Apologies for the delay in posting, its been crazy around here!
Moving on!
I was privileged this week to attend a talk given to pastor by Os Guinness. For those of you who may be scratching your heads, he's one of the writers of the Evangelical Manifesto you can read here. What i found most interesting about his talk is that it helped me crystallize alot of what i'd been observing and reflecting about american culture and the church within it. Its always nice to get your observations affirmed by a reputable scholar! I wish i'd been able to take notes! (doh!)
But some points i remember him making are:
That we need to thoughtfully engage the culture. This means looking at the history of the current popular ideas, e.g knowing their autobiography. Then we need to assess their impact on the street level. In order for us to do that we need to have a good sense of our own christian history! (One thing that i have become more and more convinced is the need for churches to teach more than "just the bible". People need to know their history, we need to know the names and deeds of the saints who went before us!!!)
He pointed out that in the 20th century faith went from being solely private to ultra-political. Both of these movements had disastrous results for Christianity in America. One of these results is that america has been led further down the path to secularization making it harder for people of faith to have a voice in the public sphere. He suggested that we make sure to speak into the culture but let them make their choices and yet continue to be a witness to the love of Christ and the Gospel.(a fine balancing act!) I liked his point that we are told to "love our enemies" and most Christians who are members of the "moral majority" and such other groups have demonized their enemies. Where's the Gospel in that?
He also talked about technology and its impact on culture. No one really philosophized on time and shaped how we thought about it. Instead its the invention of the watch and its ever-present ticking that shapes how we think about time. Think about the impact of cell-phones and the internet on the culture and the church?!
He also cautioned against innovation for innovations sake. In America we are blitzed by advertising/consumerism. They are always telling us to seek what's new and different. But what's new and different isn't always what's good and healthy. I'll have to come back to this later and do a whole blog post on it, when i've sorted out just how i feel about this. (Esp since i'm a bit of a gadget freak!)
Finally he pointed out that it's actually good to be a little "behind the times". Because we can see the result/errors/consequences of the philosophical/technological trends and innovations. Europe was heading in a secular direction much longer than the States and yet we have failed as a church to learn from Europe's example. He pointed out that churches in developing countries are failing to learn from our example and shared several illustrative stories.
Speaking of churches in the developing world. As has been noted the shift of power has moved south. Along with this shift has been the emergence of different modernities. What this means is that there is an American/Chinese/French way of looking/thinking/doing. So there is no sense of the need for integration. Instead there is fragmentation. He then asked about how the church and Christians are speaking/demonstrating/interacting with this. There was much more to this point, but i cant remember all the points, but i have a feeling this is something i'll circle back to!
So there's the highlights from the talk. Hopefully i'll be able to get a recording and then i can do a much better interaction with the material. But for now i'm still chewing on the bits of the talk i remember! Perhaps i should finally break down and buy one of his books....?
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
1/31/07
The Kaleidoscope of Race
There was a recent survery that came out that stated that Blacks think race is more of an issue than whites. Unfortunately I lost the link I was going to use. (doh!)But i'm sure one of my more energetic and enterprising readers will locate it for me. ;)
Moving on to the main point.
In many ways our discussion on race is like describing what we see in a kaleidoscope. We're all turing our kaleidoscopes and seeing different patterns, but these patterns are defined by our experiences. The problem with using experience as a baseline is that it's not objective. People are notoriously bad at interpreting what they experience. Do DTR's sound familiar? Haven't you ever had a conflict that started over a misunderstanding? I know i've been in plenty, still getting therapy over a few...shudder.
In terms of race what I think is happening is that white people are looking down through their kaleidoscopes and seeing more colors. Black people and other people of color are looking up through their kaleidoscopes and seeing primarily white. Reality is somewhere in between and varies greatly depending upon what part of the country you're residing in. One's experience of race in the South is going to be very different than what they may experience in the Bay Area or in New York.
The trick is to understand how and where your experiences fit in the wider picture. This means that we need to set aside our kaleidoscopes and look at what the academics and other legitimate news/research sources are telling us about race in America. Once we have done our homework, we need to be willing to listen to one another. This means instead of trying to "school" or "educate" someone, perhaps we should "engage" and "discuss". This is an important step because in America most change happens from the bottom up. Women and African-Americans and other important social justice movements didn't gain traction until whites signed on too. That happened once channels of communication were opened between the groups. What this recent poll shows me is that those channels of communication are no longer working. There's a disconnect somewhere. Until we get those channels flowing again we won't be able effectively examine the structural and cultural issues that keep people on the bottom and out of leadership and moneyed positions. Finally, people let's have an honest discussion about class in America and the role it places in our understanding of race.
Many people are trying to engage in the race discussion in a thoughtful way, but lets be honest, it's easier to turn your kaleidoscope than to deal with the reality in front of you. You have more control over your kaleidoscope than actual, living people. Doh!
Moving on to the main point.
In many ways our discussion on race is like describing what we see in a kaleidoscope. We're all turing our kaleidoscopes and seeing different patterns, but these patterns are defined by our experiences. The problem with using experience as a baseline is that it's not objective. People are notoriously bad at interpreting what they experience. Do DTR's sound familiar? Haven't you ever had a conflict that started over a misunderstanding? I know i've been in plenty, still getting therapy over a few...shudder.
In terms of race what I think is happening is that white people are looking down through their kaleidoscopes and seeing more colors. Black people and other people of color are looking up through their kaleidoscopes and seeing primarily white. Reality is somewhere in between and varies greatly depending upon what part of the country you're residing in. One's experience of race in the South is going to be very different than what they may experience in the Bay Area or in New York.
The trick is to understand how and where your experiences fit in the wider picture. This means that we need to set aside our kaleidoscopes and look at what the academics and other legitimate news/research sources are telling us about race in America. Once we have done our homework, we need to be willing to listen to one another. This means instead of trying to "school" or "educate" someone, perhaps we should "engage" and "discuss". This is an important step because in America most change happens from the bottom up. Women and African-Americans and other important social justice movements didn't gain traction until whites signed on too. That happened once channels of communication were opened between the groups. What this recent poll shows me is that those channels of communication are no longer working. There's a disconnect somewhere. Until we get those channels flowing again we won't be able effectively examine the structural and cultural issues that keep people on the bottom and out of leadership and moneyed positions. Finally, people let's have an honest discussion about class in America and the role it places in our understanding of race.
Many people are trying to engage in the race discussion in a thoughtful way, but lets be honest, it's easier to turn your kaleidoscope than to deal with the reality in front of you. You have more control over your kaleidoscope than actual, living people. Doh!
11/28/06
What It Takes to Make a Student...
This week the New York Times Magazine ran a fascinating article on poverty, education and legislation.
At first this looks like a typical NYTimes attack on the failing on No Child Left Behind and it's impact, but upon further reading there are several statements that really stand out and need to be examined further. Starting with this statement "By 2014, the president vowed, African-American, Hispanic and poor children, all of whom were at the time scoring well below their white counterparts and those in the middle class on standardized tests, would not only catch up with the rest of the nation; they would also reach 100 percent proficiency in both math and reading." A great statement a great promise, but upon further reflection, this statement links minorities with poverty and white with middle-class. The great American divide White=wealth and Black/Brown=poverty. Later on our president is quoted as saying “I’m proud to report the achievement gap between white kids and minority students is closing, for the good of the United States.” What happened to the poor kids? Are they catching up?
But I don't want to spend this blog posting on racial and economic divisions. That's been done and at this point the dialog on that point is stalled, instead what's significant about this article is that it admits that poverty is more than just an economic condition, it's also a cultural condition.
"The academics have demonstrated just how deeply pervasive and ingrained are the intellectual and academic disadvantages that poor and minority students must overcome to compete with their white and middle-class peers. The divisions between black and white and rich and poor begin almost at birth, and they are reinforced every day of a child’s life."
So it's going to take more than just bussing kids to better schools, you're going to have to teach them how to learn in that kind of school. It does no good to lead a horse to water, if they don't know how to drink from the pool. The article later goes on to show how little most poor kids are able to drink from the academic pool.
"Hart and Risley showed that language exposure in early childhood correlated strongly with I.Q. and academic success later on in a child’s life. Hearing fewer words, and a lot of prohibitions and discouragements, had a negative effect on I.Q.; hearing lots of words, and more affirmations and complex sentences, had a positive effect on I.Q. The professional parents were giving their children an advantage with every word they spoke, and the advantage just kept building up."
Notice this is a difference that transcends race, instead it is a class difference, let me remind you gentle reader that white people can be poor too, and perhaps it's not necessarily their fault...
"...Middle-class children argue with their parents, complain about their parents’ incompetence and disparage parents’ decisions.” Working-class and poor children, by contrast, “learn how to be members of informal peer groups. They learn how to manage their own time. They learn how to strategize.” But outside the family unit, Lareau wrote, the advantages of “natural growth” disappear. In public life, the qualities that middle-class children develop are consistently valued over the ones that poor and working-class children develop. Middle-class children become used to adults taking their concerns seriously, and so they grow up with a sense of entitlement, which gives them a confidence, in the classroom and elsewhere, that less-wealthy children lack. The cultural differences translate into a distinct advantage for middle-class children in school, on standardized achievement tests and, later in life, in the workplace."
How can we expect an adult who has been taught to respect his elders and not challenge the boss to succeed in a competitive business environment. What if that adult is a female? Two strikes right there, add race and forget it, it's 3 strikes, out. Often in the business environment people from this background are invariably perceived as not being intelligent, because their middle class peers are unable to look beyond the cultural conditioning.
The article goes on to detail how some schools are overcoming this divide, let's just say it takes a lot of work and you can't assume what the kids know, in terms of knowledge or behavior.
Let's think about some of the other social consequences of this upbringing, teen pregnancies, gangs, drugs...? In this light, harder consequences won't work, because it's respect not social acceptance these people seek.
The bottom line, you put your money where your heart is and if we in America want to get serious about poverty and racial inequality in this country, then we have to be willing to spend the money and the time and not expect any real results for several generations.
At first this looks like a typical NYTimes attack on the failing on No Child Left Behind and it's impact, but upon further reading there are several statements that really stand out and need to be examined further. Starting with this statement "By 2014, the president vowed, African-American, Hispanic and poor children, all of whom were at the time scoring well below their white counterparts and those in the middle class on standardized tests, would not only catch up with the rest of the nation; they would also reach 100 percent proficiency in both math and reading." A great statement a great promise, but upon further reflection, this statement links minorities with poverty and white with middle-class. The great American divide White=wealth and Black/Brown=poverty. Later on our president is quoted as saying “I’m proud to report the achievement gap between white kids and minority students is closing, for the good of the United States.” What happened to the poor kids? Are they catching up?
But I don't want to spend this blog posting on racial and economic divisions. That's been done and at this point the dialog on that point is stalled, instead what's significant about this article is that it admits that poverty is more than just an economic condition, it's also a cultural condition.
"The academics have demonstrated just how deeply pervasive and ingrained are the intellectual and academic disadvantages that poor and minority students must overcome to compete with their white and middle-class peers. The divisions between black and white and rich and poor begin almost at birth, and they are reinforced every day of a child’s life."
So it's going to take more than just bussing kids to better schools, you're going to have to teach them how to learn in that kind of school. It does no good to lead a horse to water, if they don't know how to drink from the pool. The article later goes on to show how little most poor kids are able to drink from the academic pool.
"Hart and Risley showed that language exposure in early childhood correlated strongly with I.Q. and academic success later on in a child’s life. Hearing fewer words, and a lot of prohibitions and discouragements, had a negative effect on I.Q.; hearing lots of words, and more affirmations and complex sentences, had a positive effect on I.Q. The professional parents were giving their children an advantage with every word they spoke, and the advantage just kept building up."
Notice this is a difference that transcends race, instead it is a class difference, let me remind you gentle reader that white people can be poor too, and perhaps it's not necessarily their fault...
"...Middle-class children argue with their parents, complain about their parents’ incompetence and disparage parents’ decisions.” Working-class and poor children, by contrast, “learn how to be members of informal peer groups. They learn how to manage their own time. They learn how to strategize.” But outside the family unit, Lareau wrote, the advantages of “natural growth” disappear. In public life, the qualities that middle-class children develop are consistently valued over the ones that poor and working-class children develop. Middle-class children become used to adults taking their concerns seriously, and so they grow up with a sense of entitlement, which gives them a confidence, in the classroom and elsewhere, that less-wealthy children lack. The cultural differences translate into a distinct advantage for middle-class children in school, on standardized achievement tests and, later in life, in the workplace."
How can we expect an adult who has been taught to respect his elders and not challenge the boss to succeed in a competitive business environment. What if that adult is a female? Two strikes right there, add race and forget it, it's 3 strikes, out. Often in the business environment people from this background are invariably perceived as not being intelligent, because their middle class peers are unable to look beyond the cultural conditioning.
The article goes on to detail how some schools are overcoming this divide, let's just say it takes a lot of work and you can't assume what the kids know, in terms of knowledge or behavior.
Let's think about some of the other social consequences of this upbringing, teen pregnancies, gangs, drugs...? In this light, harder consequences won't work, because it's respect not social acceptance these people seek.
The bottom line, you put your money where your heart is and if we in America want to get serious about poverty and racial inequality in this country, then we have to be willing to spend the money and the time and not expect any real results for several generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
