Culture Wars and Labels
Personally, I don't know what I am anymore. This place and this election have me questioning everything I ever thought I knew, re-evaluating every position I ever thought I held, and wondering how, at the ripe old age of 56, my basic understanding of who I am can be so much in the air and so contradictory.
I personally used to like labels. I liked knowing I was a conservative. I liked knowing I was an Evangelical. Now I'm not sure I'm either, and I don't know what I am instead. But I find myself needing to redefine who I am, and I no longer seem to fit into any of the clearly defined boxes into which I used to place myself.
I came of age at a time when women had few choices. I had no interest in any of the traditional female careers, so opted to get married and be a stay at home mom until my youngest was in 2nd grade. Then I let the "women's movement" convince me I was less than a whole person if I stayed home and was a wife and mother, so I opened my own business which I adored, and ran it for nearly 20 years, but it was pretty much at the expense of my marriage (which suffered greatly and took YEARS to repair.) Once my 1st grandchild arrived, I realized that family was where my happiness was to be found, sold the business and became a full time wife, mother and grandmother...thus coming full circle.
Both my daughter and daughter-in-law have careers they loved prior
to having children, and now that they have lifestyles built around 2
incomes (you just about can't own your own home w/o 2 incomes, at least
in CA.) wish they could stay home with their children. Neither are in fields where they can work from home.
This is progress/change, but is it good?
As far as the culture wars go, I do not believe they are over. There are still very strong feelings on both extremes, and getting to the middle is going to be difficult. I consider myself to be a tolerant person. I used to be sure of my positions, but more and more I can quite easily see both sides of most issues. I'm not sure how to bridge them all, but recognizing the validity of opposing positions is a necessary start.
I'm not fond of abortion, but don't want the government making the
choice for my family. I feel like this is an issue best left to women, their doctors and their God. Not all people are Christians, and it seems ridiculous to have laws that demand non-Christians abide by their beliefs. As a Christian, I'm still a little confused as to when life actually begins. Try as I might, I cannot find anyplace in the Bible that says it is at conception. And if it is, why do we not have Christian burials for the product of miscarriages in the 1st trimester?
I don't believe we "chose" who we love, but I am
still resistant to the idea of gay couples adopting. I think that I think
"marriage" is a religious institution, and all other unions are
"civil," so maybe it's time for redefining our relationships. Perhaps all non-Christian unions should be called "unions," save "marriage" for Christians and make sure that all "unions" have the same standing under the law. I'm not sure where that leaves the adoption issue, but at least its a start.
I believe
in God and His Son Jesus Christ, but the Christian community really
turned me off w/ its performance in this election, and although I love
God, have huge issues with my church family to the point where I
haven't been to church in months. As Christians, we believe all sin is equal, so the lies that came from the right and the deaths that came about in the unnecessary war in Iraq should be as repugnant to them as the so-called "murder" of unborn children, but where was the outrage?
I believe we are our brother's keepers, but somewhere in the deal there has to be some accountability for one's personal choices. I can't turn my back on starving children or watch sick people lose everything as they struggle to pay medical bills, but I know that welfare is a form of slavery. I know that hard work and saving should be rewarded, yet I think those who makes tons of money have an obligation to the have nots of the world...where do you draw the line? Is it necessary to own 10 houses all over the world and fly around in private jets and have $100 dollar a minute massages, and caviar and $3500 jackets? Can you legislate against that? I don't believe in "forced" socialism, but shouldn't we, as individuals be a little more socialistic? Shouldn't we "self" socialize?
I think government should stay out of our lives as much as possible, and do only those things that we can't do for ourselves, i.e. defense, infra-structure, education, health care, environment, regulations that keep us honest (financial markets -duh, utilities, food/product safety) So in other words, so much for small government :-) !!!
So what am I? Or do labels even work anymore? Should we just stop trying to label ourselves and start realizing that unless we come together in the middle and learn to respect each other's differences, we are doomed? Seems to me like the time for either extreme has passed.All I know for sure is that being a polarized country is getting us nowhere. There is no way in HELL we are going to end up on either extreme, so we'd best figure out how each side can get as much of what it needs as it can, and learn to live in harmony somewhere in the middle.
The alternative is that we WILL someday end up in another shooting civil war, instead of just the cultural one we're in now.


Still, what a beautiful post.
As a person who sees little value in religion, but a great deal of value in humanity, in all its permutations, I can't agree with your current position on absolutely everything (gay marriage and adoption for one). But that's not the point. Fearless soul searching that leads to a willingness to compromise -- whether it is yours, or mine, or anyone else's -- is the point, and that is change we can believe in.
At the rate you're going in you soul searching process, and if I keep up the effort I'm making in mine, we will meet in the general vicinity of the middle in no time and both be better for it. As will others who do the same.
Thank you for being such an inspiring example.
November 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what its all about WW, finding out how we can get closer together and remain friends in spite of the differences! Thank you for your comments. I happen to think you're pretty amazing your own self!
November 20, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy is so right, still. It's the search that matters, not the final destination. Never stop questioning that which you previously held firmly as true. If we could all be strong enough to at least try that approach to our lives, the world would be better for it.
November 20, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding like I actually know something, I think living is kinda like the contemplation of a koan. We become self conscious. We form concepts of ourselves and the world around us. Like bird dogs we waver back and forth focusing in on a scent. That scent is our being. Walking the razor's edge and not falling one way or the other. Beliefs that once protected us become traps to contain us. To be. There's not as much inclination toward judgement/labels as we get closer to it. The inclination to do so just pushes us off one side or the other. We've understood what two hands clapping sound like and we're getting closer to being the sound of one hand doing the same. Lovely post.
November 20, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely comment. Sounds like you know whereof you speak.
November 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
November 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Beliefs that once protected us become traps to contain us...."
Yes -- So. Very. True.
November 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You batted this one out of the park, si.
On those occasions when I am battling through an issue or ten, a friend reminds me that everything always turns out OK in the end, and if it's not OK now, it's just because I'm not at the end yet. :-)
In the meantime ...
If I understand them correctly, conservatives like Michael Novak and Richard Land essentially feel that their values are under attack by liberals who want to impose gay marriage on them, push religion out of the public square, radically change the traditional hierarchy of marriage through feminist identity politics and in general put the US in the fast-tracked, judicially legislated, handbasket to hell.
The thing is, si, underneath those issues are the worldviews of each side. Conservatives tend to see most things from the zero-sum game angle, where life's pies are finite and those pieces not on their own plates but in someone else's possession, are exactly equal to what they will not be able to have in their own possession. In order for someone to gain, someone else has to lose, and that's just the way life is.
On the other side is the view that the more everyone has, the bigger the pies will grow because more people will be contributing to them.
So when conservatives hear liberals wanting to include all religions in holiday displays or drop the idea of school prayer because it would be impractical to include them all, and unfair not to, they see their share of the public square shrinking as a result and are furious that their traditional values are being pushed out of the square altogether.
I don't know about most liberals, but I was surprised as hell to hear that's what I was doing. In my mind, the public squares would expand to accommodate everyone's beliefs and we would all be better off for having done so.
In the marriage scene, liberals don't look at gay marriage as a threat to traditional marriage or believe that "Once you start redefining marriage, where do you stop?" is even the issue. I think it's more about giving people that have the same hopes, dreams and goals as the traditionally married, the same abilities and vehicle to achieve them. And not having ever heard that there are only so many marriages allowed on the planet at one time, there should be nothing to stop the welcoming of more people to the dream, or so I think liberals tend to think.
All of which leads me to the admittedly tentative conclusion that the issues we talk about are really based on the politics of inclusion and exclusion and how they fare when our life pies are at stake. :-) And what type of pie society do we want to live in?
I hope some of this made sense. I'm going to bed now. This was exhausting! Thanks again for such a personal thought provoking post.
November 20, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surely you can see the contradiction here in what you are saying. I agree that a public square that accommodates all religions ought not to be a threat to anyone (although I expect that the stooges in the Eagle Forum and suchlike will still perceive it as such). To say, however, that there can be no public prayer is to push believers out of the public square. Perhaps there are still good reasons to do this, but whether or not that be the case, religious conservatives are right to perceive that as an effort to exclude them from the public square.
November 20, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that; well said.
November 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, MV. It's a lifeline, sometimes.
Wait - I was talking about school prayer and only when it was 'mandated' so to speak, by the state (meaning by the school itself, local, state or federal gov't). I can think of no form of prayer that would not step on somebody's belief and if there was, it would then step on someone's freedom not to believe.
However, the kids themselves are still free to form religious clubs, hold hands and pray whatever prayers they want, wear religious jewelry and clothing, etc.
So I fail to see how religious conservatives can feel excluded or pushed out in that particular public sphere. Excluded from what?
November 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is a fine way to describe it, but notice what you are doing here - you are setting up the public square as a zero sum setting. If the believers are free to pray publicly, this impinges on the non-believers' freedom not to pray. This might well be the case, but it is totally at odds with your earlier expression of exasperation with the zero-sum understanding. You are evidently fine with the zero sum understanding; you are simply irked at the conservatives that they are taking notice of the arrangement.
November 20, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that at all. If prayer is mandated (or organized), the odds are excellent that somebody will be excluded or imposed on. In that case, someone wins, but someone else loses. Prayer that is held by one person or a group of their will free will does not exclude or impose anything on others that presumably have the same right to do the same with their own prayer or a different one, or not, as they CHOOSE. Thus, the public square grows, not shrinks. All needs are met in a win-win situation.
November 20, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice. Yes, it's been hard for women to find balance, to not overly self-critique. Stay at home? Hold a job? Whatever you like, whatever fills your vision and life and family and success. Whatever you have the stamina for. Whatever you choose there will be regrets for what's been lost. But still, it's more of an extended Chinese menu, not just either/or. Work at home, work part time, do something more arts-related, do volunteer work, don't have kids, home school, and so on.
"Self-socializing"? Yes, that's a nice term to combine our personal actions and our democratic system. We can vote for the level of organized socialism we want, and augment with our own personal efforts. It fits in with traditional Christian missionary work, Habitat for Humanity, foster homes and Boys/Girls Clubs. But at some point individual or group efforts aren't enough for the problems of the world, so we need the organization coming from a larger body, typically a government.
Choosing is important. It's the buy-in we have with government - it's not just forced on us, we had a choice.
Respecting people's religion is a good stepping stone to respecting differences in beliefs. We live in a world where contradictory "facts" exist so often that it's simply hard to look at anything and accept it as fact. We have parallel worlds of people seeing the same things and interpreting them in complete opposite ways.
The "redefining of marriage" is fairly trivial, since it could have easily been described as "when two people who love each other decide to hold vows and commit to each other", where the assumption would have been that those two people were the same race and same nationality and same religion and different sex, perhaps same clan depending on the time. The living together and having children portions had had huge variations through all of history - whether one would go travelling, whether they could have children or not (a number of dynasties decided on that point).
In the 60's it was easier to pick out who were the big bands, what were the "types" of music. Now it's a much bigger mishmash, and while something's lost, something's gained. But it's hard for Christians to accept not being the only real star on the tree. And once you start putting more stars on the tree, the tradition does indeed change and start to become something else. We have very few meaningful rituals in our culture, and diluting those does bring on fears of losing identity, and losing it for some vague conception of tolerance isn't always reassuring. Need more coffee, this is going off the tracks.
November 20, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes stream of consciousness is good, Des...just ask quinn.
I agree with you that it's hard for women to find a balance, but I don't think it's any less difficult for men, especially now that they are expected to participate in their children's lifes in untraditional ways while still succeeding at work. But having to make these choices has positives as well as negatives. Yes, it can stress us out. But actively seeking a balance makes it more likely that, at least sometimes, we'll find one.
Seashell, you pretty much stated what I think about the pie--there's always enough to go around. Especially on the gay marriage and gay adoption issue, love is love is love. And there just can't be enough of it in the world, as far as I'm concerned.
Still, as confusing as it is, I hope it also feels good to be able to question your core beliefs. If we all spent a little more time reflecting, there might be less yelling.
November 20, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fundamental problem. There isn't enough to go around. It is not coincidental that much of the liberalization of civilization went hand in hand with the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution. In other words, the progress of technology alleviated humans from being -- quite often -- intelligent beasts of burden. Mechanizations of tasks is what pushed us forward from slavery and feudalism. This is all predicated on cheap energy.
Once energy isn't cheap, we will slowly slip back to less mechanization in a democratic sense (already you can see that the poor in the US were driving less when oil prices shot up), and that will turn things back on humans.
It's a historical fact that most people will trade security for individual freedom. That's why most political systems, starting from the tribal times and continuing to "provide for the common defense", are organized around the notion of protecting the group.
Our present pie is shrinking. And with it, the "rights" that we assume are just there.
November 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, it's a little known fact that pies can be found on roller coasters. Even more amazing is that they grow while our hands are up in the air, allowing for more hands to go up, more pie, more hands ...
Forward looking changes, beliefs, rights and above all love and more love of all types, are never finite. While they matter the most, they are not subject to the same physical laws, it seems. ;-)
November 20, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds essentially correct to me. I find the culture wars as unpleasant as you find them, but I do not think that they are likely to end soon. I cannot, however, share your desire to find "harmony somewhere in the middle." I am not prepared to say, in the interests of achieving a truce "all right, I give up; the other side can have its way if that is what is needed to bring an end to the fighting" or even "let's split the difference." Indeed, I know very few people who take that attitude, which is precisely why I do not think that the culture wars are likely to end any time soon.
I definitely agree, however, that they are getting us no where. I hate to call battles over abortion and gay-marriage "distractions," because the answers we give to these questions have very real implications for the lives of millions of our citizens, but it does seem to me that the focus we have given them has made us lose track of other questions with impacts just as substantial. I wish we really had the mental energy to attend to these battles and to matters like global warming, education, ballooning debt, etc. Evidently, however, we do not, and I do not have any good ideas how we prioritize our attentions in light of that fact.
November 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, part of the problem is that the issues that make up the culture wars are pretty far down on the list of things that NEED to be dealt with right now.
While at the same time, they divide us into us and them, so that we can't come together to work on the issues that DO need to be dealt with right now.
Therein lies the problem...It shouldn't be the case where either side has to say "I give in."
Compromises have to be made on both sides. If each extreme continues to dig in, we're going to be stuck. Somehow or another we need to find a way to "live and let live," on the "value" issues and work together on the "big picture" issues. The problem with that is that it heightens the red/blue problem...red people tend to gravitate together and blue people gravitate together and you have the social equivalent of racial segregation.
Needless to say, this is not an easy problem to fix, but talking about it without screaming at each other or demonizing each other is where it starts, and we're at least starting to do that. That's a good thing.
November 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure that I do not agree with this statement. Is the legal recognition (or lack thereof) of gay unions urgent? Not to me, but then I am a married heterosexual. I could easily understand, however, how it might seem a darn site more urgent to a gay couple and I would feel ill at ease saying to them "you need to let this go, because this is a lower priority issue than some others." Lower priority to whom? Similarly, abortion is an abstraction to my life, but I expect that the point is far less abstract to a woman seeking an abortion or to a child in the womb facing her imminent demise.
I can see the sense of what you are saying here, but I do not feel that way, and I know few people who do. I am pro-life because I believe that abortion is just one more variety of murder, just like "regicide" or "uxoricide" or "patricide." I do not find it pleasant to be uncompromising on this point, but the idea that one can compromise on such a belief just does not work in reality. In the same way that the Missouri compromise was not enough to settle the contentiousness that surrounded slavery, I am afraid that we will not see an end to the culture wars until one side attains a complete victory over the other. Compromise is not going to achieve that. The good news, however, is that evidently such victories can be won (witness the issue of slavery). The bad news is that there are few examples of them being won without a lot of struggle and strife.
I definitely agree with you there. It is not at all easy to refrain from screaming and shouting and demonizing, but it would be much better if we could manage it. It is, indeed, a very good thing when such civility can be maintained.
November 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Help me out on this, and I ask because I truly want to know, not to be argumentative...WHY do you believe this? I have been unable to find a passage in the Bible that calls abortion murder. And I have been unable to find a passage that says life begins at conception. As I asked in my initial post, if life does begin at conception, why do we not have Christian burials for the tissue from 1st trimester miscarriages? None of my fellow Christian friends have been able to answer those questions for me.
I am not PRO ABORTION, I am just not willing to call people who do have abortions murderers, nor am I willing to deny them the choice to terminate a pregnancy, when I have no basis for believing that life begins at conception, other than that some of my fellow Christians say so.
Again, not looking for a fight, just trying to understand...
November 20, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that you frame the question as "where does it say that in the Bible." This is not really how I come at the issue, so I am not sure that I will be able to give an answer that you might find satisfying. The fact that "X is in the Bible" does not lead me to conclude that X is true, and the fact that "X is not in the Bible" does not lead me any closer to the conviction that X is not true. To put it simply, I believe that abortion is murder because I cannot find anything about children in the womb that distinguishes them in any significant fashion from the rest of us. The Bible really does not come into my conclusion on this point one way or the other.
November 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one biggie: until about week 20, they don't have any neurons in their brain. None.
Since it turns out that the vast majority of abortions happen before week 20, I find that quite significant.
Of course, there's still plenty to argue about after week 20, as I assume we're in agreement that there's nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that makes one human.
November 20, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many neurons do you need before your life counts? I am hard pressed to see why the neuron census matters.
November 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least one, I would argue. After that, it becomes increasingly hard to find a dividing line, but I don't think it's hard to put one as a minimum qualification. (Actually, based on my research, I think 100,000 isn't a bad line, either, but that requires much more nuance.) Otherwise, you're no more human than the mole on my neck.
November 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many neurons are there in a cow's brain? I do not know, but I dare say that there is more than one. Does that mean that it is "murder" to kill a cow? By contrast, imagine that we perfected artificial intelligence and created a field of robots with self-awareness and creativity and emotion (etc). These robots would have no more neurons in their "brains" than a zygote, and yet there would be a good case for the contention that "killing" them (whatever that would entail) would be "murder." Obviously, then, the number of neurons in an organism's brain is not in any meaningful sense part of what we mean when we term an act of killing "murder." One can have thousands of neurons and still have a life without moral significance and one can have no neurons but possess moral significance. The neuron census tells us nothing worth knowing on this subject.
Might I suggest that what you are really trying to do here is to use the neuron census as some sort of proxy for sentience or consciousness or some other more abstract characteristic? If so, may I ask that you cut to the chase and articulate that standard. Of course, if I am wrong and the neuron census is not a stalking horse for something else, I would still be interested to read any response you might have to the above.
November 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm positing a non-zero neuron count as a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for "personhood" (and/or "sentience or consciousness or some other more abstract characteristic").
I actually chose the 100,000 number exactly because I routinely create/destroy entities with about 100,000 "neurons" in them (artificial ones, mind you). As you say, however, pure neuron count is not a sufficient condition for personhood. I would argue quite vehemently that it is a necessary condition, though. Take away my hand, and I am still me. Take away my leg, and I am still me. Take away my brain, and I am no longer me. That doesn't mean my brain is me, but it is a necessary part of who I am.
On a somewhat different note, I like this discussion as it relates solely to the rights of the blastocyte/fetus/infant and not to the rights of the mother. Often in discussions about fetal rights, one person tries to argue that because the mother has rights, the fetus has none, or that because the fetus has rights, the mother has none. I think it's reasonable to examine each set of rights independently of the other, although for the final issue of whether to make abortion legal/illegal the two sets of rights must be balanced against each other.
November 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I gather that this is intuitively obvious to you, but it is not to me. From where I am standing your "at least one neuron" standard is no more especially meaningful than "at least two legs" or some such. I can imagine a morally significant life form with fewer than two legs, and in the same way I have no trouble attributing moral significance to a life-form with no neurons in its brain. Do you care to unpack your reasoning a bit as to why this strikes you as a sine qua non for a life to achieve moral significance?
November 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it is because, as you alluded to above, I think that at least some form of consciousness is required for "a life to achieve moral significance", and I'm quite certain that, in Earth-based life forms at least, neurons are required for at least some form of consciousness.
Again, I'm not arguing that any form of consciousness is sufficient, just that it's necessary. Obviously, there is an awful lot of gray involved if you start trying to figure out everything that's necessary (thus approaching the sufficiency standard).
As for artificial intelligence, I actually expect that at some point (but not for at least another decade or so) we will really have to consider when they might begin to have certain rights. The same applies to primates and other animals. It's a very thorny question.
November 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, good, I am glad that we managed to get that out in the open, because I really could not believe that counting neurons is ever an actual pre-requisite to assigning significance to a life. It is not the neurons that matter, it seems, but rather the consciousness that they make possible. Fine. This I can, at least, understand.
To my mind, however, this criterion will not get me to the point of agreeing that abortion is acceptable prior to the 20th week. I agree with you that consciousness is a necessary pre-requisite of moral significance (I take no stance, at present, as to whether it is merely necessary or fully sufficient). However, it does not seem to me that consciousness is necessary at all times. When I am anesthetized, I lack consciousness. Nevertheless, if you stab me in on the operating table, you cannot escape a conviction for murder on the grounds that I was not conscious, and thus killing me does not rise to the level of "murder."
It seems to me that what really matters is not that one be conscious now, but rather that one have the potential to display consciousness in time. While I am not conscious while I am anesthetized, it is well established that I will be conscious when the anesthetic wears off. In the same way, however, it is clear that the child in the womb (even the one under 20 weeks of gestation) will be conscious after a while. It will (likely) take longer than it will take for me to revive from the anesthesia, but it will happen in time. As I said above, therefore, I am hard pressed to articulate a meaningful difference between the unborn and the rest of us that makes it wrong to kill me or my son or the king of Spain, but acceptable to kill a blastocyst.
November 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think we're using different meanings of "consciousness". (This is a big problem in the neurosciences.) By my definition of conciousness, you still have some level of consciousness even when you are "unconscious". I.e., your neurons are still firing.
However, ignoring that point, let's assume that you were cryogenically frozen such that your neurons truly had stopped firing (I'm a big fan of gedankenexperiments). At that point, by all definitions, you lack consciousness. Your argument still stands. I would not feel comfortable destroying you if I thought there were any possibility of restoring you (and would support laws making such an act illegal). The neurons are still significant h