Small Change

Ran across the first quote on Leithart's blog.

“Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,” Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires.... A spokesperson for the Save Darfur Coalition told Newsweek, “We wouldn’t necessarily gauge someone’s value to the advocacy movement based on what they’ve given. This is a powerful mechanism to engage this critical population. They inform their community, attend events, volunteer. It’s not something you can measure by looking at a ledger.” In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long way from the lunch counters of Greensboro (source).

Gladwell goes on to point out:

[I]t is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact.

For Gladwell, activism that effectively challenges the status quo has both a heirarchical organizational structure and social relations formed with a strong bond between members. He believed that the civil rights movement was provided both by the black church, enabling it to become paradigmatic for societal transformation.

Gladwell point is not to deny social networking possibilities for change, but take them for what they are and damper some of the more unbounded interpretations with realism. He's also not providing an anatamy for activism, but he's pointing to some interesting aspects.

Note for Kevin

As I told you earlier, "the theological [aspects] I'm not so sharp on."

One of the problems I had when reading the section Why Sacraments Are Not Signs, I felt that Leithart was confusing who the players were. And he did distinguish, but then he collapses that distinction by infusing both senses in sacramental signs and through the backdoor brings God back in. Moses circumcises, Abraham circumcises at God's command. These are about what we do to identify with the people of God. Israelite kept the Sabbath. What we do to sanctify ourselves. The signs elsewhere are about what God does, and yes through people, to prove Himself. While I agree with Leithart's point about signs having to be enacted, there's nothing "awe-inspiring" about the signs that we enact, at least not in the same way. Sacred, yes; miraculous, no. So someone might want to suggest that there is awe in the sense of a spirit of reverence and humility, and yes. But I'm talking about the sense of David Blaine WTF wonder. "Mighty" might be a bit of an overstatement. For me, imperceptibly at work might as well not be at all. So while God might be at work in "all things", we don't call "all thing" signs. Jesus was "established" via the sign of baptism, but that involved dove-like Spirit-descending and a voice from the sky. Signs alludes to a special type of work when God is a player.

Leithart though was one step ahead of my ignorance. Pp. 38-41 he moved into 1 Cor. 12.13, where he attempts to draw continuity with both the water-baptism passage earlier in the letter and the water-typology in the Exodus narrative. This continuity stems from the similarity of efficacy. Leithart then shows a harmony of the interpretation with Galatians 3. Moreover, he offers a literary argument that if "made to drink into one Spirit" does reference the Eucharist, then it stands to reason that comparatively "baptized into one body" also references water-baptism. There's the contextual argument that since the passage is dealing with the Church, it is therefore discussing the authorized entry rite. Finally and persuasively, he connects Spirit-baptism to water-baptism by showing how the later was considered the means of participation in the former (Act. 2.38). It would have been helpful if he had tightened his identification of "the gift" to Spirit-baptism (Act. 1.5), but oh well.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12.13 NASB).

While he arguably did successful argue for interpreting this as a literal baptism into the body of Christ, what he unfortunately left open was the portion about the Spirit's agency. The reason was that wasn't the focus of the section in the chapter, like it is here. I don't know enough Greek though or theology to argue one way or the other. *shrug* I got the sense though that we both interpret the agency issue similarly despite how he left it ambiguous.

Fyi - I dismissed his Reformed infighting arguments about Calvin and confessional arguments as annoying, insignificant, and a waste of ink. I don't think you're ever going to get me commenting on them from here on out except for their contributions to the history of ideas and interpretation.

Starbucks to Apples

Does it seem like the Animate series has been focusing on the Marxists as of late? Still, where else can you get cartoon illustrated Žižek? It's funny, the first RSA post I started, I still haven't put up is of his x's lecture on the paradox of choice.



One good insight from the lecture that video is excerpted from:

The lesson of the ongoing financial crisis is for me exactly the opposite one. Most of the gigantic sums of bailout money is going not to this passive minority but precisely to this Ayn Randian deregulated titans who failed in creative schemes and thereby brought about the meltdown. It is not the great creative geniuses who are now helping lazy ordinary people; it is the ordinary taxpayers who are helping the failed creative geniuses.

Rethinking News: Part V

Alright I'm wrapping this series up, FINALLY! There's this post, another sources post, and a post on theory and Christianity. Maybe a few more. This post is basically to preach and tie up a few interpretative strings.

Thus far has obviously been about not simply news (current events coverage) but our sources for other types information, virtual social interaction, and interpretive aids. There's no fixed boundary, and news agencies themselves incorporate all four. That's because we need meaning for the current events coverage, which these extraneous sources supply. Your task is to direct the flow of what you want and need. It's a hit-or-miss scenario; all sources are to some extent unreliable; no such thing as always hitting, which is why it's a good idea to incorporate highly alternative sources despite requiring a personal filtration touch. Still some are reliably reliable.

Cultivating understanding of issues is a long-term process. At times you'll be unmotivated and that's cool. There are natural rhythms to our engagement, unless we're junkies. On some issues one would have to eat-and-breathe to have the understanding one ideally desires. Most likely we aren't that dedicated. If you're not for instance devoutly reading the Investor's Business Daily every morning, chances are you never will.

I'm the wrong person to talk to. I'm intellectually lazy and don't engage the level of discourse I should. I'm happy with my fries and double cheese burger news. Do what I say, not what I do, and I say be a snob about the level of discourse you surround yourself in, though not to the point that you alienate the folks you have to live with. Find people who are better at it than I. Also there's little dedicated watchdog journalism in what I'm going to recommend. That's a deficiency on my part. Pick your raison d'etre issues and find groups which monitor them. More so than finding "reputable" sources, I hope you find ones you trust or I'll have wasted a perfectly good post for nothing.

Interpretation is not a solitary activity. We are affected greatly by others. It's not determinative (hopefully), but it is a HUGE factor. A crucial aspect of this is open discussion with folks. Now, some people don't enjoy this. That's okay. However, you do need some form of interactive engagement. More so than this, it needs to be with those who will question what you think, otherwise you're going to either fall into groupthinking or an internalized struggle (protest?) that leaves you feeling isolated. OTOH - people need encouragement and affirmation as well. So really you need a mixed bag of engagement. Too often I see folks who simply stagnate. They're smugly comfortable in how they've resolved the tension of their viewpoints and only engage in "safe" conversations. Conversation should move to community that challenges us in being more fully human (I really wish I remember who I was ripping that off of, probably one of those damn post-evangelicals.). Thinking through requires that we defend and question our understandings. Reading a whole bunch of stuff that resonates with you is opinion formulation not thinking.

Be Mr. Universe:

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

or Mrs. or Ms. Universe.

Rethinking New: Part IV

So...who do you trust? For me it boils down to two important components: a capacity for understanding and honesty.

As much as one might not trust the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex, they've got the capacity for understanding that honest Betty Sue from Deming, NM doesn't. As far as medicine is concerned, research on the Internet doesn't count. It's possible your local pastor might not have the philosophical training to understand what pomos or neo-Marxist are saying. The face on TV is reading a teleprompter. Economics requires high-school math unless you're a genius. You need to find folks who have the capacity for understanding.

This is what the capacity for understanding does not mean: they come to the "orthodox" opinions. Honest, intellectually equal folks have differing viewpoints. Again find the best that each position has to offer and find different ones. It also doesn't mean an "expert" or someone with a Ph.D. As anyone who has first-hand experience with something might suggest, there's a lot you can't find in books (or intelligentsia). Often times the "shocking" discovery is made that most laypersons understood something all along before the cognoscenti caught up. Not a mystery; it's called common sense. People are stupid; people aren't stupid. Plus laypersons and intelligentsia share a prejudice for my favorite passtime: bsing.

Honesty is a hard virtue to really embody IMO. Its simplest level is not lying and not trying to deceive others. Another is the issue of acting in good faith and sincerity, conditioned by a process of relinquishing self-deception; here the news/blog business often fail. Thirdly is an openness to others that allows oneself to be known. You're not looking for this with news, unless you're talking about friends. In fact I'd be suspicious elsewhere too, precisely cause that "personableness" is often an illusion intentionally manufactured to engender trust. This third level is more of participating honestly in community where it's appropriate.

To elaborate on the second part, good faith is the intent to fulfill expectations that one is leading others to assume. OTOH, people need to watch out for false expectations. If someone is completely aware of what they're doing and how the public is incorrectly perceiving them and they do nothing to correct or even capitalize on it, that's bad faith. If you watched the previously posted clip, that's what Crossfire was doing. It's often rationalized that "everyone" knows its a game, but that's not an excuse. Intentionally legitimating an unqualified authority is also bad faith. The ways which corporate news do this are inexhaustible. Feigning neutrality is a classic example of insincerity. Revealing assumptions and allegiances is a big help to avoiding this particular form; stating them and going on to pretend that these aren't affecting anything while proceeding to promote propaganda is not.

What I'm not suggesting is honesty = transparency. Privacy is a good thing. It is also not assuming falsely assuming responsibility for every falsehood or mistake that one has or expecting it of others. We're human, which entails a level of imperfectionism and a willingness to risk being wrong. Especially with professionalism in the equation, people always act differently in front of an audience than otherwise. This isn't insincerity per se. It also ties into false expectations, as you're not "betrayed" if in real life they're different from how you'd imagined them.

Many folks employ what we like to call a hermeneutic of suspicion in a totalizing fashion, and that's bad. They're not just being critical, arguably an epistemic virtue. They're attempting to move beyond this to reveal or uncover or "unmask" what's really going on behind any argument or group, which might not even be conscious to the author/speaker/people. It is reading between the lines par excellence. Now as a caveat I'll say this, it is sometimes appropriate to employ a hermeneutic of suspicion, particularly when people act or events are suspicious! So it's not an either/or deal like I'm making it out to be. The reason I say it's bad is cause they're destroying the possibility for a healthy relationship and discussion (assuming it can be had). They're showing a fundamental disrespect for and insincerely engaging others. On the other hand if their hermeneutics leads them into dialogue with the subject, perhaps that's a sign they're employing it appropriately. Generally that's not the case, and they're impervious to relevant feedback. Indeed, often times they'll deconstruct sciences (which I actually think is a good thing), but then not understanding what's been discredited interpret in such a fashion as to ignore any findings. Please note: this is a blog, not a rigorous examination on any philosophical articulations but a commentary and critique on their abuses. These aren't hardline distinctions obviously, and it's completely possible for someone to be acting in bad faith, insincere, and deceiving themselves at the same time.

Some good reasons not to trust someone. The widely heldness of a belief in what their articulating. The task is verifying not taking for granted. Authority, especially an unqualified one. They really need to be field-specific competent; news sources bring these in all the time. Prejudices. Now we are all prejudiced. We have a whole range of preferences when it comes to trust, from the symmetry of the face, to how closely they look like us, whether they're ideologically similar, their tone of voice. This is something that's still being explored, in the mean time we need to be aware and be careful. All these are HORRIBLE reasons to trust someone.

There's two important senses of trust, and they shouldn't be confused. There's the idealistic version of trust and a sense of realist trust, where we trust others to behave consistently to themselves. While we can open ourselves up to the first, the second can be just as reliable. For example, if someone has consistently "stolen" something from you, they've probably broken your idealistic trust, but you can have a realistic trust that they'll do it again should the opportunity arises. News sources can be trusted and relied on in this second regard. Are they competent? If not they can be trusted to need someone else to interpret and get their facts for them. If we're talking about the junk food, I can list off examples from NPR to CNN to Fox.

Final thoughts: learn to trust yourselves. If you're male, learn to work on self-deception (trust me on this). It's easier to trust yourself if you're in community, but that's a different issue. "Strangers", that includes all news sources, need to earn your trust. If you go around naively giving the benefit of the doubt, you're gonna head straight to cynicism. Rather cultivate maturity with your trust. Take risk on insignificant issues for example, and as said before, to be wrong is human and insignificant. Randomly review what is being said. There's lots of ways.

Thoughts anyone? On the post, news, dinner?