One of the interesting trends in human history is the growth in power of mankind and as a result the growth in power of individuals. Look at music which originally was passed on by hearing directly, so one had to go to the original creator or someone whom he taught to enjoy a piece of music. Standardized written musical scores allowed for the storing and distributing of music, and circulation was greatly increased by the advent of the printing press. Any well trained musician can perform any piece of music that he can get the notes to. Music began to become scalable.
The inflection point came when Edison first copied "Mary had a little lamb" onto a wax cylinder over 100 years ago. Suddenly, the performer was absent from the performance and the quality is limited only by the quality of the microphones and the speakers. Technology has moved from wax to vinyl to radio to tape to cd to mp3 to the internet. The performer can record a song and have millions of people listen to it only a few days later. More than that, musicians don't need to have any real technical skill (though most do) as modern synthesizing programs and sampling have moved us from a paradigm of performance to a paradigm of musical taste and ideas.
Originally, the power of the musician to delight an audience with his creative idea was limited by how many people he could crowd in a room. Now this power is limited only by the quality of the idea and the number of people online which will soon be everyone who has the money to afford the rapidly decreasing price of connectivity. Thanks to technology, the power to affect a large number of people has become very cheap and is firmly in the hands of individuals with ideas.
This effect of the growth and ultimate individualization of power can be seen in many areas from military power to knowledge to sermons to books and behind it all the power of ideas to affect multitudes. Essentially we now can "move mountains with a joystick" as long as someone has a really good idea for how to make that joystick. So the key now to power is the idea and technology will take care of the rest.
The idea, then, is all that really matters, and only parts of the person are valued that can create ideas: intelligence and creativity. It is by those values that we hold highest that we also begin to value people in our society. So I think most people today find their value in whether or not they are intelligent and creative. I think this is the reason why some of the gravest insults in the modern world are to insinuate that one may be stupid or un-creative for it is akin to saying that they are without value to society.
First, I believe that these are ultimately two very, very morally ambiguous virtues, and as such should be low on the totem pole. Take the always classic example of moral depravity, Hitler, who was intelligent and quite creative in the way he made war on the rest of the world and was incredibly efficient at killing people. Intelligence and creativity can be used for completely evil purposes. I think we could all attest to this in our own lives as I am sure that as we all wrestle with our flesh we wish it were quite a bit stupider and not quite so creative in the ways that we are tempted.
Secondly, I think that intelligence and creativity even regularly deliver what they promise. How often has a creative idea simply come off poorly or something that seemed so intelligent be simply foolish? All the time consulting companies are hired and though abounding in intelligence, lack the experience to develop good solutions. And often when we are creative we create something new that just isn't as good as what we had before or in fact the act of being re-created caused more problems than it could ever improve.
Finally, if we do adopt these ideas as the last vestiges of human value, they will soon be obliterated and the technology that we have created will become of greater value to us than we are ourselves. That may sound far-fetched, but let me provide an example in line with my original discussion. Recently, a computer program has been developed that can produce highly convincing mimicry's of Bach chorales and other classical pieces. Here are two examples:
Bach
Chopin
So what will happen when computers and technology finally control those last strongholds of the need for humans? Well by that time I hope that we have a great practical theology of the men and of persons ready to respond.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
I don't want to do well anymore
When I was putting together my life story I realized something about myself. I always want to do everything well. In school, in sports, in family, in giving gifts, in making purchases, in choosing careers, in picking colors for a room, in making a bed -- in all things I do, in every facet of who I am, I want to do well. I didn't see anything immediately wrong about this ethic, and it struck me that such a phrase could so completely and accurately sum up how I have approached my life. Then in Church on Sunday, it struck me that doing well was not a great way to try to live my life which may seem obvious or confusing, so let me go back and define what I mean by doing well.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
The week of crashing
So this week it all cam crashing down on me. I know it sounds weird, because nothing really came crashing down. But what it really felt like was the top of my skull crashed into the soles of my feet and everything in-between became squished.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
Legislating Morality
Prior to this week I had somewhat naively held that we could not legislate morality to be a fact of life. I had one teacher who taught it, and as I have never really been interested in politics or political ideas, I simply accepted it. Though it was something I did not think too deeply about, I think it was a very important point in my web of "I don't bother with politics because they aren't important." If politics can't do anything moral then what good are they.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
Confused about the hero
O Lord my God, tonight my heart and mind are in turmoil. There ideas, thoughts, and concepts which flutter just out of reach. I can see the forms of the answers and the understanding, but when I reach for them come back empty handed. Please Lord, clarify my mind, give me wisdom and understanding. Help me to know how it is that you call us to live.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
Seperate and better than equal
Let me preface this post by saying that it is not complete. It has really made some people angry. The main point I am trying to get across is that sometimes we must distinguish between two different groups, and that differentiation and separate treatment is necessary and better than two groups being the same. I use the example of gender because it was what is used in class, but the idea has broader applications to life. So here it goes:
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)