Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Art Critiquing - Lists, their benefits and drawbacks

I was recently pointed to a post on the First Things blog about an article in the Wall Street Journal about a list published in L’ Osservatore Romano (it's amazing how these things come to our attention!) It details a list of the 10 greatest rock and pop albums of all time. It is one of those posts where the comments are more interesting than the actual post itself (which may be its intended point.) It is amazing the passions that come out when people discuss rock music, including defending different artists and hating the genre completely. The LOR's is missing any justification for their picks and a great deal of their selections are wrong anyway :) (they did offer a justification for why they didn't pick Bob Dylan but it is, quite frankly, a dumb reason.)
However I became interested in the idea of listing the top ten rock albums, and more generally our desire to put everything in neat tidy hierarchical and definitive lists. Lists in music (and art in general) are a way in which we attempt to make sense of our own vague and often inexpressible taste of the sublime and the beautiful. Unfortunately because our tastes are unquantifiable in a definitive scientific way (this is not to say that our tastes have value (in the economic sense) that can be compared it, but rather that we have no way of independently confirming the accuracy of such values.) Because of this most lists concerning the arts are invariably flawed. That is not to say they don't have value to the individual and in the same way they posses critical value the way any other criticism does. However there is, it seems to me, lists that are of more use then others. For example search google for top 500 classic rock songs, there are many to be found (I have attempted to create some myself) and if you try to read a few at some point you will realize a couple of things: first many of them are similar in the sense that the same songs appear over and over again in different arrangements, this is because in order to give their lists "legitimacy" they often include tangible statistics in the construction of the lists (amount of radio play, chart positions), the second realization is that after about 10 entries or so the list begins to blur together, this stems from the limitation of the human mind, while we can compare and contrast vast amounts of data in a general sense (good songs, great songs, bad songs) we general can do so in a fine exact sense. This means that as one creates a list the differences between say entry 51 and entry 52 are slight, to the point of being non-existent. Essentially after a while the list fails to function as a true quantitative analysis and instead would achieve the same affect (and be easier to read) if sorted alphabetically.
The reason the first 10 or so entries often exhibit meaningful analysis or criticism while the rest don't (or offer diminishing returns exponentially) is for, as mentioned above, the limitations of the human mind. We generally can make a meaningful list with 10 entries because of two things, their is less data involved (our feelings and values of 10 entries is easy to get a hand on) and because we spend a much more time (perhaps without being aware of it) thinking about and critiquing our favorite art then others that don't move or affect us as much. In the end, it seems, we will always make (or at least try) lists and often they will contain insight into our own tastes and if they lack critical insight they often are helpful in other ways (I discovered a great many artists and songs by getting a list of 2000 rock songs and downloading each one), but we must remember to keep in mind the weaknesses that list posses from a critical standpoint.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Nietzsche and the Problem of Clericalism

Note: Please read disclaimers before reading the rest of this piece, they will clarify exactly what I want to say in this piece and more importantly what I am not saying in this piece.

Disclaimer 1: Yes, I am using Nietzsche to explore the issue of clericalism in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic and actually enjoying my reading of Nietzsche. Yes, I understand Nietzsche is not Christian, matter of fact he hates Christianity (which he more than implicitly states in his Genealogy of Morality when he talks about the inversion of values and Jesus (Nietzsche 1151, Treatise 1, #8). However, this piece plans to use Nietzsche's examination of morality and examine the possibility of temptation to a clericalist attitude (this can be by both laity and clergy, which this piece will examine how this possibility comes to fruition.) I want this to be an example of inculturation, someone outside Christianity writing on human nature (tendencies may be a better word), and what can this person teach us about Christianity.

Disclaimer 2: Citations for this piece are taken from Classics of Moral and Political Theory 4th edition. Each citation will appear as the one above with a page number, a treatise number and a section number. My text of The Genealogy of Morality appears in an anthology so the page numbers will not correspond with a book by the primary author. The treatise number and section number will allow the reader to find the source quotations in a book which is not my political theory book.

Disclaimer 3: This piece is not written to implicate any particular person or diocese participating in this behavior. However, my own presupposition is that I have seen behaviors similar to the ones I will mention in this piece, so this affects the way I write and think. My hope is everyone who reads this will be able to understand my presuppositions and be able to contribute to a fruitful discussion about the nature of clericalism, its potentiality for being a problem, if the attitudes really are problematic, or if someone wants to leave a comment about how I am completely wrong that will be acceptable as well. I want this piece to be a discussion starter for the future. This piece is by no means exclusive of everything which can be discussed; there are many outlets which can pour forth from this piece. However, I only want to cover the basics in this piece so as to leave it open for discussion on the blog and on facebook. That's all the disclaimers for now, if I think of more later I'll add them.

Yay for disclaimers! Let's get to the fun part now, which is examining the content.

For starters, one must understand the concept of noble and slave morality in order to understand Nietzsche. Noble morality is morality which focuses on the virtue of being powerful and using that power to exercise control over people. A prime example of this morality is the Roman Empire. Rome valued courage and strength, the ability to face danger head-on. Military prowess was brutal and those who resisted Rome were crushed in their struggle. (Jerusalem 70 AD is an example of this brutality.) (1150, Treatise 1, #7) Slave morality is morality which has a life focus of generosity. Virtue is measured not by strength, but rather by compassion. The best example of this is Christianity itself, which is the popular bringer of value inversion (1151, Treatise 1, #8) At its base concept, this presents a power struggle between the nobles who want to have a morality based on strength, and the religious leaders who want one based on virtuous gift.

This raises two points: First, it presents an interesting discussion on Church/State dynamics. Machiavelli in The Prince issues a treatise on why rulers should appear to be virtuous, but at times not act in virtue because it serves the best needs for the people. This work is the reason why power politics has an appearance in society. If one has ever examined a politician and thought she is lying through her teeth, this is the mentality which empowers current politics. People are influenced by slave morality because they deplore the problems in the State. They deplore the use of power by the nobles over their lives. (This may not seem as obvious in a democratic country, but looking at the recent financial crisis may present this issue in a greater light. Nobles looking out for their own interests on Wall Street gambled with other people's money trying to make more money to infinity and figured out the hard way how that does not work. Slaves were upset because they are the ones suffering in unemployment lines, while nobles are still making massive amounts of money because of government bailouts.)

Nietzsche highlights this point and writes, "The truly great haters in the history of the world have always been priests, also the most ingenious haters: -compared with the spirit of priestly revenge all the rest of spirit taken together hardly merits consideration (1150, Treatise 1, #7)." This is a strong critique, but his point is that priests are heads of the ideas of slave morality. As heads of slave morality, they act in different interests than noble morality. This leads to tension between the priests and the state because there is a disagreement. For the state, this is no problem, if the priests become a problem they can crush them with only resistance from those lower than themselves. For the priests, this is a big problem because there is this constant struggle to find a place in the world. Using this mentality, it becomes easy to see how some religious circles have a great dichotomy between "the spirit of the world" and "the spirit of God."

Second, the source of value inversion had taken place in many small ways in societies before. Greek philosophers had Plato and Aristotle who were different from the state. Plato's virtue focused on finding the forms (of beauty, truth, etc) (See Plato's Republic). Aristotle's virtue focused on the Golden Mean, finding virtue in moderation (See Nicomachean Ethics). Both of these standards of virtue were different from Greek society; however, their popularity was not great among the people. Both men had schools of thinkers, but their influence on the people was not large (at least compared to what happens later) (Actually it can also be argued that Greek philosophy only survived because of its inculturation into Christianity). Jesus and his followers popularize value inversion by their consistent witness, often to their death, (see the stories of the martyrs in the patristic period, there are too many of them to list here, Acts 7 is a good story which characterizes the reality of the martyr.) This value inversion eventually becomes connected with the State by the conversion of Constantine; however, the tension always exists in some fashion between Church and State. (Benedict and his rule were written in response to the popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire.)

Now that these two points have been made we can now explain the person of the priest using Nietzsche's criteria. The priest as a follower of Jesus is by definition a teacher of value inversion and slave morality. However, by being a priest in a position to teach slave morality, the priest is no longer a slave in the same way a lay person is. The priest gains a title of respect which makes him more noble. However, this nobility places the priest in a weird position, because he is not a noble by noble standards. But he is still a noble in the sense of a difference between people.

This circumstance comes with certain temptations. The temptation arises from the system of guilt-debt which is prevalent in slave morality (1163, Treatise 2, #4). Nietzsche uses guilt-debt to explain the connection between having guilt and having a debt toward a religious end, for example salvation of the soul. The salvation of the soul becomes collateral for certain behaviors toward others. It also becomes the source of comparison between one person and another (1166, Treatise 2, #8). This is dangerous for the priest trying to avoid clericalism because the priest has a lot of power in influencing the congregation on the matters of slave morality. Also, slave morality in some respect helps the priest have his life support, because people donate money to support the Church. The encouragement of generosity allows the priests to survive and have the material needs and luxuries they have.

If salvation of the soul becomes collateral for paying a sort of debt to God, there is a danger of losing sight of God's grace. This is where Nietzsche in his analysis is not looking necessarily at what is there, but only what he sees in physical phenomenon. However, the point useful for this analysis is that this can happen, people can feel indebted spiritually and in a sense of gift/donation to a particular priest or Church and lose this sense of a free gift of grace. Particularly in Germany, Martin Luther's memory would be particularly strong for Nietzsche in examining religion, where Luther was critiquing the "buying of grace." (particularly indulgences, which in medieval practice was pay x amount of money toward donation of building St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and one could have sins forgiven) (a bit of an oversimplification but this will suffice for now.) This presupposition may help clarify Nietzsche's position and understand his own feelings in writing what he wrote. Catholic position has a problem with indulgences in that manner of saying ("give us x money, you get sins forgiven." Confession is much more personal and focused on the self growing toward conversion toward a giving slave morality, but also not at the cost of the self completely. There is a greater understanding that there must be a self to give which Nietzsche may not have been exposed to in his own faith and time.)

The above example is a situation of oversimplifying morality either because of a belief that people cannot understand the goods of slave morality and value inversion or because there is an end which wants to be obtained by this simplification. This can happen even in modern times, even with a greater understanding of the self. The rest of this essay wants to explore a new possibility which was not a problem in Nietzsche's time, namely the increasing relations between Church and State and the blending of nobilities. (Nietzsche wrote in a time where the Modernist controversy was prevalent so there was not as much engagement between Church and State. This was a time of increasing fear of the State. This fear changed during Vatican II.)

By the blending of nobilities, I refer to the phenomenon of priests (and lay members who want to work with them) working with politicians to reach certain ends. This takes place in many ways, some which serve the common good, and others of which require us to ask questions. Many efforts take place to serve the needs of the poor, the unborn, the homeless between the two nobilities. However, there is a certain tension which exists because there are philosophies which blend the two nobilities too closely.

For example, say priests and nobles were to each compromise some of their values to make a consensus to serve some benefit. In order to popularize this consensus, priests then would need to explain this in their homilies and sermons to their congregation. People involved with the parish may see this reality and want to agree with it. However, the parishoners who see the problems with this consensus quickly get marginalized because both the secular nobles and religious nobles have power together. They quickly get left to the backs of churches and brought to the aisles, instead of being front and center like they once were. This new philosophy quickly becomes the consensus and this serves both nobilities nicely. The secular nobles can have their power, and the priests benefit both from their congregation and the nobles who are supporting their causes. This temptation is one which cannot be ignored because the temptation for one's own utility is something which is present in life all the time. Nietzsche argues, "the good itself is not true, it is seen as what benefits the people in power (1146-47, Treatise 1, #2)."

This critique of the personalistic norm (see Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, Pope John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) is one which must be addressed in discussing clericalism. Utilitarianism is an attitude which can contribute to the possibility of clericalism because people can focus on how actions benefit themselves. To act in a way one could claim a universal maxim benefits people in authority greatly (Metaphysics of Morals). However, the lesson of slave morality for the priest which is extremely important is that a priest must be a servant of the people. This means resisting the possible temptation to blend moralities of secular and religious nobles.

Nietzsche wants to argue for the secular nobility and argue for power. (1147, Treatise 1, #2) He theorizes that virtue is the "shame of human instinct (1165, Treatise 2, #7)." To fix this problem, he wants people to be unafraid of their instincts to enjoy the suffering of others (1165, Treatise 2, #6). He also saw how people in priestly position had the potential to use their position similarly as a noble uses his position, though it is power for a different end, not physical power, but a spiritual domination of people. Nietzsche's view of human nature is pessimistic, in that doing the good not only is difficult for a human, it is something a human should not do because it hurts the potential of the present (by worrying about the future, which generosity does, especially notable in environmental debates now.) (1145, Preface, #6).

Though this picture is bleak, there is hope to avoid clericalism, and to overcome these difficulties in human nature. However, a more positive view of human nature is necessary in order to accomplish this task. In being, one can have empathetic feelings without some order of morality coming from the nobles of the slave morality. Empathetic feelings are a part of being itself, because persons are raised in community. To avoid clericalism, we have to encourage these sensitivities wherever they arise, in whatever forms of healing people want to bring to others. The cleric must avoid focusing parishoners only on his own sensitivities.

Another important attitude for preventing the possibility of clericalism is realizing that priests are people too, and as such they can fall, need respect and support, but also need to not be deified. If people glamor, ooh a priest :), then the priest will suffer the temptation to think his call is better than everyone else's because everyone tells him so. Priests need to be treated just like a regular person. This means, however, also realizing their need for support because they do not get paid enough money to live on, so in generosity people should be altruistic in serving their priest.

Finally, if there is the temptation for nobilities to blend, it must be stopped at all costs. This can be nothing but destructive to the people in the end. In the former, secular and religious nobles working together can do some good like helping people. A lot of this is seen now where the two sets of nobles work together. However, in being there is also the blending of teachings which confuse what is slave and what is noble. This has happened since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire and this struggle continues today. One must take care to act truly for the good of others and not to fulfill one's own desires.

The discussion on clericalism and the blending of nobilities sheds light on the greatest problem in society today, which is people being used as means to an end for some purpose. This issue needs its own treatment, but if we believe in the slave morality, of a virtue based in generosity, then using should have no possibility in Christian existence and still be called Christian. People are used in many ways: emotionally, spiritually, sexually, physically, mentally. The possibility for clericalism shows that people see this potential for use in our own morality (which Nietzsche shows in his approach). This potential has to change and systems must be built in order to ensure this does not happen.

The other can teach us the most about ourselves. Others see things in us which do not appear to our own sight. We cannot ignore the lessons presented before us, but also we must critically question interpretations, teachings, because this engagement is how traditions live and grow. (Rahner, Chalcedon: End or Beginning?) There's more I could say here but I'll leave this post for questions and the possibility of a re-treatment or an expansion in the future. I hope you enjoyed your read :)

Aristocrates

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Metaphysics of Hugs

What's in a hug? Valentine's Day makes people think of love and happiness and the joy of being with someone. One of the ways in which people express themselves is by giving hugs to one another. But what is in a hug? What is there in the act itself, and then in the emotional consequences surrounding the hug? And why does being itself feel like it changes when a hug is given? After we answer all these questions, we can then learn why I like hugs so much, and wants to encourage everyone to give lots of hugs :)

So to start this post, we must explore the act of a hug itself. A hug itself is compromised of two people who wrap their arms around each other and perform an embrace. This means that physical is required to have a hug in the fullest sense of the term. (You can have a spiritual hug but it's not the same, but still useful in certain situations.) So in essence, a physical hug is two people sharing physical space and enclosing the other in that space as a sign of affection (usually).

However, the sign of affection is where we must explore more. Because this changes the nature of the hug, and it changes being itself. A hug by its nature always involves relationship (in the broad sense of the word) and at least two people. (Big group hugs are also allowed in this as well.) Because of this one must explore hugs in the context of at least two people relating to each other. This context gives light to why being changes when people hug each other.

People experience being as autonomous selves (in this I only mean that one person can never fully understand the being of the other, though emotional intimacy allows one to come close.) In being autonomous selves, people have a sense of independence and a function which allows them to act on their own (namely they do not need a puppet master.) However, when one gives a hug to someone, being changes for both people. A hug puts one past the autonomous self and allows another to enter your personal space. It is a gift of trust.

Being changes in a hug because of the emotional context surrounding a hug as well. Hugs, if one is paying attention, can make one attentive to the needs of the other based on the kind of hug the person is giving. Here are a few examples: first, say for instance a friend is hugging you really tight, is hesitant to let go and is shaking a little bit. This kind of hug is the "I need you, something's wrong" hug. Also, a person could hug really tight and one can feel a looseness in the other's arms even in a tight hug. This is labeled the, "I'm so excited to see you hug." The final example I'll give here is the soft, tender hug which the other person gently makes herself comfortable in your embrace. This will be called the, "Hold me gentle, hold me close and I really do want to be here :) hug." Again, this list of hugs is not exclusive, there are many kinds of hugs but it all depends on the body language, which tells one the emotional circumstances behind the hug. This leads to a change in being because one is drawn into the world of the other person just by what her body tells him.

This is an example of how "tenderness" works in human relationships. To be brief, "tenderness is the ability to immerse oneself in the emotions of the other and to be present to them." (paraphrased from Love and Responsibility pgs 201-207.) This tenderness is a true giving of oneself to the other because it seeks to bring the reality of the other into one's own. Hugs are a very good way of acting in tenderness because it allows two people to enter each other's world, in a mental/spiritual as well as a physical sense.

Another positive metaphysical benefit to the hug is in noticing time. Time itself becomes unnoticeable because the only focus in giving a real hug is the other person. Therefore, presence overtakes time, and being becomes happy as there is a taste of the eternal in being in another's embrace. The moment of the hug can go on forever because one does not feel the limits of time. (The "timeless moment" (me in other posts) is one which needs a re-treatment at some point in the future because this is oversimplifying the reality, but it would sidetrack this post to go further.)

However, this mentality can be abused and its something to watch for in ourselves. Human tenderness can be insincere if it seeks as its primary end to use the hug of another in order to fulfill only their own psychological desires for comfort. In this sense, hugs can be taken but not given, even though it appears a physical hug is given. This is not to say one should be judgmental; however, because there are days when people just need to receive a hug and cannot give one (for whatever physical, psychological, spiritual, emotional reason.) This warning is given as a disposition for each one of us individually so that we can give hugs and in return receive them.

Of course, there are people who do not like touch either, which affects the nature of the hug. However, people that do not like touch can show tenderness in other ways. Eye contact is wonderful for showing tenderness, it shows one really wants to be there with the other person. (Eye contact as a metaphysical reality is something which needs its own treatment at some point in the future, because there is a lot in a "gaze" (Jean Luc Marion In Excess).) This desire to enter the emotional life of another person can be in words, gestures, smiles, but for me the best way to enter the emotional life of another is to give a hug :). Even though it's Lent, and we're supposed to be a little more solemn now, do not be afraid to show others around you that you care about them.

Since the subjects of this study are human beings, sometimes people need physical comfort in order to really feel like the beings they are. Sometimes all someone really needs is for someone to really be there, and be present to their own life, their own story. People also need more than someone who is physically there but emotionally not. A hug is a good entryway to bridge the physical need for comfort and the emotional need of someone really being there. This is how being changes, when we show love in this way, we change it for the better, and lights and rainbows shine in the eyes of others. When we show hatred, we plant the seeds of darkness for sensitive people to see and for all to be possessed by. Our actions change being for light or for dark, and sometimes it's not so obvious what is light and what is dark. This is for those who preach against physical touch, who want exclusively spiritual friendship, who fear humanity's potential to use each other by physical touch. We cannot fear the gift which is given by tenderness and touch, because it has the potential to be used, but rather humanity itself must be willing to not use each other. "We must be the change we want to see" (Gandhi). Without this change, no one else will change, and the solution is not to avoid touching people. The solution to the problem is to trust in the grace of God to provide touch which enriches the lives of people and draws us closer to their being and God's being. The answer is to provide the emotional tenderness which so many people need and yet which philosophy tries to drive people away from the touch out of fears of human darkness. However, it is this fear which drives the darkness, not the touch itself. So give tenderness and hugs, for by this openness to emotional and physical closeness with the other, can we begin to see the being of the other.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Art Critiquing - It's not just for self appointed culture czars anymore!

There are many people these days complaining about the state of our modern American culture today. The sexual exploitation, the apparent race to see what movie or song can be the most appalling, basest schlock that requires the least absolute amount of thinking or reason required to "appreciate" them (I don't think the quotation marks are sufficient indicators for how loosely I am using that word.) A look at high art generally fairs no better, a fair people I know (both art appreciators and self described cultural rubes) generally dislike most modern art of all persuasions due to the direction that the art has taken, the direction that seeks to cut off all the stylistic rules and forms that had been developed through the centuries. Critics are of no help either since they often treat their audiences not as discerning individuals with valued and intelligent tastes but rather as idiots who have to be reminded that they are not refined enough or have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate great art. After a while it almost comes as no surprise that the average person, after being told (in slyly and subtle insinuations so as not to cause to much ire) that they can't understand art chooses to watch reality shows and Family Guy since they are the only diversions out there that they feel competent enough to judge because they require no thinking.
Of course that is a fallacy, anyone can judge art and comprehend it it merely takes a little brain activity. Once you start working at it and put a little time and effort into it you will slowly find yourself building and developing your own philosophy of what constitutes great art - and you people thought you couldn't be philosophers! Of course the task of critiquing art can be daunting, how can you possibly say anything of value when the critics in the paper use words like expression, sublime and always include odd references to early precedents. The truth is to start art critiquing all you really need to know is yourself. To start critiquing find a piece of art that you like (a painting in your house, your favorite cd, movie or tv show, a book you like anything. It doesn't matter if a culture snob would hold his nose and in a stuck up (inexplicably European) voice insult you in an obtuse way.) Focus on your particular work of art, try to define what you like about it, the melody, the colors, this or that particular line. Also look for and acknowledge aspects that you do not like and that you are ambivalent about (this is probably the most difficult part as you generally ignore what you neither like or dislike). Try to describe what you like/dislike in general terms so that you can take your findings to a different piece of art and compare. Eventually you should be able to find some general themes that seem to come up again and again even if the artistic medium is different (you may find similarities in your likes of music and movie scores, or books and song lyrics, or paintings and cinematography) the more you critically look at forms of art the easier it is to become discerning about what constitutes good art and what doesn't.
Like many things, it sometimes helps to write down you critiques on paper or some medium (what do you think idea of this particular blog originated as) as this helps to focus ideas and on the off chance that other people read it they can provide insights and pick up on subtleties in your own philosophy that you hadn't realized and took for granted.
Finally sometimes it seems hard to branch out into new forms of art. Even if you want to get into classical music or paintings how does one know where to start? It works a little differently for different mediums, if it is musical try to find an album that labels itself as the greatest of a particular genre (don't worry if it actually is). Listen to it and find the composers that you enjoy and branch out from there. If you really like the Mozart piece go out and then invest in a Mozart greatest hits and gradually get deeper into the catalog. There are many great websites that will give you advice as to similar composers (try www.allmusic.com for instance). Painting and sculptures are best learned by just visiting your local art museum and looking at what they have to offer. For movies, tv shows and more modern genres of music it can be a little more difficult to find good representatives of the "high points" of the medium but one rule I like to follow is the age rule. Generally a good piece of art has a "timeless" quality to it, it speaks to human nature. So it is a a good bet that a work of art that was made 30, 50 or 80 years ago that is still remembered has some artistic value to it (Citizen Kane, Louis Armstrong, The Twilight Zone etc) .
Perhaps the most important principle to remember when striving to be a critique of art is to be confident, your opinion is of value as long as you express it in an intelligent and coherent way. If you do not like a particular work of art, trust your gut and try to define why if you can come up with a good answer then you have become a legitimate critic, if you can't come up with a good reason why you do not like a piece of art perhaps you need to go back and determine whether you actually don't like it or just haven't quite figured out how to accurately address it.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

An Introduction to Ritual Studies: My Future Work with FOCUS

Hello readers,

Today's entry is going to be less of a prescription to a problem, and more of a methodological piece of some continuing work that I plan to do which may appear on this blog (or as published writing later in life.) In order to understand this work, a description of ritual studies and a beginning (non-scholarly) plain sense treatise on what I am doing is necessary.

Ritual studies is a science which looks at ritual and its effect on community simply put. This can be done in many ways, usually it is a science which requires observation of a particular event, ritual, etc. and then tries to obtain some sort of knowledge about the effect it has on the people who participate in the ritual. Ritual studies can be done on all sorts of events, rituals, people. My particular focus in ritual studies is going to be to examine the FOCUS conference and look at its effect not only on the mentality which the conference wants to derive to its participants, but also what effect this has on Catholic identity. (simply put who's in and who's out in the minds of the speakers at the FOCUS conference.) Also examining is this effect truly consistent with what is Catholic based on what is handed down via the tradition.

In order to do this ritual study, I will need to take note of the order which events happen, and the particular things which stand out while doing the ritual. (examples of this include the style of Mass that occurs at the conference, priests vestments at Mass) but also at the event (meaning the conference itself) which includes the attitudes of the speakers, the topics chosen by the speakers at the conference, etc. These two things together build attitudes about many different topics including ecclesiology (the study of the Church, and what it means to be a Church), ethics (interesting in what ethics the speakers speak about as well), and the human person (is the human person essentially good or bad based on what the speakers talk about mostly, though the ritual norms can teach about anthropology (the study of the human person) as well.)

It is important to note the presuppositions which occur through the speakers at the conference and any common themes they have in their speeches (even if they are on unrelated topics.) For example, if a speaker tells you to be afraid of the world in talking about relativism (the moral theory that morals are subjective to each person, namely there is no objective truth), then later another speaker tells you to be afraid of the world while talking about relationships, this is a common theme which tells the interpreter something about how the leaders of the conference want to influence the attendees.

On the summary, this is the basics of what my work in this area will be. The idea of ritual itself makes this work more complicated because ritual itself is inherently polyvalent and the symbols have their deepest meaning only when one is a part of the community. My own presuppositions complicate this work as well because I'm not simply writing whatever I do as a favorable treatise on FOCUS, rather my own presuppositions want to critique what happens at this conference. This in turn, will affect how I interpret the data, there is no avoiding this, but I will provide copious notes and copies of programs to show from where my tendencies to see certain parallels come. (The postmodern problem discusses this at great length, which I will avoid for sake of space, though this problem will come up in future writings, as this is a presupposition of my thinking.)

Again, anything substantive on this topic which I write is a long ways away but I do want to show people where my mind is coming from as I write or talk about this specific topic. I understand methodology can be a bit boring, (I also have struggles in reading methodology pieces) but it's important in this case to know the method both for people who personally interact with me on this topic and for those who may be interested in reading the ritual studies work which comes forth later.

I welcome comments and questions for ideas which can be explored in ritual studies. Thank you all for your time.

Aristocrates

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Liminality and Christianity: How acting like a child is a good thing

Note: I have to thank Taylor Morgan for this blog entry because his research question in the Gospel of Matthew course about Mt 19 sparked a discussion on liminality which will be the basis for this blog entry. Discussion notes are taken from the same course from Professor Charles Bobertz.

Welcome readers,

Today's blog entry will require a use of the imagination as it requires one to imagine a state of being where there are no loyalties and talks about an uncommon state of being for those of us who have been in society for a while. Here's a quote to demonstrate the paradox which this blog entry will bring forth. "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:13-15).'" This parable presents a paradox to our understanding of growth, because as we see, people do not stay children forever; matter of fact, in society we are encouraged to grow up and become a part of the society. So what could Jesus possibly mean by stating the "kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Mt 19:15)."
Many interpretations can be given for this passage. One could argue that there must be a childlike faith in all people. Another plausible interpretation is that Jesus is setting an impossible teaching because the attitude of a child is near impossible to keep for all of one's life. However, these two interpretations do not bring the social reality of children or the Christian call to the forefront in this passage. These two factors are important in examining this passage because they demonstrate the Christian reality and children have a tendency to act with certain behavior which can be carried into the world.
First, one must think of how many times children must be told, "don't talk to strangers." Why do we warn our children not to talk to strangers? Because strangers might hurt our children. One can only list the horrific things which happen to children, e.g. pedophilia, kidnapping. Strangers might do this so we keep our kids away from strangers until we know who they are. Why do children trust strangers? Because on the aggregate, children have a deep trust and love for everyone. Children have a natural tendency to love and avoid the tribal conflicts which we so often get into. (Younger children especially, once school starts then tribalism tends to grow because of societal influences.) One interpretation of the passage above is the possibility that Jesus knows this as well and points to the example of the children as an example of the unbiased love the disciples must show to all people.
This phenomenon of children showing unbiased love is an example of liminality, or an experience of being above cultural and social status. Christian practice (particularly Catholic practice) presents baptism as not only entering into a new life, but also being baptized into the death of Christ. By sharing death with Christ, all who are baptized are made equal. Social status means nothing in the Christian reality because all are equal in Christ. ("for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:24-28.) However, it is not equality just for the members of the sect, it also must apply to every person one meets. People who are baptized into the death of Christ must strive to act like Christ. The merits of his life and death are numerous and all these virtues are told in the Gospels.
Next question, all of this sounds wonderful, but in a world which is postmodern, with many different cultures, how can one live in an ethic of liminality. There are many ways which one can envision this ideal, for sake of space, I will list three.
1) Know yourself. It is hard to love others with an unbiased love if you do not know yourself. Knowing yourself allows you to have patience for those who think differently from you. Also, knowing yourself allows you to respect other people's positions because you are secure in your own. (This is why it is impossible to do true ecumenical dialogue unless you know yourself but that's another discussion for another time.)
2) Do not be afraid to have feelings of tenderness and to express that affection for others. Also, do not be afraid to show tenderness to those who might need it. The function of tenderness is thus, "Awareness of a tie, awareness of a share in the existence and activity, the joys and sufferings of another being bids us think tenderly not only of other people, but also for instance of the animals who share our lot (Love and Responsibility, 201)." Tenderness is being sensitive to the fact that we all have more in common than in difference. The things we have in common include life; the fact that we all suffer and have hardships, but also have joys. We all want to have true communion in sharing life with others. (One could also call this having "True Friendship" (see the book with the same title by John Cuddeback for more information.)
We see tenderness in our midst everyday in many ways. Most prevalently, we see it with our extroverted friends who want to know everyone and want to listen to a lot of life stories. They like to give out lots of hugs and various forms of touch. Tenderness is also displayed in the patient ear of a friend who listens to our sufferings. Extending these feelings of tenderness increases our sensitivity to the problems in being around us. When we increase these sensitivities, our love for others increases, even those who do not think like us. (The use of the tribal us is questionable here, but I'm going to leave it for now, since every individual thinks a little differently; however, there tends to be some form of tribal mentality in aligning with people who think mostly like us.)
3) Embrace mystical theology and do not be afraid of it. (This is assuming you are into theology, if you're not into theology you can skim ahead to the next section.) Mystical theology focuses on the relationship of the human person to God, and in turn to all things. Rahner in Theological Investigations Volume 7 illustrates this point well when he writes, "the Christian of the future will be a mystic, or will not be a Christian at all." Mystic, for Rahner, focuses on sensitivity to being around the person. A disposition of this brand of mystical theology would be tenderness. Mystical theology engages people to become more sensitive as God makes Himself more present. This gift of immanence helps the mystic see the gift of God in all things, and in turn, the person can relate to the being of each thing more because of this gift. This breaks tribalisms and allows people to live the condition of liminality because unbiased love comes from an increased sensitivity to being. When one sees sufferings of the self or others, one can react with love, and when the same person sees someone overjoyed, she can share in that joy as well, because God is the bringer of liminality for people. Whether this be external, or a prayer offered for that person, is up to the individual mystic; however, this is a theology which acts in ways contrary to culture, and to the cultures of Church politics as well. Mystical theology is for everyone, but it requires an openness which all can achieve if one chooses. (More can be said on mystical theology, but it requires its own treatise which room does not suffice for here.)
Though the ethic is challenging, the results are fun to watch. When one can see people who deeply live tenderness in their being, and love others, these are the most inspiring people to be around. Two drastically different perspectives in Catholic world (Rahner and JPII) can see this same reality, even though they approach it from different perspectives. (Rahner from the perspective of the Holy Spirit, and JPII from the approach of relationships.) Diversity in approach leads to a unity in opinion. This same challenge is presented to all of us as we walk our journeys through life to attempt to reach heaven, a kingdom which is given to the smallest of children and those who can act as such.

Aristocrates

P.S. This writing is rather limited because many of these questions need a greater detail than can be addressed here. Questions, comments, heckling, we're glad to listen to all of it. Peace,

Monday, February 1, 2010

Album Review: Elton John's Madman Across the Water


Now to start a new monthly series! In an attempt to diversify the intellectual offerings at this site I am going to start review some of what I consider great music albums. The genres are varied but in general I am going to try to stick with what i know, so that probably means mostly rock albums with a few jazz and country albums thrown in. I don't make any claims on being original or revolutionary in the albums I pick, but I feel all of them are of high artistic quality.

The first in my series is a lesser known gem from Elton John (I suppose that is a relative term considering how popular he was back in the '70s). Madman Across the Water was Elton John's fourth album and his third one that was somewhat successful. It continues his and lyricist Bernie Taupin's fascination with Americana that they had first explored in Tumbleweed Connection, but instead of the warm and rich frontier themes they explored on that impressive album Madman musically and lyrically deals with the less storied and less often considered "dark" times in America past. The Post-Reconstruction South, The Indian Wars, World War II all get lyrical treatments although never directly, only as settings in which the characters are living and reacting to. Aside from the sunny and bright opener "Tiny Dancer" this is an album of weighty epics anchored by an amazing string score from Paul Buckmaster which gives the whole album a very cinematic (albeit very artsy not so much grand western style) quality especially when combined with the lyrical material. The album's mood is in fact very summarily encapsulated by the album cover, A stark and barren denim blue with only the title and artist in front and a track listing on the back. No pictures, no eye candy, just a solemn weightiness and dignity.

Side 1

Tiny Dancer: Unlike the rest of the album, the first and most famous song revels in a sunny southern California rock style, laid back upbeat, a not so subtle hint of country (those wonderful steel guitars!) filled in with a rousing orchestration that while not being too heavy, helps to keep the song from sounding to out of sync with the rest of the album.

Levon: A somber tail of a hardened man in a cold world that devoid of all kindness and on the brink of despair, Levon starts what could be considered the "proper" tone for the album. It is a majestic song that seems to capture the sullen and proud nobility of life in the world brought on by the industrial revolution. This is a song that could easily be applied to Victorian London as much as post WWII America (which is what I always pictured). Musically it is one of Elton's masterpieces. The song starts with piano, but then it hits you with a powerful low string section and then, as the chorus sets in, with the drums to give it a powerful ballad without ever being over the top or bombastic. Elton's vocals really pull this song together, especially in the second verse when he changes the melody just a little bit in order to sending it soaring into the space like heights that the lyrics are describing.

Razor Face: Another song of a man trudging on in a cold cruel world, Razor Face differs from Levon in the comfort and joy that Razor Face gets from the people around him. In a sense Razor Face is the opposite of Levon, he has nothing it seems and has been a wanderer all his life, no steady job and no family. Yet he seems to have more, he has joy in the company around him and love from the friends he has made. Plus the accordion workout at the end of the song, is absolutely amazing, seductively sliding into the song without being obtrusive (this is probably the first time the word "seductive" has been used to describe the accordion.)

Madman Across the Water: The title track of the album, some of the lyrics mention a nightmare and this song is a perfect musical representation of a nightmare. The strings and melody combine to provide a very claustrophobic tension that is never resolved in the song, it just fades to black. The lyrics are dark and cryptic, although keeping in with the Americana theme, I would imagine that Taupin is the madman (from Britain, so its "across the water.")

Side 2

Indian Sunset: Perhaps the most movie-like song on the album, this is the story of an Indian warrior fighting and dying for the survival of his people (unfortunately, all the various Indian tribes are kind of meshed into one (Iroquois with teepees? This man got around the entire country, but perhaps I am being to literal.) and the lyrics almost sound stereotypical to the point of lameness at times. But the song's very long and gradual crescendo (starting with a lone solo voice and building into the musical climax at the end coinciding with his death at the end) fits the power of the story. Adding to the cinematic quality of the song is the middle interlude that jumps into an odd monologue describing why the man is going to war. He wants to secure a small place in the world to raise his family and live free (if that is not the American dream, I don't know what is). Finally the story ends on a dark note; The brave warrior, tired and disillusioned, now homeless and hopeless in the land that once carried everything for him accepts defeat and welcomes death for the peace it will bring him.

Holiday Inn: Coming like a breath of fresh air, musically, from the heavy dread of "Indian Sunset". "Holiday Inn" feels as sunny and breezy as Tiny Dance does at the beginning. A mandolin busily flits in and out of the lyrics as the narrator describes a weariness of traveling (in this case touring with a band) that seems to be perfectly described by the similarity and boring sterileness (I believe I have created a word here..) that is the Holiday Inn. The song captures that odd anxious desire one has after a vacation to get back home, to be done with traveling by combining the weary lyrics with the light and bouncy music.

Rotten Peaches: Southern soul greets the listener with the first guitar in this song. The lyrical imagery of the song is also heavily indebted to the gospel sound. I have always imagined this to be a song about slaves struggling to adjust and settle into the United States after Civil War and the failure of Reconstruction although the second verse doesn't fit with that interpretation very well, but if the last verse is taken literally a home in Africa is many thousands of miles a way! Plus rotten peaches then seem to represent white men, since the narrator is trying to escape from rotten peaches, but no mater where he goes he sees them, they are inevitably a part of his life.

All the Nasties: This is probably the most cryptic song in the bunch, and that is saying a lot. At any rate, this is the one song that I have not quite figured out what it exactly means. It obviously is about oppression of some sort, but who the individual being oppressed is or who the oppressors are I have no Idea. The Church choir in the background of this song helps to lend it a weighty quality that the unclear lyrics don't and gives it just a hint of drama which goes a long way to making this song feel more coherent lyrically then it actually is.

Goodbye: A short, sparse and very despondent song that closes out the full album, it seems to imply a man (well narrator) who has been used up by someone else completely, perhaps sacrificed for the pleasure of others (he is a songwriter). The second verse is full of Christ-like illusions, but these images which in Christianity have a very powerfully joyful context are despondent because the sacrifice is not the choice of the individual who is doing the sacrificing, but rather decreed upon him by others.

Madman Across the Water could have been a very difficult album to sit through, but Elton John's keen musical sense keeps it from becoming an unbearably awful train wreck of human misery. Its arrangements give the songs, and the album as a whole, a feeling of the sadness and despondency in the human world, but in the back there is always a faint glimmer of hope and of that enduring human quality of being able to grasp tightly upon the small rays of happiness that find their way into our lives. It's mood, and the fact that most of the songs are around 5 minutes long make it a very tough album to "get into." It is a sleeper album that has to grow on you. It's grand and epic, but never bombastic which means the rich dividends that the songs supply are only achieved by a careful, deliberate and repeated listenings.