred when Job was in the depths, screaming to the heavens “Why?” and cutting his arms.

Anyone who feels like a spiritual failure because of stumbling into self-harm should read the story of Job and take heart.

Then there is Naomi, who suffered through famine, the death of her husband and sons, poverty, and the infertility of her daughters in law. Upon her return to Bethlehem, Naomi declared that Yahweh had turned his back on her and that she was bitter as hell for it.

Praise God that Naomi had a friend (Ruth) who resolved never to leave her, who sacrificed her future for her well being. Notice that Ruth did not exhort Naomi to claim the promises of God or pray to be delivered from self-pity.

As Christians we believe that in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, there is no part of the human experience that Jesus has not been through and overcome. I am not claiming that Jesus experienced depression, though it is certainly possible. In the Passion narrative, Jesus cried out to God, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

At this moment, God knew how it was to feel abandoned by God.

If God has felt the full weight of hopelessness and abandonment, then to say that depression is a hindrance to God is just wrong. Depression will not keep one from God because God was there, is there, and will be there.

Therefore, I encourage all of those at Houghton who suffer from bouts of depression to take shelter in the empathy and compassion of God.

I ask all those at Houghton who know someone with depression to be a witness to that love and compassion in word and deed.

The Disappearance of Ninety-Three Million American Workers and Business Startups.

“Who is John Galt?” and why is the US economy experiencing a large loss of job participation coupled with the lowest numbers of new business start-ups in decades?   John Galt was a fictional character in the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  Rand emigrated from the Soviet Union in the 1920s and was tainted by her own experience in a communist system.  Rand demonstrates how a mixed economy ushered in by Roosevelt’s New Deal would become like the system she fled.

In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt is an inventor of a self-sustainable engine that can run without fuel.  Galt knows his new invention will either be confiscated by the government for the “good of society” (because no man should profit off of his ideas) or possibly the invention will be heavily regulated (because it would displace workers at engine factories and energy producers).

Rather than subjugate his invention to the will of the bureaucrats, Galt scraps it. Then he secretly plans a strike against the government with an unlikely group of people consisting of innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, talented professors, upper management, and gifted college students.  Instead of demonstrating or rioting, Galt simply makes these people “shrug” by vanishing, while the government levies a war against the innovators by coercion of excessive taxes and regulations. These policies enable the bureaucrats to confiscate wealth, seize control of companies and compel innovators to give up their intellectual property rights.  As the government takes control of industries it becomes incapable of running complex organizations in a safe and efficient way. The economy collapses and society slips into anarchy.

Today, John Galt seems to lurk inside the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) participation rate numbers; in the last decade we have seen disturbing job participation rates. People not participating in the labor force have hit a record 93 million high. The BLS has shown that men’s participation rate has dropped from 87% in 1948 to 70% in 2013. Women, who have made great strides in the participation rate since 1948, have also faced participation rate declines.  In 1999, the participation rate of women reached its high of 60% now it is 57%.

While the retirement of the baby boomers accounts for some participation losses, the vast majority of age appropriate workers go unaccounted for. Also blue-collar work has dropped significantly in the two decades, but the number of Americans collecting disability benefits due to injury has more than doubled since 1995.  According to Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute, the government “passed new reforms in 1984 that in time made it much easier to receive SSDI (Social Security Disability) benefits and keep receiving them until retirement.”

Workers seem to disappear and, at an alarming rate, businesses do as well.  New business startups have dropped significantly due to burdensome regulations.  The number of young firms going under within the first few years has increased. Consequently, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, for the first time in 30 years, business failures now outnumber business startups. The federal government has many outdated and contradictory regulations that hurt the entrepreneurial spirit.

Jonathan Ortmans of the Kauffman Foundation noted that “as new regulations are enacted on top of existing rules, businesses are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex regulatory regime.” Complex taxes have weakened the entrepreneurial spirit also. Ortmans said, “Tax complexity and uncertainty, like regulatory complexity and uncertainty, divert the time, attention, and energy of entrepreneurs away from the essential tasks required to successfully launch and grow their businesses amount to mortal threats to new businesses, particularly in the critical early years.” Regulations stifle startups in banking. For instance, there has only been one new bank created since the passing of Dodd-Frank–a bank regulation bill–in 2010.

When our current political leaders, such as our President, tell entrepreneurs that “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen”, one must question if Ayn Rand’s writings were a warning.  Lawmakers and regulators should remember government is funded by tax revenues from workers, owners, and companies.  Not the other way around.  American innovation and industrial strength were built by entrepreneurs who carry the weight of American job expansion upon their shoulders.

We need to stop passing laws, regulations, fees and taxes that injure our enterprise system.  If we do not stop, we are doomed to a similar plot found on the pages of Atlas Shrugged.  In 1942, to encourage hard work for the war effort, the Westinghouse Corporation created a poster later called “Rosie the Riveter.”   In the illustration, Rosie rolls up her arm sleeves, flexes her muscles and says, “We Can Do It”. We need that can-do; we can build that, American spirit in our own vocation and in our political leadership once again.

An opportunity has arisen for Houghton to create a policy that ensures the use of sustainably-sourced printer paper for its academic departments. Sustainably-sourced paper is not necessarily 100% recycled, but is chlorine-free, sourced from responsibly-logged forests, and has some recycled content. Most paper is made through irresponsible logging methods that have negative effects on biodiversity (important for the roles each species has in sustainability), virgin growth forests (meaning old forests that have never been touched), and local environments. Standard paper production techniques release enormous amounts of chlorine and other toxic chemicals into the environment, resulting in major pollution problems for local communities.

Many faculty members already try to use as little paper as possible, which I really appreciate. However, when professors do feel the need to print things, why not print on paper that hasn’t destroyed an ecosystem, been illegally logged, or polluted the environment with toxic chemicals?

Making the switch to sustainably-sourced paper brings us one step closer to living in sync with what we say we care about. Back in 2008, President Mullen signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment which shows Houghton’s ongoing commitment to reducing our impact on the environment. We’ve done a lot already. Our cleaning products are earth-friendly, we have hand-dryers in most bathrooms, we have motion-activated lights, our printers are set to save paper by printing on both sides, we have composting at the townhouses, we have recycling bins absolutely everywhere, we have energy-efficient laundry facilities, I already mentioned that many faculty members have committed to using less paper… oh yeah, and we have a solar ray! Switching to sustainably-sourced paper is consistent with what we are already doing. Therefore it is clear: we should make this step towards further improvement.

If this policy were implemented, the college would only see an overall annual increase of about $1,200 which covers all departments. Half of the departments would see less than a $10 increase in costs and 85% of departments would see less than a $30 increase in costs. There is no difference in paper quality and we would be buying third-party certified paper, ensuring environmental responsibility.

Administration wants to see student interest in sustainably-sourced paper before making a decision. Students purchasing paper at the campus store have already shown a willingness to pay $1.50 more for recycled-content paper. Twenty percent of paper sales at the Campus Store are from sustainably-sourced paper already. I urge students who do not already purchase sustainably sourced paper to make this small personal sacrifice and do so.

Lauren Bechtel, the driving force behind this proposed change, reports that the petition has 152 respondents so far, with a 4:1 Student to Faculty/Staff participation. Thus far,  96% of responses have been positive, and Lauren welcomes any comments in a box provided in the survey. The petition/survey will close on April 13, 2015. Do your part and share your student voice in support of this cause.

As Christians we are to be examples in stewardship. We imitate God when we care for his earth and the people who live here. Not only is creation care Biblical, it is one of the simplest ways we can affect the lives of people living around the world. Sure, cheaper paper saves some money, but the problem with cheap things is that someone is paying for that lower price and it is usually those who can afford it least. With cheaper paper, the communities affected by chemical pollution and deforestation pay the price. Surely Houghton can afford to absorb the cost it takes to produce something that we use to our benefit. It is simple: we should make this change for the better.

In the present day and especially in Christian circles we often find it uncomfortable to talk about issues and topics involving race. As our culture becomes more politically correct we choose to revert to language such as “but I don’t see color.”

Segregation and discrimination — whether against the African American population or against people of other ethnic and cultural backgrounds — appear to be systemic and deeply ingrained in our culture. As a result, we tend to label one racial group as the antagonist, insinuating that racial tension is somehow one-sided and narrowly defined.

Integration has been historically stagnant.The US is not alone in its pursuit of integration; humans tend to define themselves relative to other groups of people. For example, a patrician as compared to being a plebeian, or even a Christian as compared to being a Buddhist. So how do we overcome those definitions?

We generally believe that racism is partial or biased and that it favors one particular group, but we all put each other into unhealthy categories. As a white American, I am automatically grouped into the “white” category. I find myself lumped into a massive group of white, privileged people; I lose my individual identity. Living adjacent to a city populated by a large number of Latin American and Hispanic families, I often hear comments or phrases that explicitly define me by my skin color.

Even here, in Houghton, New York, I see how my skin separates me from others. In church one Sunday, the pastor encouraged us to “share a word of greeting with one another” before the sermon started. I watched as a girl came running across the aisle and past me to greet my housemates, saying, “Good morning my fellow black girls!” I know that wasn’t meant to hurt me, but it did.

Racism is not just one group against another; there is a degree of mutual resentment between various ethnic and racial groups. Take, for example, the discussion about the Ferguson incident that Dean Jordan hosted last December. A few comments that pertained specifically to “white Americans” caught my attention. One individual expressing her anguish commented, “You will never understand what it feels like.” This comment alludes to the perception that issues of racism, discrimination, and prejudice are a one-sided battle, one group against the other. To some extent that is true, but sometimes this perception does more harm than good. It lies in assumptions made about the other group.