In Which I Enrage Millions

By now the entire world is aware. Well, likely not the entire world, but at least the entire portion of the world that would have given two-shits insofar as they are already connected through industrialized technological communicative media. In order to move this along, I'll assume you are not aware even though you already are. 'Aware of what?', we'll pretend that you asked.

Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, has died

While it is unfortunate that anyone dies, it's not surprising. That's part of being human. It is also saddening when death occurs because of the way it impacts friendships and communities. We are relational creatures and form attachments to one another based on how we identify ourselves and others within those relationships. It is because of these inevitable relationships, that we often witness others using the words or deeds of the recently departed as testimonies to the worthiness of the life they lived. The very recent passing of Steve Jobs is no different. People have flocked to the technological resources and resultant social networks he helped to facilitate in order to express their opinions and feelings on the matter. This is not unexpected. One could argue that although I am not on the 'fandom' side of the Apple user-base, I am doing the same thing even now. Anyone who knows me and my penchant for opining on everything, would not find this unexpected either.

What I do find unexpected and alarming, is the language being used and (at least one of) the quotes that are being held up as testimonies to Steve Jobs' 'so-called' greatness. Many other industry leaders have praised Jobs for his inspirational qualities, for revolutionizing the way we live, for making the world a better place, and so and and so forth. Someone I am acquainted with in real life posted the following quote from Jobs.

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most importantly, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” - Steve Jobs (since I'm a big nerd, I had to track down that this quote is taken from his commencement address to Stanford in 2005)

Whenever I encounter 'bumper sticker' statements like this, I cannot help but react. Society is inundated with statements of this nature. Statements like these are supposedly inspirational, revitalizing, empowering, clarifying, or whatever else you want to call them. I call them crap. Since this personal acquaintance is also a relatively committed member of my home church, and since they have a spouse who is currently a seminary student striving to become a ordained minister, I thought it best (though in hindset, impetuous) to respond from my systematic theological background. I quote from my own facebook comment to the posting of this quotation. "Oh [sic] behalf of systematic theologians everywhere, i would like to dislike this. dogma is not just antiquated philosophical drivel. my inner voice is in bondage to sin and cannot free itself. my intuition has led me astray in every instance thusfar. this man is no mahatma ghandi, martin luther, or jesus christ. he. ran. a. company. #makingEnemiesTonight #badPerson" (apologies for my inability to link directly to the post or this comment, they have since been deleted by the aforementioned acquaintance.) The response from my associate turned the conversation in a direction wherein Jobs was defended and praised for creating, stimulating, and developing the technological and artistic industry through the creations of his company. She tried defending his praiseworthiness by saying that much of the world's progress, which I and other members of first-world nations enjoy, was due to his praiseworthy attributes of inspiration, creativity, and so on...

I do not find this to be a good thing. Yes, I own an ipod. Yes, I enjoy the frivolous comforts of modern technology. Yes, I realize that it takes creativity and hard work to cause the creation of these technological pleasantries. However, just because someone worked hard to make something that we can enjoy, does not mean that we can or should derive hope from these things. Nor does it mean that our hope or identity is provided by their so-called 'freeing' nature. It absolutely doesn't mean that the person (or more realistically, people) involved in the creation of the things we enjoy is inspirational or revolutionary or someone who improves the world we live in. These so-called 'freeing' or 'beneficial' results we cling to are false. However shiny or entertaining or new or remarkable these products may be, they are idols. However enterprising or creative the makers of these products may be, they are not making the world a better place. These are not philanthropic efforts, they are capitalistic commerical products.

Steve. Jobs. Ran. A. Company.

He did not die for your sins. He did not rally millions against racial injustice. He did not serve the needs of the poor. He did not advocate for the voiceless or the oppressed.

He developed products in order to make money.

It was at this point where someone else attempted to converse with me on this matter. Instead of doing so by talking about the theological issues at hand, he did so by accusing me of having worldviews and 'churchviews' that I simply do not have. His understanding of my views of what the church is or what the church does reflect a complete disconnect from who I am or what I believe. It was hurtful. While I do not think his statements were intended as such, they were made in that sort of religious passive-aggressive manner that just makes you feel icky. Like when someone who you know doesn't think highly of you tells you 'God Bless You.' .... when you need a shower after they say something ... it was kinda like that.

I recognized the communicative disconnect at this point and wrote a rather lengthy (IMAGINE THAT! :P) retort in an effort to clarify matters. It was not responded to and then the whole 'thread' was deleted. I will attempt to reiterate its contents here.

Note: This is the gist of what I've been thinking/trying to say on the Steve Jobs matter (not just in the event of his passing, but for throughout most of the iProductCraze

When people throw out adjectives and other such praise for Steve Jobs, they are using language that is filled with adoration and reeks of worship. This is not disconcerting when encountered in the largely secular sphere, for who expects CNN to be mindful of the religious connotations of certain words. But when we find it amidst members of the religious community, it is particularly troublesome. Some quick examples: The Jobs' family has called him 'a visionary.' Our president has echoed this sentiment and stated that "Steve was among the greatest of American innovators - brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it." Obama also says that "[Jobs] changed the way each of us sees the world." Google CEO Larry Page said, "He always seemed to be able to say in very few words what you actually should have been thinking before you thought it." [http://gizmodo.com/5847151/reactions-to-steve-jobs-death] Although these are but a few of the reactions and come from industry leaders, rather than ordinary citizens, they too reflect the praise and admiration showered on the memory of Steve Jobs. Furthermore, although I understand that the reactions quoted above do not come from religious leaders or communities, they are united with many of those sentiments I have read from my religious friends insofar as they speak of identifying the worth of a person by what they do or what they make. Our culture loves to send the message that it is what you do that defines you (thanks so much Batman Begins :P). When we meet someone, we ask where they work. If you're a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon you're viewed with more esteem than a janitor, farmer, or teacher. This is likely what grinds my gears the most, particularly because I currently find myself unemployed. My point in all this is that the deeds and works which are being praised particularly in the case of Steve Jobs' passing, are not what constitute the worthiness of a human being as God's creation. They are not in reference to works of philanthropy (which, although my research of Jobs' philanthropy is remedial thusfar, doesn't seem to be much at all). They are not in reference to imago dei (you saw that coming didn't you). They are in praise of technological developments and the human spirit.

History already had this period of misguided adoration. It was the enlightenment.

Christians, especially Lutherans, do not praise virtues ... we praise fruits of the Spirit and the one Lord through Christ who gives these unto all people.

In defensive response to those hurtful statements by a fellow colleague, my assertions on this matter are not of my selfish egoism seeking to reform the church into my own image, as if a) I had any legitimate standing to do so, b) the church would welcome reform, c) we were even talking about matters contained within 'churchly or right-hand' kingdom. If you think my vision of the church is oppressive, you obviously know very little of what I consider the church to be.

Jobs might have been a nice person, or a brilliant technological developer, or savvy company leader, but he is by no means deserving of the 'inspirational' labels of glory that we keep ascribing to him.

Furthermore, this figurehead-esque appreciation of Jobs is ridiculous. He may have been the CEO of Apple. Apple may have put out technological products we might use and enjoy. But he himself did not sit down and program every line of code in every Apple product. He did not craft the circuitry or the sleak design of every single ipod or accessory we love so much. These products were the result of numerous (wo)man-hours. There is a massive human infrastructure involved in nearly every project. He lead them yes, and good for him. He may have been a nice guy or a good manager, but let's not equate the guy with Willy Wonka and forget about unrecognized Oompa Loompas (regardless of how incompetent they happen to be when we come across them in the Apple store or at the Starbucks).

So the guy died of cancer. That's tragic and many people suffer and die from cancer and other diseases everyday. So the guy was the figurehead at every damn iProduct #+1 announcement. Yay, some people like their shiny iProducts. Ultimately this guy didn't change the world. He developed the industries and pleasantries that the richer 2% of the planet enjoys when they need distraction from the lived reality of others. To revere, mourn, and discuss his life and work as if he were the second coming was ridiculous and idolatrous when each product was launched and it's equally so now that he has departed this mortal coil.

Response to "The Limits of Empathy and Why Men Can't Be Feminists"

Original Article: The Limits of Empathy and Why Men Can't Be Feminists

There are a number of issues that, in my mind, come to the forefront when I read your blog on this matter. I'm going to do my best to write on them in such a way that doesn't make me feel like I'm sounding like so many men I can't stand.

I'm going to try and summarize your blog in a sentence, just so I know what I'm working with and (although I hope I'm not misrepresenting your own words) at least you can read the impression I'm working with and to which I'm reacting.

You're asserting, from the experiences of being female and from recent(?) exposure to James Cone's liberation/power theology, that males cannot be feminist because of the way differences in shared experiences prevent a fullness of empathetic theological formation.

Out of all of this, I want to work with essentialism, empathy, and power. I'll start with essentialism. It seems to me that you're saying males cannot be feminist because there is a experience (or development thereof) that is essential to the female sex that prevents any degree of empathy on the part of males. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that there is a shared biological experience among females that necessitates and facilitates feminist theology or if you're saying that there is a shared ontological experience of encountering reality among females that does so. In either case, I find this to be rather offensive for two reasons. First, I am male and consider myself to be a feminist. To be far, this is what contributes to my interest in this post in the first place. Second, that this assertion works with a troublesome gender binary. With the increasing awareness of GLBTQ advocacy in our world, we can no longer operate with biological binaries as categorical determiners. Moreover, I would argue that working with the 'men are from mars / women are from venus' framework is equally troublesome.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you're not saying that the biological differences between males and females prevents the empathetic formation necessary for feminist theology and if you're not saying that there are gender binaries operating that cause distinctly different perceptions of the world in males and females (which in turn also prevents empathetic formation), then it seems that you're saying there's something else preventing males from feminist empathetic formation. I will agree there there plenty of other possibilities that could prevent such empathy. Sexism, greed, power dynamics, scriptural interpretation etc. all contribute to the formation of individual and communal worldviews that build walls between the sexes rather than facilitate intercommunication between them. But even these troubling possibilities shouldn't be deemed as legitimate reasons for making a sweeping statement 'preventing' all males from locating themselves within the feminist historical movement. If physical biology and sociological preconditions aren't the experiences you say separate males from empathetic community with females in the feminist movement, what experience of being female do you assert 'prequalifies' a female for 'membership' within the feminist movement? What about being male makes 'sharing' such an experience impossible?

Concerning power, it seems that a decent portion of your argument here is grounded in the historic manifestations of the distance between the haves and the have-nots, particularly insofar as males have respectively personified the former and females the later. You are arguing, unless I'm missing an implicit essentialist assertion, that because males have historically embodied positions of authority and females have not, "between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. (Luke 16:26)" Moreover, you assert that the driving male interest in feminist is really only a means of getting past male guilt for any intentional or unintentional participation/support of sexism. I find this to be terribly offensive. I will agree however, that because of the doctrine of sin, our best intentions are marred by our own self-interests. Nevertheless, any Lutheran theological assertion that all masculine intention to support/participate in the feminist movement is _only_ driven by the desire to remove guilt from one's self (admittedly ignoring the blessed exchange's relevance here) cannot really be Lutheran at all simply because it ignores the presence of the simul within the human creature. As I mentioned on twitter, this statement you make is just as offensive as saying that white people are only interested in causes to abolish racism in order to feel less guilty about being white. In response, you brought up the point that GLBT supporters are not known as GLBT, which despite being true merely illustrates that this whole argument comes down to a matter of semantics. Although there may be instances wherein this 'guilt confrontation' is the driving factor in attracting/keeping certain individuals within larger political movements, saying that this is the norm is offensive both to the individuals and to the movements themselves. Feminism does have its moments when it is about confronting the guilt males have to take in their systemic abuse, neglect, etc. of females. But in addition to the critical importance of the feminist movement, it also has constructive importance as well. Making sexuality a definitional characteristic of feminism does not serve the movement's constructive thrust. It states what the movement is not and does not assert what the movement is.

I too have read Cone's work (some of it) and I will agree that power dynamics and the differences between those who have and those who do not play a big role in communal formation and solidarity when it comes to racial or sexual liberative theologies. In a sense you're mad-libbing the Christian mantra from Mark 10. Instead of selling all that one has and giving to the poor, which given the relationship between money and power is valid, you're putting in gender, power, position of authority, etc. in the place of money. On the face of things, this seems well and good. However there are irrevocable characteristics that mediate our physical existence as well as our relationships to one another. Despite Jesus' words about removing eyeballs or limbs, I cannot 'give away my maleness' especially if we confess that gendered humanity is created imago Dei. Nor should I have to locate myself in the midst of a binary (or otherwise divided) system of Christian anthropological reformation given that the very nature of Christian community is one in which the distinctions of race, sex, and power do not hold chief importance. These accidental (Aquinas' not State Farm's) characteristics play a part in the kingdom but only in a vocational sense.

If your concern with power is not with some sort of inherently corrupted nature it imbues onto human beings (as if we needed any help in that area), but rather with the construction of liberative feminist community, then I am especially confused by what role (if any) you think males have in this endeavor. If I, as a male, cannot be a feminist because of biology or historical association with power, then how can I be understood as an ally? Aren't those particularities (for good or ill) still at play in my role as an ally of the feminist movement? If males are not participants within the historical movement of feminism, then how do you even begin to talk about instances when male participation has already taken place?

In the end, it seems that your interest in excluding males from 'membership' within the feminist movement is not one that seeks to better the movement in itself but rather seeks to find a specialized locality for your own particular importance within a larger movement. We all like to feel like we're needed. But saying that redefining the parameters of my particular subset of a demographic is somehow helping the larger demographic is incorrect. In the long run, making a definitional statement about a larger community in order to change its communal contour to adhere to my own particularity, is a disservice to the community I claim to support and perpetuates disingenuous membership therein.

Thinking About Brokenness

This is written in response to a query from a friend of mine. Upon further reflection, I figured I might as well put it out there as a Jacksonian Contemplation/blogpost.

My experiences of brokenness have, for the most part, been with institutions, disease, and my own self.

A) Institutionally, I imagine my feedback is going to be eerily similar to that of most peoples you may have talked to who also have affiliations with the seminary or Lutheran Church. Or ... organized religion in any form. My own experiences were with my personal sense of call and being completely misunderstood or disregarded as 'valid' in my pursuit of that call. Brokenness, in this instance, deals primarily with my personal sense of expectation from the church body and the way in which those expectations were not met. As in any sense of brokenness, you can blame either the 'subject' or the 'object.' Because I have such wonderful self-esteem, I blame the 'object' in this instance (namely myself). I do however have friends and family members who choose to blame the 'subject,' namely the church as an institutional body.

B) While I myself do not have a direct experience with disease, I have witnessed someone very close to me suffer needlessly from it and finally enter the peace of death. Brokenness in this sense, is something I understand to be attached to the world on a natural level. It is something inextricably linked with creation and altogether unfathomable in any real rational sense. Disease happens. Famine happens (albeit when it is the fault of a despot, things are a little more 'rationally explainable'). Natural disasters happen. People suffer. People die. People are also born into these situations. People live through them. People choose them as instances to offer aid to others. The wheels on the bus go round and round. Brokenness, i've come to realize through this experience, is self-perpetuating. One could make this case for epidemic diseases that spread through just about any physical means possible. I don't think brokenness necessary is limited to self-perpetuation through singular means however. The brokenness of watching someone physically and emotionally deteriorate from disease can effect those who witness in such a way as to pollute or infect their own intellectual or spiritual worldview. Brokenness is wrapped up in the problem of evil and once that problem is encountered in such a personal way ... it becomes infectious in its problematicness (yes i made up a word).

C) I often wonder how many people would intentionally and instinctively 'locate' brokenness within their own selves. Lutheran liturgical use of confession and forgiveness has lots of this 'my own grievous fault' language in it. But much of my lived interaction with other Lutherans indicates that more emphasis is placed on the simul iustus rather then the peccator. One could say that this observation is itself broken, a means of feeling 'proud' that I recognize my own sinfulness. Nevertheless, I do locate brokenness within myself primarily. Even before I start worrying about the problem of evil or natural disasters. My own personal inclinations, instincts to do/think/say wrong, are things of which I am keenly aware. My location of brokenness within the self, is not limited to interpersonal sin. I am aware of the physical brokenness of flesh, as I suppose we all are, of orthopedic/orthodontic/dietary/pulmonary problems over which I have no control. Even if one accepts this 'self-oriented worldview' as valid, it is still labeled as 'broken' by Lutheran Confessions with respect to its incurvatus in se. Yay, I get to feel bad twice! What I have discovered to be the problem of brokenness (in regards to locating it within the self), is that when one orients themselves outwardly toward God and the neighbor, one is still really shitty at being a good Samaritan. The brokenness isn't just an orientation you can toggle from 0 to 1. It's indicative of personhood and existence on this side of death.

Assuming (ha!), I could make any conclusions out of all this stuff, I'm going to try a bit of summation. In my encounters with brokenness, whether experientially or existentially, I find myself instinctively drawn to blame either the subject or the object of these encounters. In other words, when brokenness happens it's either the fault of God, Satan (if one's inclined to believe in the cosmological entity, another person, an institution, a systemic force, or of one's self. Within the very act of placing blame, one could see the resultant infectious nature of brokenness as having entered into the self. Personally, I understand the blaming of brokenness on something/someone as a defense mechanism. In an encounter with brokenness, we find ourselves drowning in the inexplicable. Brokenness feels familiar and in a sense comfortable due to its integral relationship with existence on this side of death. Nevertheless, it also feels unnatural. When we are confronted by its 'ought not be so' unnatural nature, we are compelled to make sense of its senselessness. So, although we can say that blaming brokenness on God, Satan, sin, or whatever is a defense mechanism, I think that to do so is a matter of defending ourselves from despair by means of explanation and not rationalization. As to the gender perspectives on all this, I do not know. Ontologically, I can only speak from the male perspective and even then am limited to my own particular existential context. I suspect, that genders have a variety of encounters with brokenness (experientially and existentially) but I also suspect that the struggle with 'ought to be' and 'identity' is common among us.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Speaking & Hearing

Greetings again vague ethereal realm that may or may not be populated by audience members,

I have been thinking a lot lately. No doubt this is due to a recent personal decision to give up on academic study, at least for the next couple (read: 5-10) years. As is the case with any change, the shift from one semi-stable perspective into a new potential volatile perspective usually necessitates some degree of anxiety. For me anxiety comes as a two-fold wave of simultaneous introspection and external examination. I think about myself and I think about others.

Within this two-fold wave, there is an enormous tendency to be judgmental. I find myself hurling insults at myself (insert cliche Freudian analysis here) and I also find myself thinking spiteful things about others (insert divisive sin analysis here). In some small degree, I think there is something beneficially therapeutic about this judgmental phase. It helps to burn off the anxiety but is definitely unhelpful insofar as it also is likely to build up more of anxiety's problematic element. I should probably note that I don't think anxiety itself is a problem. History has shown us many instances when anxiety has brought about a beneficial production or reduction within individual or communal life. It may be that the pruning within an anxiety phase, of one's own regrets or one's misgivings of others, could be beneficial as part of the introductory portion of a new project in one's life. Nevertheless, the way this anxiety has presented itself for me, in the aforementioned introspection and examination, has compelled the writing of this particular blog entry. In other words, this was the longest and most unconstructive introduction ever.

One of my relationships has recently kicked off this introspection/examination in particular. Someone I know (Person A) is having a significant amount of trouble with a particular issue in their life (vagueness is on purpose). They (Person A) recently communicated their frustrations to another person I know (Person B). Person B however, is also struggling with the same issue. It is debatable whether Person A knew about Person B's shared anxiety in this matter. Nevertheless, I know that Person B feels particularly hurt and upset that Person A didn't recognize the sharedness of their plight and instead chose to contour their communication in such a way that presumed either exclusivity or a greater degree of intensity. In other words, Person A emphasized their problem so greatly that Person B felt like their experience of the same problem meant nothing (either in the grand scheme of things or in the eyes of Person A).

This event triggered my internal/external analysis in such a way that I'm now wondering about how it is that we speak and hear. Obviously these things are contextually governed. Speaking can be tailored by our education, region of birth, emotional framework, etc. Hearing can be tailored by these things as well as by our societal construction and experiences within (or without) relationships. Now I don't want to end this blog or train of thought by appealing to the cliche 'contextual' answer. That really seems like a cop out to me. So what I have been wondering, is if there are aspects of our individualized contextual makeup that carry throughout our communicative hermeneutics. Do I have a certain way of feeling within communication, that although it is created and informed by certain interactions through my life or genetic familial inheritance, maintains consistent throughout my communication in such a way that it no longer reflects who others were in my family tree or who others were _to_ me, but actually indicates who I am in and of myself? And does this sort of 'consistency as identity' apply for others? Can it be utilized as a (tentative at best) intra-communal paradigmatic map?

Concerning the 'triggering instance' mentioned earlier, Person A is strong willed. Person B is too, but needs nurturing in that strength in order to be forthright in their communication. I keep returning to these characteristics as indicative of the way these two people speak and the way in which they hear. Hopefully you can see where the problems would arise.

I remember in my undergrad speech courses and in my premarital counseling, that we were told of how rehearsing is a horrible way to go about interpersonal communication. When you talk to me about how you're going to go grocery shopping, and instead of listening I'm rehearsing my response to you about how my last grocery shopping experience went, messages aren't received well. I'm not necessarily saying that rehearsal is the problem in the 'triggering instance.' But I have been thinking about how I myself go about rehearsing.

Often times I catch myself rehearsing in my interpersonal conversations. Other times, rehearsal functions well as a preparation for future interactions. Where I find it functions best however, is when I'm trying to make sense of my own thoughts. When I am trying to sort out the myriad of voices all clamoring for the microphone, I find it best to rehearse the various hypothetical reactions. What happens if we let this part of me run this particular instance or what about vice versa? Usually this helps to resolve some problems before they actually arise. However, there is always the problematic exception.

I've mentioned this exception in the past, because it usually arises in my marriage. Don't get me wrong, my marriage is freakin' great. This is merely an illustration. Sometimes I'll think to myself, 'I should tell Sarah that I haven't paid the power bill yet.' Then she'll ask me, 'Didn't you pay the power bill?' and I'll go 'You know I haven't I told you that already,' when in fact I hadn't. There is a strange instance wherein my mind rehearses a scenario and assumes the scenario has communicatively taken place when in fact it has not. Ultimately (at least concerning this really contrived blog post) I think the solution to this problem of communication within my marriage is also the answer to the 'triggering-problem' I've been pondering.

I think communication works best when we honestly make our implicit assumptions into explicit communication. If I assume you know about me not paying the power bill yet, and I don't explicitly state that, when my assumption is wrong, the situation breaks all over. When Person A assumes that Person B hears their argument as they intend it, and Person B doesn't, the situation breaks and feelings are hurt. Conversely, when Person B assumes that Person A intends to ignore their perspective on an issue and doesn't communicate that, Person A is not allowed to honestly and forthrightly characterize themselves.

So where does all this go, in terms of how we speak and hear? I think we need to communicate in such a way that is informed chiefly by the awareness that 'life is short.' We don't get all the time in the world to cycle through the possible combinations of interlinked assumptions. Even if we did have that time, it would still be unfair to assume (again) that the other party would be faithful enough to us to stick around while we blundered through speaking and hearing. When we honestly communicate with one another, about what we know, don't know, assume, or ignore ... we're not only setting up a framework where communication has less opportunity for disconnection. We're also communicating a sense of value and priority toward the other person, that our relationship with them is so important to us, that they are so important to us, that we dare not risk sacrificing time with them over misconceptual squabbles. Whether we communicate that value and priority explicitly or implicitly, I think it is the most important thing we have to speak to one another. When we are blessed enough to hear it for ourselves, life is definitely worth living.