Archive for December, 2007

Friday Random Ten: Advent comes dropping slow edition

What may be the last FRT of 2007 features some old favorites (#1 was a song I listened to over and over again after my second divorce, in the midst of a particularly bad relapse) and some new things I like. Leigh Nash was the front woman for Sixpence None the Richer, and her solo efforts have been rich and rewarding. I’ve already mentioned my devotion to Rosie Thomas, and the Jackson Browne track is off that still-divine debut album of his.

1. “Don’t Tear Me Up”, Mick Jagger
2. “Take a Chance with Me”, Roxy Music
3. “Along the Wall”, Leigh Nash
4. “Did She Jump or Was She Pushed”, Richard and Linda Thompson
5. “Wedding Day”, Rosie Thomas
6. “Umbrella”, Rihanna
7. “From Silverlake”, Jackson Browne
8. “In the City”, the Jam
9. “Drive South”, John Hiatt
10. “Ice Cream”, Sarah McLachlan

Bonus Track: “Mirrors and Smoke”, Jars of Clay

In praise of cacophony: rejecting Romney’s “symphony of faith”

I left home for the office this morning just before Mitt Romney started his speech about faith. I couldn’t find it on the radio (I was a bit surprised that NPR didn’t pick it up, and I mean that seriously rather than facetiously), and couldn’t get it to stream online. So I’ll have to content myself, for now, with reading excerpts from the speech that the Romney campaign released in advance.

I’m an evangelical who has spent almost his entire life in the secular academy. There are few other serious Christians in my department; most of the colleagues to whom I am closest are firm atheists. Indeed, I note that more and more folks I run into these days seem willing to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics. There seems to be more openness about unbelief, and I appreciate that we live in a climate where those who are genuinely convinced that there is no God at all don’t feel pressured to use the safer language of uncertainty and doubt.

Romney said this morning:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Mitt’s got it right when he suggests that it is unreasonable to ask anyone to divorce their spiritual convictions from their politics. The post immediately below this one is a brief polemic against compartmentalization, albeit a very different kind of compartmentalization. But to a serious believer, a Sunday morning (or Saturday morning) faith is poor beer indeed. If the relationship I have with God is the transcendent Fact of my life, it’s absurd to suggest that that Fact shouldn’t inform and guide everything I do — including how I teach and how I vote.

But the parallel to teaching is important. My faith makes me, I’m certain, a better teacher. That doesn’t mean that folks who don’t share my faith can’t be good teachers (better than I in many cases). It doesn’t mean that folks who have no faith at all can’t be wonderful instructors and mentors. It is simply true that in my case, my faith has made me an infinitely kinder, more patient, and less self-absorbed person. (Whatever notable tendencies I still have towards self-absorption, are, of course, attributable to the obvious reality that I, like all converts, am still very much a work in progress.) If someone asks me, “Hugo, why do you do what you do the way you do it?”, faith is going to be part of my answer. But the fact that my teaching rests on a spiritual foundation doesn’t mean that I am entitled to inject my spiritual beliefs into the classroom. If I can be a fairly religious person, and work day in and day out without talking incessantly about how my faith undergirds everything I’m doing, then I’m quite confident that others can do the same. That’s not compartmentalization, because I’m not living at odds with my faith or hiding my faith. I’m just choosing not to bludgeon folks with the cross. I’d like it if my fellow believers in public life felt the same way.

(And for the record, the notion of a “religion of secularism” is silly. But suppose someone did want to start such a religion, committed to the notion that the Divine Being is Absent, Never Was, and Never Will Be? The America I want is an America where that “religion” would be able to take its place in the public square too.)

But I’m particularly troubled by the (admittedly eloquent) concluding lines of Romney’s speech, sure to be remembered longest:

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Bold emphasis mine.

Yikes. I hit my knees a lot, Mitt, and I worship the same Almighty you do. I’m heartened to hear you will be my friend and ally. Tell me, will you also be a friend and ally to my mother, who does not believe in God? (For that matter, will you be a friend and ally to many of my Anabaptist friends, who believe in God but don’t kneel?)

And I wince at the notion that faith is a symphony. Symphonies, as we understand them, are innovations of the Christian west. The image that pops into my head is of the Catholics in the string section, the Baptists blowin’ their horns, the Eastern Orthodox on their woodwinds and the Pentecostals on percussion. Perhaps they’ll play “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” and it will sound very pretty. But will there be Muslims? Will there be atheists? Will there be Buddhists and Hindus? Will there be animists and Wiccans?

Real diversity is not harmonious. Real diversity is African and Japanese drums, the throbbing of synthesized beats, the rich, challenging melodies of an Indonesian gamelan — and French horns. Put that all together, and it isn’t going to be a beautiful symphony. It’ll be beautiful yes, but it will be the beauty of a great big messy cacophony, like what happens when you put plastic musical instruments into the hands of second-graders on a sugar high. And that great big messy cacophany is my America, Mitt. It’s the rancheras I hear blasting as I drive through Highland Park, it’s the hip-hop bumping from the car stereos as I walk on Crenshaw. It’s the ululating of Sephardic Jewish women at a Kabbalistic wedding, and it’s the speaking in tongues of Pentecostals at a late night prayer meetin’. It’s noisy and it’s difficult to understand and it doesn’t all fit together.

Religion has a place in the public square. But it doesn’t get to define the boundaries of the public square. Public displays of faith have their place, indeed — but so too do public displays of humanistic secularism. The right to pray as one chooses is inextricably linked to the equally important right to scoff at those who pray. Real ecumenism, real diversity, is not simply making the case for common ground between Mormons and evangelical Protestants, arguing that each has a part to play in the grand symphony of faith. A real commitment to diversity is embracing not only all believers, but embracing all those who are in varying states of unbelief. I say this as a Christian who loves Jesus, and I say it on behalf of those whom I love who share my convictions — and those whom I love who don’t.

UPDATE: I wish I could say that the way I originally spelled “cacophony” was deliberate. When dealing with Greek suffixes, I’m better on manifestations than sounds, so “phany” always “looks right” to me. I’ve changed it to the right spelling now.

Thursday Short Poem: Atwood’s “Heartless”

As anyone who loves her books knows, few writers indeed have the powers of description that Margaret Atwood possesses. Those powers are on display in her poetry as well.

Heartless

Some people sell their blood. You sell your heart.
It was either that or the soul.
The hard part is getting the damn thing out.
A kind of twisting motion, like shucking an oyster,
your spine a wrist,
and then, hup! it’s in your mouth.
You turn yourself partially inside out
like a sea anemone coughing a pebble.
There’s a broken plop, the racket
of fish guts into a pail,
and there it is, a huge glistening deep-red clot
of the still-alive past, whole on the plate.
It gets passed around. It’s slippery. It gets dropped,
but also tasted. Too coarse, says one. Too salty.
Too sour, says another, making a face.
Each one is an instant gourmet,
and you stand listening to all this
in the corner, like a newly hired waiter,
your diffident, skilful hand on the wound hidden
deep in your shirt and chest,
shyly, heartless.

Against compartmentalization: a note on the repercussions of a local scandal

The buzz in Pasadena this past week has been over the arrest of a veteran teacher at local Mayfield School (a Catholic college prep school for girls) on charges of possessing child pornography. David Hassler, 62, who taught government, history, and religion, is on administrative leave after police found numerous printed images of child porn in his home, most apparently downloaded from the Internet. Mayfield, to its great credit, has been proactive in its response in terms of hosting forums and reaching out to its students, parents, and alumni to keep everyone informed.

In my eight years as a youth leader at All Saints Church, I worked with many girls who were Mayfield students. (A perhaps surprisingly high percentage of the teens in our Episcopal youth group were Catholic school students). I’ve also had a number of Mayfield alumnae in my classes here at the college. In the past week, since the news about Mr. Hassler broke, I’ve spoken to perhaps half a dozen young women, both current and former Mayfield students. One emailed me on Facebook to tell me what had happened, saying that she was stunned and upset and needed to talk. The reaction to the teacher’s arrest among the girls I’ve spoken with has ranged from shock to anger to concern for Mr. Hassler and what will happen to him. But there is a palpable sense of betrayal, and, in the words of one Mayfielder who wrote me this weekend, “an ugly feeling that I just can’t trust the way I did before.”

This post is not about David Hassler or child pornography. It’s about teachers and trust and the basic truth that if we want to be trusted, there must be radical coherence between our public values and our private behavior. When something like this happens in my community (and this sort of thing happens in many communities) I get angry. I get angry as a man who works with young people, because the David Hasslers of the world poison the well for those of us who are making a huge effort to earn the trust of kids and their parents. We live in a world that is frantic about the threat posed to children by sexual predators of one sort or another; in the public imagination, and rightly so, most of those predators are men. And sexual predators have time and again sought out positions of authority over young people in order to facilitate their own acting out. The secret lives of a few, when made public, make suspects of the many who are working so damn hard to love, nurture, and mentor young people in safe and healthy ways.

I’ve spoken to a couple of Hassler’s former students in the past couple of days. One girl said to me Monday: “Now I wonder what he was thinking about when he looked at me. It makes me feel so disgusting, as if my memories of Mayfield are being ruined. I know I’ll get over it, but right now, it’s just so shocking and upsetting and vile.” But even in her shock, this young woman couldn’t come out and say she was angry at Hassler. “I just keep thinking about him, and worrying about him. I’ve been afraid he’s going to hurt himself or something because of how awful this must be to have everyone know this. Is it weird that I’m so upset but also worried about him?” I assured her that hers was a very normal reaction, and that her anger — if it comes at all — may not come for a long time.

Watching this story unfold strengthens my conviction that in the end, our private lives are never really private. What we do in our own home, behind locked doors, bleeds into our public lives. I don’t have any interest in child pornography, and I never did. But thinking about David Hassler reminds me that everything I do matters. My students and mentees don’t need to know much about my private life. But if I am insensitive to my wife, if I nurture a secret porn addiction, if I relapse on drugs, if I cheat on my taxes or am cruel to small animals, those sins will, sooner or later, lessen my effectiveness as a teacher and a mentor and a friend. The young people in my life don’t need to see the details of what goes on behind closed doors. But if what goes on behind those doors is deceptive, exploitative, illegal or cruel, then sooner or later, those young people whose trust I seek will pay a public price for my own private misdeeds.

We lie to ourselves when we claim that we can compartmentalize with impunity. Though I can’t prove it, I suspect that David Hassler lied to himself about his child porn use. Perhaps he told himself that as long as his students and his colleagues never found out, he could still be a good, safe, effective teacher. But it rarely works that way. His students — and indeed, the entire Mayfield community — are reeling from these very serious allegations. But believing what I do believe about the human person, I am convinced that the darkness Hassler’s double life engendered was already affecting those around him long before he was arrested. And I grieve that for him, and I grieve it more for the young women who this week have felt so shocked, so shattered, so betrayed.

Beyond heat and pleasure to joy and light: the third post on Robert Jensen, porn, and sexual ethics

This is part three of my series responding to Robert Jensen’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Part One is here, Part Two is here.

At the end of this short, powerful book, Jensen muses about sexual ethics. I was struck by what he has to say about heat, light, and pleasure:

Another common way people talk about sex, especially in the past decade, is in terms of heat: She’s hot, he’s a hottie; we had hot sex. In the world of hot, it’s natural to focus on friction, which is what produces heat. Sex becomes bump-and-grind,; the friction produces the heat, and the heat makes the sex good.

But we should take note of a phrase commonly used to describe an argument that is intense but which doesn’t really advance our understanding; we say that such an engagement produces “more heat than light.”… So what if our sexual activity — our embodied connections –could be less about heat and more about light? What if instead of desperately seeking hot sex, we searched for a way to produce light when we touch? What if such touch were about finding a way to create light between people so that we could see ourselves and each other better? If the goal is knowing ourselves and each other like that, then what we need is not really heat but light to illuminate the path.

I read that and leaped to my feet, crying “Yes!” At its best, I am convinced sex not only brings pleasure but helps to transform the people who are participating in it. I am a better teacher, better friend, and better mentor because of the light that my wife and I reveal when we have sex with each other. After three divorces and countless short-term relationships, I understand what Jensen is talking about here, because my wife and I are living it out. Make no mistake, I don’t think marriage is the only arena in which this kind of light can be created. But a relationship in which one or both parties is expending sexual energy on pornography and fantasy is one in which there is very little chance of light indeed.
Continue reading ‘Beyond heat and pleasure to joy and light: the third post on Robert Jensen, porn, and sexual ethics’

Transgender Homecoming King: in celebration of Andrew: UPDATED

Not much time to post here this morning, but I have a short piece up at Inside Higher Education today: The Meaning of a Transgender Homecoming King. Last month, PCC elected my former student, Andrew Gomez (who is transitioning from female to male) as its Homecoming King. Homecoming is a bigger deal here than on most community college campuses, and I have some reflections at IHE.

UPDATE: I realize that the IHE piece was edited, and some of what I wrote was left out; the full piece as I originally wrote it is below the fold. Continue reading ‘Transgender Homecoming King: in celebration of Andrew: UPDATED’

“Fixin’ to make a fire in the dark and the cold”: some notes on loving “No Country for Old Men”

Though I haven’t been to see many films lately, the best thing I’ve seen this fall — hands down — is No Country For Old Men. Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Kelly Macdonald, and Woody Harrelson, it’s a rich, engrossing, and for me, deeply satisfying picture.

Before I saw the film, several friends who had seen it told me that they had loved the first two-thirds but “hated the ending”. I went into the theater with their warning in mind, but found to my relief and surprise that the ending was one of the best things about the movie. Plot spoilers below the fold, folks, so click at your own risk. Continue reading ‘“Fixin’ to make a fire in the dark and the cold”: some notes on loving “No Country for Old Men”’

Shame and self-hatred, guilt and self-esteem: part two of the series on Robert Jensen, porn, and masculinity

This is part two of a three-part response to Robert Jensens’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Part One appeared last Friday, I’m aimin’ to have Part Three up on Wednesday of this week.

Courtney Martin wrote last week that Jensen’s prose “reeks of self-hate and desperation.” Blogger “Sweating Through Fog” writes that “Jensen uses porn to indulge his hatred for masculinity.” In this second part of the series, I’d like to take up this issue of male self-loathing (or, to put it another way, the loathing of one’s own maleness.) Far from hating himself, or men, Jensen is calling men to love themselves, their fellow men, and women enough to transform. His argument hinges on understanding the distinction between shame and guilt, a distinction that may have eluded some of those who read (or have decided to condemn without reading) the book.

The charge of “self-loathing” is one of three classic slurs used against feminist men. Any man who is committed to feminism publicly will regularly encounter at least one (and likely more) of the following stereotypes:

1. All feminist men are gay, and thus not “real men”.

2. All feminist men are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, using an outer veneer of egalitarianism in order to get women into bed.

3. All feminist men are filled with self-loathing; secretly believing that women are the superior sex, they project their own self-hatred onto other men.

From the time I began studying feminism and doing pro-feminist men’s work, I ran into all three of these charges on a regular basis. The men’s rights advocates (MRAs) who periodically comment here tend to use all three, with a few not-very-bright ones insisting that all three are true simultaneously. So when Robert Jensen makes a compelling, at times radical case against pornography — accompanied by a searing and entirely accurate indictment of contemporary American masculinity — it’s little wonder that even well-meaning folks bring out the “he must really hate himself, or at least hate his maleness” card. Continue reading ‘Shame and self-hatred, guilt and self-esteem: part two of the series on Robert Jensen, porn, and masculinity’