Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[mfbukowski]

I agree, but I would emphasize historically. These days, the cultural trend has long been toward mass-production, standardization, etc. My idea of subculture is that it is superficially indistinguishable from the mainstream, and that there is a notion of mainstream.

The American Milieu (where "mainstream" was once tenuous at best) has since fallen into the melting pot and marched out in lock-step. Sub-culture is now a coping mechanism that gives an illusion of self-identity. It really is a strategy for survival, because in the mid-19th century, leveling forces were so strong in America that some cultures (like polygamist Mormonism and the rural, slave-owning South) attracted military intervention. That put an end to Mormon culture, maybe for good.

The popular idea, though, is that we can take this "corrupted" culture and turn it into a purity culture if we just sprinkle on some gospel magic. We have the broken ideas of marriage and family that culture has already given us (we are ignorant of the fact that these are fundamentally broken), then we mix some gospel "programs" in to give a sense of wholeness. The subculture brings us assign-a-friend programs like the modern Home Teaching, or the family togetherness program of FHE™. And let's not forget to decry the symptoms of the broken culture wherever they don't harmonize with the gospel. Let's tell everybody to just "stop it" as if that would fix the underlying problems. As if it were a pragmatic solution.

Jesus lived among a people that were trying to "purify" their culture too. In a lot of ways, they were much like us. Strangely enough, Jesus seemed to be working against the purity culture and not for it, in spite of the fact that His gospel didn't condone any of the sinning that the purity people sought to stamp out. Perhaps Jesus understood that the gospel is not about what is best for all, but what is best for each.

Well I understand what you mean here, but my attitude is a lot less cynical about church programs.

What I see is a return to that pioneer ethos as the world gets more polarized. I think that eventually we will have droves of people seeking us out as the only place to find peace.

The challenge then might well to be how to be "in the world" at all after it has separated itself from us entirely.

But I also believe that the "self" is largely a product of the culture in which we were raised- and this programming is pretty much inescapable except in dire, survival-level circumstances, yet even then, it remains a powerful influence Do you eat your freshly dead neighbor if you are about to starve yourself? Even that answer is largely determined by your culture.

In that sense we have almost no choice about the fact that we are "in" the world no matter how much we try to not be "of" it.

Edited May 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

I agree, but I would emphasize historically. These days, the cultural trend has long been toward mass-production, standardization, etc. My idea of subculture is that it is superficially indistinguishable from the mainstream, and that there is a notion of mainstream.

The American Milieu (where "mainstream" was once tenuous at best) has since fallen into the melting pot and marched out in lock-step. Sub-culture is now a coping mechanism that gives an illusion of self-identity. It really is a strategy for survival, because in the mid-19th century, leveling forces were so strong in America that some cultures (like polygamist Mormonism and the rural, slave-owning South) attracted military intervention. That put an end to Mormon culture, maybe for good.

The popular idea, though, is that we can take this "corrupted" culture and turn it into a purity culture if we just sprinkle on some gospel magic. We have the broken ideas of marriage and family that culture has already given us (we are ignorant of the fact that these are fundamentally broken), then we mix some gospel "programs" in to give a sense of wholeness. The subculture brings us assign-a-friend programs like the modern Home Teaching, or the family togetherness program of FHE™. And let's not forget to decry the symptoms of the broken culture wherever they don't harmonize with the gospel. Let's tell everybody to just "stop it" as if that would fix the underlying problems. As if it were a pragmatic solution.

Jesus lived among a people that were trying to "purify" their culture too. In a lot of ways, they were much like us. Strangely enough, Jesus seemed to be working against the purity culture and not for it, in spite of the fact that His gospel didn't condone any of the sinning that the purity people sought to stamp out. Perhaps Jesus understood that the gospel is not about what is best for all, but what is best for each.

I gave you a rep bump on this. But perhaps I tend to be a bit cynical. The way I see it is that instead of maintaining an internal structure to our culture, we are trying to paint over the existing dominant structure a bunch of rules or commandments and expecting that the paint job is going to keep everything standing. Its like constantly preaching abstinence and expecting that is going to keep teenagers out of bed or the backseat or wherever it is that teenagers do it these days. For some reason we are not able to build as cohesive communities as we should and Satan is doing a better job of it in a sense with criminal gangs -- the gangs provide the economic support, the entertainment, a sense of belonging, a certain edge of excitement in accomplishing something, etc. Here in our community, the gangs migrating up from the South of us are becoming a major problem here in rural Vermont -- the only positive thing is it is causing the communities to come together and seriously talk and work together regarding solutions.

[pmccombs1]

Well I understand what you mean here, but my attitude is a lot less cynical about church programs.

That is probably because you are a good deal more practical than I, who gets rather exhausted by all of the practice. As with all artifice, programs are things you have to get good at. Ours replace things that once came naturally, but I am not good at art of this nature. And it gets tiring, of course; and one becomes resentful and subsequently becomes an idealist. Do you realize that I hold ideals I can't possibly hope to achieve? It is the way of the cynic, who is also mildly a hypocrite from time to time--not that one can't learn truths from him.

What I see is a return to that pioneer ethos as the world gets more polarized. I think that eventually we will have droves of people seeking us out as the only place to find peace.

I have no doubt that the Church is set to prosper wonderfully in spite of all its bruises and band-aids. I don't think we'll be the only island of peace, though. There is a lot of potent religion besides Mormonism in the world.

The challenge then might well to be how to be "in the world" at all after it has separated itself from us entirely.

But I also believe that the "self" is largely a product of the culture in which we were raised- and this programming is pretty much inescapable except in dire, survival-level circumstances, yet even then, it remains a powerful influence Do you eat your freshly dead neighbor if you are about to starve yourself? Even that answer is largely determined by your culture.

In that sense we have almost no choice about the fact that we are "in" the world no matter how much we try to not be "of" it.

I have no real argument with this, and I agree that people are a product of a culture that is largely invisible to them. So that's why I point out the injustice of stigmatizing the product of the culture and compare it to blaming the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. To me, it boils down to a matter of justice rather than of rightness. I'm suggesting that there are times when blaming wickedness is unjust--as illustrated by some of the interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees who sought to purify culture. Although there may be terrific arguments made to justify stigma on reasonable (pragmatic?) grounds, due to the circumstances of culture, these arguments become unjustified on human grounds. Therefore, I reject stigma as a justified tool of religion used for purifying culture.

[Stone holm]

That is probably because you are a good deal more practical than I, who gets rather exhausted by all of the practice. As with all artifice, programs are things you have to get good at. Ours replace things that once came naturally, but I am not good at art of this nature. And it gets tiring, of course; and one becomes resentful and subsequently becomes an idealist. Do you realize that I hold ideals I can't possibly hope to achieve? It is the way of the cynic, who is also mildly a hypocrite from time to time--not that one can't learn truths from him.

I have no doubt that the Church is set to prosper wonderfully in spite of all its bruises and band-aids. I don't think we'll be the only island of peace, though. There is a lot of potent religion besides Mormonism in the world.

I have no real argument with this, and I agree that people are a product of a culture that is largely invisible to them. So that's why I point out the injustice of stigmatizing the product of the culture and compare it to blaming the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself. To me, it boils down to a matter of justice rather than of rightness. I'm suggesting that there are times when blaming wickedness is unjust--as illustrated by some of the interactions between Jesus and the Pharisees who sought to purify culture. Although there may be terrific arguments made to justify stigma on reasonable (pragmatic?) grounds, due to the circumstances of culture, these arguments become unjustified on human grounds. Therefore, I reject stigma as a justified tool of religion used for purifying culture.

Have trouble envisioning Mormonism or Mormondom as a place of peace. Where would that be?

[mfbukowski]

Therefore, I reject stigma as a justified tool of religion used for purifying culture.

I am still waiting to see who has endorsed it

[Stone holm]

I am still waiting to see who has endorsed it

The phrase came from Wade Wenglund, not totally sure he would have called it a tool of religion, but he clearly considers it a legitimate social tool.

[pmccombs1]

Have trouble envisioning Mormonism or Mormondom as a place of peace. Where would that be?

Nowhere in particular, and everywhere generally. I guess it's wherever people feel peace because of their Mormonism.

[Stone holm]

Nowhere in particular, and everywhere generally. I guess it's wherever people feel peace because of their Mormonism.

Hard to flock to such a place.

[Calm]

It's, moreover, not a new notion that one must stick up to bullies, and that bullies deserve getting pulled down a peg or two by somebody brave enough to risk injury to do so. If adults always intervene, how is the craven to learn finally to be brave? It's bad policy, infantilizes the young, and, ultimately, doesn't do much good: if I always must rely on somebody else to solve my problems, I cannot be of any use to anybody else. Whatever the configuration of the person being bullied, either that person or a peer must be the one to stand up. The playground should be a little bit dangerous, though not life-threatening. Hysterical dogoodniki do a whole lot of mischief.

I am assuming that in more extreme cases you would agree that adult intervention is wise?

I think that the statistic that a bully by age 8 has a one in four chance to be a criminal by age 26 indicates that there are reasons intervention would be wise for society in general, even if one ignores the individual cost of not interfering at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

[Stone holm]

I am assuming that in more extreme cases you would agree that adult intervention is wise?

I think that the statistic that a bully by age 8 has a one in four chance to be a criminal by age 26 indicates that there are reasons intervention would be wise for society in general, even if one ignores the individual cost of not interfering at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

I am assuming that in more extreme cases you would agree that adult intervention is wise?

I think that the statistic that a bully by age 8 has a one in four chance to be a criminal by age 26 indicates that there are reasons intervention would be wise for society in general, even if one ignores the individual cost of not interfering at all.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Interesting statistic , anecdotally , all the bullies I knew in high school went on to be successful adults. And over my lifespan dealing with businessmen and industrialists, I would suspect that developing bullying skills early in life assisted them in being successful later in life. Our economic system rewards bullies.

[Calm]

It may have to do with location.

[Stone holm]

It may have to do with location.

It also may have to do with economic status. A lower economic class bully may grow up to be a criminal, an upper economic class bully may grow up to be a successful businessman or Presidential Candidate.

[pmccombs1]

Hard to flock to such a place.

Literally, but not metaphorically.

[Stone holm]

Literally, but not metaphorically.

Yeah, do you think metaphorically really works in this case?

[pmccombs1]

Yeah, do you think metaphorically really works in this case?

What do you mean by "works?"

[Stone holm]

What do you mean by "works?"

As a place of peace that people flock to.

[USU78]

I am assuming that in more extreme cases you would agree that adult intervention is wise?

Correct: "Fair" ain't the adult's job here. That's the kids' job. Non-life-or-serious-injury-threatening . . . that's the adult's job.

I'm thinking of events in my own life: it was rare I had to deal with bullying myself once I reached 8th grade, but even earlier I had the chance to stop bullying of a kid who was undersized and of unclear sexual orientation. He got his gym bag back. From me. And I'm the one he called the SOB. In art class, of all places.

The ingratitude was enraging.

[pmccombs1]

As a place of peace that people flock to.

Haven't you heard of the metaphorical "happy place?" As in, "find a happy place?" Sometimes when we say "place," we don't mean place at all; we are using a figure of speech. Mormonism has never been a place. It is a religion. People can still "flock" to it and find peace "in" it. It is very common to use language in this way when speaking of religion. People often say that they've "found" Jesus, for instance, and really they don't mean that they walked into church and, hey, there He was waiting for them. Surely you've noticed that religious speech is characterized by much of what can not be construed literally.

Yes, it is something of a pity that we don't have a Zion, which would be a literal place where people might literally flock and find literal peace there. However, since we have discovered that perception is everything, we now often deal in abstractions and pure symbols, which is generally what religion is today. If people wish to perceive peace in a world that is not peaceful, then Mormonism is a good option for some of them, and perhaps for an increasing number of them in the future. I think that is what was meant. It is this sort of perception that we mean when we say, "in the world, but not of it." It is the perception of otherness while participating in the mainstream. I think pragmatism might claim that the literal is unimportant if the experience can be had without it.

[Stone holm]

Haven't you heard of the metaphorical "happy place?" As in, "find a happy place?" Sometimes when we say "place," we don't mean place at all; we are using a figure of speech. Mormonism has never been a place. It is a religion. People can still "flock" to it and find peace "in" it. It is very common to use language in this way when speaking of religion. People often say that they've "found" Jesus, for instance, and really they don't mean that they walked into church and, hey, there He was waiting for them. Surely you've noticed that religious speech is characterized by much of what can not be construed literally.

Yes, it is something of a pity that we don't have a Zion, which would be a literal place where people might literally flock and find literal peace there. However, since we have discovered that perception is everything, we now often deal in abstractions and pure symbols, which is generally what religion is today. If people wish to perceive peace in a world that is not peaceful, then Mormonism is a good option for some of them, and perhaps for an increasing number of them in the future. I think that is what was meant. It is this sort of perception that we mean when we say, "in the world, but not of it." It is the perception of otherness while participating in the mainstream. I think pragmatism might claim that the literal is unimportant if the experience can be had without it.

And that was one of the big Latter Day gambles wasn't that we might be able to experience it without a literal place after the US slam the door on legal immigration.

[wenglund]

Have trouble envisioning Mormonism or Mormondom as a place of peace. Where would that be?

It is difficult to see or find peace in that with which you are at war.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 17, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So that's why I point out the injustice of stigmatizing the product of the culture and compare it to blaming the symptoms of a disease rather than the disease itself.

I am sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Stigmatizing, or at least those stigmas I have spoken to, target behaviors, not people. The behaviors being targeted are the "disease," or an integral part of the "disease," And, the spread of those "behavioral diseases," or the "product" as you call it, is dependent upon whether or not the culture utilizes stigmas or not.

Continuing with your "disease" metaphor, think of stigmatizing as an impediment to the spread of "disease," and analogous to the use or lack thereof of sterilization products and techniques by different groups of people. In spite of the unpleasantness of sterilization, those groups of people who actively use sterilization products and techniques tend to experience far less disease than those who do not. If disease is spreading, it may reasonably be attributed to, or blamed on--to use your words, the people or cultures not using sterilization (or stigmas). There is no injustice in drawing this rational conclusion. There is no injustice in using stigmas to decrease the spread of "disease" (deleterious behaviors). Quite the contrary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Stigmas in this case target individuals who carry on the behaviour . While it is possible to separate action from the individual, however, when the action defines in essence the class that becomes somewhat meaningless.

[Stone holm]

It is difficult to see or find peace in that with which you are at war.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Am not in war with the Church, but until lately the Church has appeared to be at war with various segments of society, and Christ Himself said that He did not bring peace.

[wenglund]

Stigmas in this case target individuals who carry on the behaviour . While it is possible to separate action from the individual, however, when the action defines in essence the class that becomes somewhat meaningless.

Even if we assume you are correct about the lines between behaviors and people being blurred (that's debatable), It only becomes meaningless if one cares less about the spread of "behavioral disease" and more about the feelings of the "class" spreading the "behavioral disease." To me, such priorities are irrational and upside-down, though not uncommon in pop culture. Such asinine priorities are why STD's, AIDS, suicides, illegitimate births, and a number of other social ills are on the rise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Am not in war with the Church, but until lately the Church has appeared to be at war with various segments of society,..

Spin it however you wish to sooth your conscience, but you have been vocally fighting an behalf of the various segments of society you believe the Church is at war with, which, logically speaking, puts you at war with the Church.

...and Christ Himself said that He did not bring peace.

Christ is also called the "Prince of Peace."

Context is important in resolving this seeming contradiction and also seeing the peace in Christ's gospel and Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-