the undermined presence

Sometimes I get angry. I get angry because I cannot compete with technology. I cannot compete with that text you just got, or the guy that just followed you, or the video that was just posted. It all happens in an instant; a blink of an eye, and boom your attention is gone. Just like that. I just want to scream: I AM HERE. I AM RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. But no, you wouldn’t hear me over the roar of your tweets and the deluge of your “friends”. And after I get angry I get worried… because if I can’t maintain your attention for two minutes while we’re talking on the street corner, how am I ever supposed to maintain someone’s for a lifetime? This digital connectivity is killing our relation-ality. And you don’t even blink…

a remedy

Today is the final day of the #FemFest discussion. The last two days have been very informative and eye-opening for me. Initially, I wasn’t even going to contribute to this discussion, as I told my roommate on Tuesday morning: I’m just too naïve to even bother saying anything. But after about an hour of reading over eight blogs, I had a fire lit under to me to voice my thoughts and understandings, despite my naïveté.

So, I have learned a lot over the last couple of days.

• I have learned that the “equal, but not the same” argument seems to make everyone angry very quickly.
• I have learned that even talking about the idea of feminism really seems to make some Christians uncomfortable.
• I have learned that not all feminists burn their bras.
• I have learned that even those that do, aren’t going to hell.
• I have learned that I don’t have to hate men to associate with feminism.
• I have learned that I don’t have to agree with every movement of feminism to agree with it as a whole.
• I have learned that secular feminists are not “doing it wrong”, despite our differing belief systems. 
• I have learned that I’m not the only one who is enraged when Beyoncé says “girls run the world”.
• I have learned that Christian feminists do not build their arguments on purely emotional rhetoric.
• I have learned that blogging takes a significant amount of time– specifically when I really cared about the issues.
• I have learned that even my conservative thoughts have been affirmed and encouraged by the rest of the blogging community.
• I have learned that if I want conservative, Christian males to question my salvation all I have to do is say that “I’m a  feminist”.
• I have learned that many commentators forget to “put on their thinking cap” before commenting.
• I have learned that feminism isn’t just about equality in women’s rights.
• I have learned that feminism is not synonymous with egalitarianism.
• I have learned that men are feminists too.
• I have learned that people who comment anonymously don’t deserve to have their comment read.
• I have learned that this community that self-identifies as feminist are very encouraging and challenging to each other.
• I have learned that the Church needs to get feminism right if we want to continue to do fruitful ministry.
• I have learned that feminism may seem reactionary, but ultimately is worthwhile and getting a lot of things right.
• I have learned that feminism is succeeding at validating and acknowledging hurts that often been inflicted by well-meaning Christians.
• But, ultimately I have learned that as a Christian, I don’t need to be afraid of the word feminism.

Now, these may all seem like a no-brainer to most seasoned feminists/bloggers. Honestly, I would have guessed most of these things to be true, but this was the week that I saw all of them played out. The biggest thing I have appreciated about this week has been that all of these blogs have better equipped me to think for myself and defend my beliefs.

I can be a strong, independent woman. 

I can hold my beliefs in submission and surrender to the Cross. 

And I can say feminism is the not the enemy. Sin is and will always be the enemy, and feminism has been and will continue to be a remedy that I can support!

——–

This blog is in response to the #femfest synchroblog on Day #3 with Preston Yancey’s blog, seeprestonblog.com. Link up and answer these questions: What surprised you this week? What did you take away from the discussion? What blog posts did you find particularly helpful? What questions do you still have?

changing culture and the restless hearts that fund it

Culture can change. There are plenty of analysts and researchers who can show you the trends of society and how they alter over time. Just looking back to history, one can clearly see that culture fluctuates and changes as the years trudge onward. The question then becomes, how does culture change? What forces alter culture? Specifically, do we, as subjects of our culture, have the ability to become culture makers?

The answer is yes, we, although we are subjects of culture, we do have the power to become culture makers. But, we are not the only force at work on our society. Media takes a leading role changing culture. Hollywood presents ideals and dream worlds in which its viewers live. TV, radio, and books all contribute to the conversation of what’s trendy and holds value to the general population. For those that would claim books don’t hold the same kind of power as TV, I would ask you to think again– this time considering the Twilight  phenomenon. Vampires used to exist as horror stories, with Dracula being the godfather of them all. Today, Twilight has normalized vampires into a safe and somewhat erotic genre. Albeit, good ol’ Buffy appeared in the early 90s, but still, vampires are no longer the scary monsters they used to be. Now there are entire sub-cultures devoted to these “heavenly creatures” and their “special gifts” (i.e. lightening fast speed and the drinking of blood). Media really sets the stage for culture trends and changes.

Media isn’t the only player, although it is a powerful one. Technology is an ever-present, ever-growing facet of culture that consistently morphs the ways in which we think and process information. With the invention of the telegraph, telephone, and television, culture has grown and experienced a metamorphosis that can only be described as incredible. The introduction of computers and the internet is another force at work on the values of society. Music used to be valued at its quality. One would purchase records because the quality of the music was the best. Today, CDs and MP3s are poorer quality than records, but they are easy to access. iTunes makes its millions on the millions that demand availability over quality. Technology undoubtedly effects culture.

Media and technology are important players on the scene of culture and change, but they are not the only ones. Those in authority roles do have some say. Culture has changed as different world leaders change, not all of these leaders are responsible for that change, but the general populace elects new and different leaders, who in turn do new and different things (sometimes). Their leadership does help shape the way culture flows.

Interestingly, media, technology, and governmental systems are all powered by one thing: money. As Fred Ebb says in Cabaret: Money makes the world go round. Money also makes culture change possible. The restless hearts that move from one thing to another, endlessly searching for the next best thing spend their money and change the culture. Each dollar that is spent changes the way culture moves, whether its spent in support of a politician, a new mp3, or a new book on sale. Each of these effect the way culture is changed and they all have one things in common: a restless heart searching for fulfillment.

artists in an entertainment based culture

Upon reading Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, one is immediately struck by the entertainment necessitated culture in which we exist. Neil Postman wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, yet its prolific themes make it exceptionally applicable today. Postman begins his book by explaining the media as epistemology and what typographic America looked like prior to the age of the television. In the second part of his book, Postman discusses how the television has propagated this age of entertainment and show-business in which we find ourselves. Postman ends with encouraging education and critical thinking as the solution to this entertainment based culture of America.

Postman speaks greatly as to how media effects epistemology. By definition, epistemology is a subject concerned with ways of knowing and definitions of truth. Form is relevant to the truth that is being propositioned. Take for instance, the courtroom scene: truth is determined by how situations compare to the laws written in law books. Citations are given in a written form, and lawyers’ briefs are written documents. Print media is a socially accepted, relevant form to dictate truth. Yet, print media is not the only form that is acceptable or desired in court. Witnesses are expected to give verbal testimony to that which they have seen. Judges and jurors alike expect to hear the truth given, not merely see it typed on a page. The court system plays both sides of the field when it comes to media forms and truth. On the one hand written documentation is required for legal truth to be upheld, but on the other hand, judges must hear the truth in public speaking in order to make a judgment call. Postman words it eloquently when he says: “Truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression” (22).

This point is fascinating when applied to the media of television. Television brings a visual aspect to public discourse– public discourse being the political, religious, informational, and commercial forms of conversation in which the general public is engaged. Postman firmly believes that maintaining a television-based epistemology pollutes public communication (28). With every new media form, there is a trade-off that occurs; a sacrifice that’s made. Typography brought an individuality to America, but degraded a sense of community and integration. It is foolish to believe that somehow television avoids this exchange. Starting with Samuel Morse and the telegraph, information has slowly disseminated into decontextualized data. Television brought immediacy to news, but sacrificed relevance in the process. The television assumes that information never requires a context and plays fifty-five channels of irrelevant programs to prove it. Just look at the news as an example: every evening for an hour someone comes on the TV and tells you about different events that have occurred– in no particular sequence or context. Now, you cannot do anything (except maybe cast a ballot in the near future) to change or effect any one of the crises that have been described to you. You receive decontextualized information about which you can do nothing, other than regurgitate and repeat it as “news” to someone else. This is not even touching on the concept that mediums themselves are biased. Television really arranges the communication environment in which we live.

Postman calls television a “meta-medium”, a medium that directs the knowledge of the world but also its ways of knowing as well. Yet, the television is described as “myth.” Roland Barthes uses the word not in the typical Greek tragedy epic which one often pictures, but meaning it as a way of thinking that is so deeply embedded in our consciousness that it is relatively invisible. The television fits this category. At one time, Americans were astounded by the machinery of the TV and the effect it would have. Now, no one is surprised by a how the television works or imagines how it will effect its audience. Television has become the culture. Discussions about TV only involve its content– what happened on this episode of The Bachelor— and not how it works or the situation in which we find ourselves watching it. It no longer seems strange or fascinating to sit in front of a glass screen, watching pictures and hearing sounds come from a box that is plugged into the wall. We, as a culture, have adjusted to the epistemology of television. We readily accept television’s definitions of truth and knowledge, so much so that the actual relevance and coherence of that knowledge is no longer questioned. This is scary to realize, especially when you consider the fact that television only speaks in one language: entertainment.

The culture of entertainment has so permeated our thinking that talking about it almost seems abstract. However, it is necessary to consider what this culture looks like, especially when applied to art. The problem with television is not that it presents its audience with entertainment. But rather that all subject matter presented is depicted as entertainment. The overarching assumption is that all is presented for our entertainment and pleasure. Think back to the news example: all the newscasters invite their audiences to come back and “join them tomorrow”, as if the tragedies presented that evening weren’t enough for our ears. The music, the look of the newscasters, even the two-minute long news stories, speak to a culture that expects to be entertained and amused by the news.

This concept of an entertainment based culture was especially riveting to me when applied to the arts. Having also just read Art Needs No Justification by Hans Rookmaaker, I have been trying to understand how this idea of entertainment and amusement has permeated even our art-making. Rookmaaker writes his essay on the premise that art does not need justification, its justification is in its being a God-given possibility (39). Yet, I cannot escape the idea that Postman presents in Amusing Ourselves to Death: that we live in a culture and an age of show-business. I can theoretically hold to the claim that art is art and it should never require a justification, but I cannot escape the culture in which I live. The question for me is: how do I make good art, that people want to see, but at the same time have art that does not attract an audience by making itself into mere entertainment? It seems the only way that this culture knows and accepts truth is if they are entertained or amused by it; I believe Neil Postman would agree with me. So the challenge to the artist becomes, how can I present truth in art as art? I, as an artist, have to protect that art from becoming pure entertainment or kitsch, and even then I do not know if my audience will accept my art as truth, if it does not entertain them. This is a terrifying realization and a legitimate challenge that faces artists in American culture today. Is there a place in culture for the arts? Can we, as culture, break through this epistemology that television has convinced us of, and realize that truth and entertainment are not equivalent?

Works Cited:

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking, 1985. Print.

Rookmaaker, Hans. Art Needs No Justification. Vancouver: Regent College, 2010. Print.