Category Archives: Social Psychology of Culture

Where were You when You just had Sex?

As the ever-expanding world of social media appears to be systematically eliminating anything close to what we might have once called “privacy,” it should probably come as no surprise that there is now a social site dedicated to announcing where you have most recently worn a condom.  You read that right.  Just as you might utilize Foursquare or Facebook to “check in” at a restaurant or a theater or a ballgame, Planned Parenthood has now developed a new website targeting teens and young adults, called “Where Did You Wear It?” In short, it allows you to “check in” on where you just had sex with a condom because after all, “sex that safe should be shared!”

And just how much should we expect you to share?  Well, after entering in all the pertinent geographic information, the site also allows you to add a few more details.  Because after all, it’s not enough that everyone knows where you’re having sex.  This is the “Information Age.”  It’s the “Age of Jersey Shore.”  We need more!

So what’s your gender?  Male?  Female?  Trans?  What about the gender of your partner?  No point in making any assumptions or in protecting his or her identity.  This is all about maximum exposure.

How was the sex?  Was it “ah-maz-ing,” as in “rainbows exploded and mountains trembled?”  Or was it a bit more … down-to-earth, say “a work in progress?”   Don’t be shy, now.  Spill the beans.  We want to know.  Was your world rocked or was it not?!

Every once in a while, in a culture as vast and as complex as ours, you run across something so patently “new” that it’s difficult to know where to even begin an analysis.  And so today, I simply want to leave the analysis up to you.  What do you think Planned Parenthood is trying to accomplish through this site?  What exactly are they trying to normalize and should it be normalized?  What about what we, as a society, are sacrificing for this to be normalized?  Is there moral value in trying to protect people from the consequences of their actions?  What about the value in teaching privacy as a virtue of sorts?  Or is the concept of privacy growing increasingly “passe” in a hyper-connected world?   Regardless of religious affiliation, do you want to be part of a society that “checks in” on a site such as this?  Why?  Or why not?  And if the whole point is being “proud to wear protection,” why is there no ability to “share” this information directly through your personal Facebook account or Twitter?  The comment section is yours.  Have at it, readers.   

We May No Longer Call Them “Bastards,” but the Real Question is: Do We Treat Them as Such?

In 1965, Daniel Moynihan, then working for the United States Department of Labor, issued a report in which he found that 24% of black children and 3% of white children were born out of wedlock.  At the time, the report was a scandal, and the culture was abuzz with questions regarding the state of black families in America.  Continue reading →

Can You Trust an Atheist?

The scarlet "A" serves at the sign of the New Atheists public awareness campaign.

Do you trust an atheist?  Would you vote for one if he or she was running for office?  What if their competition were an openly gay individual or a Muslim?  Could you vote for an atheist then?  What if your child wanted to marry an atheist?  Would that concern you?

Fifty years ago, these questions were not at the forefront of American culture because the American population was largely “Christianized.”[1]  But by the dawn of the new millennium, the culture had radically changed as globalization brought about an increased sensitivity to living in a pluralistic world. Continue reading →

“Sexless” Babies and the Rise of “Gender Creativity”

In 2007, Beck Laxton, a self-professed “radical feminist” gave birth to a baby named Sasha.  And for five years, Laxton and her partner worked to keep the sex of their baby a secret, in the hopes of making a statement against gender stereotypes.

“All I want to do is make people think a bit.  I just want Sasha to fulfill his potential, and I wouldn’t push him in any direction … As long as he has good relationships and good friends, then nothing else matters, does it? What’s more important than being happy, and making other people happy? It’s all that matters.”[1]

Since that time, Canadians Kathy Witterick and husband David Stocker have made a similar decision regarding their child, Storm.  When Storm was born in May of 2011, they sent out an email to their close friends and family in which they said:

“We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place?).”[2]

Although decisions like these are still clearly outside of the cultural norm, they are not entirely unheard of.  Take, for instance, Shiloh Pitt-Jolie, the four-year old daughter of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.  In recent months, Shiloh has drawn attention to herself by her unique sense of fashion.  And in an August interview with Vanity Fair, Shiloh’s mother, Angelina, had this to say:

“She wants to be a boy.  So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers.  She dresses like a little dude. It’s how people dress there (in Montenegro). She likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits.”

Clearly, “gender creativity” is on the rise in society.  And while it is far from the norm for parents to make decisions as radical as these, there is no denying the fact that greater and greater freedom of choice is being given to individuals in the construction of their sexual identity.  But on a cultural level, this is quite confusing and even somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand, many who self-identify as being part of the “far left” want to deny the differences that gender should be allowed to play in the socialization of an individual.  They want to suggest that society should treat all people, regardless of gender, as equals, both in societal status and in access to power.  In the most extreme cases, you have parents who choose to maximize “gender creativity,” in the hopes of creating a world where sexual identity does not play a role in an individual’s ability to either succeed or be accepted.

But on the other hand, another segment of the cultural left wants to argue that the LGBTQ[3] community is entirely defined by its sexual identity, marking it out as a marginalized population.  For members of this community, matters of sexual preference are often seen as being deeply rooted in biology, and thus they serve as a defining characteristic of the individual, and one that shouldn’t, under any circumstance, be minimized or ignored.

This creates a rather interesting cultural dilemma.  If we want to suggest that socialization should not be determined by the biological sex of an individual, than how can we, at the same time, argue that biological predispositions towards certain sexual preferences form the core of an individual’s identity?  It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways.  Either sexuality should play a significant role in how people perceive us and interact with us or it should not.

If you tend to think that our biological sex should define how society perceives and interacts with us, how do you think we, as a culture, should go about deciding what are and are not appropriate gender roles?  What’s off limits to boys?  What’s off limits to girls?  And who decides?

If, on the other hand, you think that biological construction should not define us, then how can we, as a society, give any credence to notion that the LGBTQ community is a marginalized group of people? 

Whether we like it or not, these are the questions that we are facing as a society; and how we answer them, as Christians, will go a long way towards our ability to interact with those that see human sexuality in a different way than many within conservative evangelical circles tend to see it.

John Perkins and the Road to Galatians 2:20

Just nine hours ago, on the eve of this nation’s 28th annual celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I had the privilege of standing near an elderly black gentleman by the name of Dr. John Perkins.  Now please understand, in my life, I have had the somewhat unique opportunity to meet and speak with several well-known individuals, most notably Bono, N.T. Wright, and even, on one occasion, President Jimmy Carter.  But as I stood in that lobby at Willowcreek Community Church this morning, trying hard to summon the right words to explain the importance of Dr. Perkins to my seven-year old son, I couldn’t bring myself to stand in line for the chance to meet him.  Something in me just knew that I would have nothing to say.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Perkins, he is the son of an impoverished sharecropper who grew up in New Hebron, Mississippi. When his older brother was killed at the hands of a town marshal, Perkins fled to California in the hopes of never returning home.  But God had other plans.  In 1960, at the age of 27, Perkins returned to Mississippi to share his new found Christian faith.  And it was then that he began his public ministry, working to bring about racial reconciliation and healing through the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.  Dr. Perkins has been a leader in the black community for over 50 years, and has dedicated himself to galvanizing people and ministries to take up the call of working in concert with the poor and vulnerable.  He does this because he believes in the mighty truth of Galatians 2:20:

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Tonight, as I continue to ponder what it means for me to try to raise my sons in a way that encourages them to spend their lives in the fight for the fullest expression of the Kingdom of God, I find myself thinking of two passages penned by Dr. Perkins.  I leave them with you in the hopes that they will challenge you in the same way that they have challenged me.

“After one horrific night of torture in jail, Perkins underwent a crisis of faith.  ‘It was time for me to decide if I really did believe what I’d so often professed, that only in the love of Christ, not in power of violence, is there any hope for me or the world.  I began to see how hate could destroy me.  In the end, I had to agree with Dr. King that God wanted us to return good for evil, not evil for evil. ‘Love your enemy,’ Jesus said.  And I determined to do it.  It’s a profound, mysterious truth, Jesus’ concept of love overpowering hate.  I may not see it in my lifetime.  But I know it’s true.  Because on that bed, full of bruises and stitches, God made it true in me.  I got a transfusion of hope.”[1]

* * * * * * * *

“The existence of a compelling Christian witness in our time does not depend on our access to the White House, the size of our churches, or the cultural relevance of our pastors.  It depends instead, on our ability to sing better songs with our lives.  True conversion is always personal, but it is never solely about the individual who experiences God’s love and knows the good news of salvation.  True conversion is about learning to sing songs in which our life harmonizes with others’ – even the lives of those least like us.”[2]

Finally, for those of you who might enjoy the opportunity to hear from Dr. Perkins directly, I offer you this half-hour video from an interview he did at St. Norbert College.

[1] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 12.

[2] Charles Marsh and John Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Towards Beloved Community (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press: 2009), 70.

American Women: Second Class Citizens?

In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, an avowed pacifist and member of the Republican party,[1] became the first woman elected to serve in the United States Congress.  Since that time, only 275 other women have served in that august and rather insular body.

Stop and think about that for a moment.  In the 95 years that have passed since Rankin’s election, only 275 other women have been elected to the United States Congress.  Why is that?

Why is it that women make up 18.9% of the world’s legislatures,[2] but only 17.4% of the United States Congress?[3]  How is it that this progressive, democratic, world-shaping empire actually elects fewer women to public office than other regions in the world?

[1] In an odd historical footnote, Rankin is also known as the only member of Congress to have voted against the United States entering into both World War I and World War II.

The Naruszewicz Files: Books That Changed My Thinking on Matters Related to Race

In a previous post entitled “You Know It’s a Good Book When,” I shared with you a piece of advice once given to me by my old English teacher, Jeffrey Naruszewicz.  In short, he encouraged me to always be reading books that “pissed me off.”  Why?  Because books of this nature have a way of making you see things you never saw before.  They ask you to walk in another’s shoes.  They refuse to allow for easy answers.  And in the end, they make you a stronger person by virtue of making you a better thinker.

Thus, in this post, I offer you the first installment of “The Naruszewicz Files.”  These files are the books in my library that initiated a sea-change in my thinking on a particular subject or issue.  My honest prayer is that as you approach this list, you might seriously consider picking up at least one of these volumes in the interest of growth and honest dialog.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X (as Told to Alex Haley) by Malcolm X and Alex Haley.   This was the book that started it all for me.  Born into a predominantly white suburban culture, I was raised to believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the beginning and the end of everything that needed to be said on matters of racial justice.  But when I first encountered Malcolm X as a junior in college, I immediately knew that there was so much more to be said.  X challenged everything that made me comfortable; and in the end, he taught me more about “living out faith” than almost any Christian I had ever read.  It is because of this book that I finally abandoned political science as a major and it is because of this book that I turned to the field of sociology.

Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America by Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith.  In 2001, Emerson and Smith conducted a study on white evangelical America and the issue of race.  What they found is that despite the efforts of many evangelical leaders, it is evangelicals themselves who may be partially responsible for preserving the racial chasm in modern day America.  That is not to say that evangelicals are active racists.  Instead, it evangelicalism’s focus on individualism, personal relationships and free will that prevents them from seeing the systemic problems that plague American culture.  In other words, many white Christians believe that there’s nothing that can’t be solved by the repentance and conversion of the sinful individuals.  In the end, a tough, sobering look at the modern evangelical movement.

Black and White Styles in Conflict by Thomas Kochman.  This is difficult book to put on this list.  There are clearly problems with the methodology of comparing the styles of a white, middle class population with “community blacks,” which is code for poor, urban blacks.  Nevertheless, Kochman’s contention that viewing black culture as a deviant version of the majority white culture is worthy of serious consideration and honest dialog. In the end, the book makes the list because, methodological warts and all, it changed how I think about matters related to race.  Special thanks to Dr. Alvaro Nieves, former professor of sociology at Wheaton College, who used this book as the foundation of one of the most dynamic undergraduate courses I had the privilege to take.

Race Matters by Cornel West.  First published on the one-year anniversary of the L.A. riots, West examines a multitude of topics in a series of rapid-fire essays.  Ranging from black nihilism to the dearth of black leadership, and from affirmative action to the state of black-Jewish relations, West’s biting commentary is never short of either passion or radical suggestions.  While the reader will certainly find many things to disagree with, West does a stellar job of igniting the conversation in way that makes it accessible for all to approach.

The Hidden Wound by Wendell Berry.  First published in 1970, this is an eloquent examination of the problem of race by a rural farmer/English professor – a man who has suffered as the descendant of slaves, but a man who desires to see an end to both racism and the guilt that is passed down from generation to generation.  Paying special attention to the ways in which racism has damaged the dominant white culture, this book, in many ways, reads almost  like a piece of poetry and yet, its eloquence never gets in the way of its prophetic truth telling.

Race Rules: Navigating the Color Line by Michael Dyson.  Former welfare father.  Ordained Baptist minister.  Princeton Ph.D.  While these may not be the sorts of credentials one would ordinarily cluster together, these are the credentials of Dr. Michael Dyson.  Bridging the gap between black and white communities in America, between the academy and the street, and between yesterday and today, Dr. Dyson is one of those rare intellectuals that knows how to speak the language of common sense.

So what about you?  Have you read anything on the subject of race and race relations that has changed your thinking?  Any recommendations?  I’d love to hear them. 

You Know It’s a Good Book When …

Twenty years ago, in my senior year of high school, the English honors teacher, Mr. Jeffrey Naruszewicz, ended the class period by going around the room asking each us what university we were planning to attend.  When it came to me, I answered, “Wheaton College,” and assumed that he would simply move on to the next student.  But he didn’t.  Instead, he stopped, turned his head to look back at me, and said this:

“That’s a good fit for you.  Just make sure you keep reading books that piss you off.”

And then he moved on.  Now some might object to the “salty” nature of his advice, but truth be told, it’s one of the best pieces of guidance I’ve ever received.  Reading books that “piss you off” means you read books that don’t agree with your understanding of the world.  Reading books of this nature means exposing yourself to other ideas that are in deep conflict with your own perspective.  It means refusing to accept the construction of “strawman” arguments in favor of reading arguments by people who have a radically different worldviews.  In the end, reading books that challenge you means becoming a life-long learner as opposed to being someone who is comfortable in the mistaken notion that the world is easily understood and categorized.

Last night, as I began a new book entitled The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex is Too Important to Define Who We Are, I couldn’t help but think back to my old teacher.  He would be proud of my selection.  For this is the kind of book that is fearless in its orientation.  It’s the kind of book that is not afraid to take a very sharp blade to the throats of our sacred cows on both the left and the right.

Indeed, no sooner is the author finished slashing away at the “privileged status” of the heterosexual majority, when she openly assails the cultural belief that sexual desire can form the core of a human identity.  She’s looking at the right, she’s looking at the left, and she’s taking shots at everyone.  It’s an audacious book; and one that I suspect will earn its rightful place among my Top-10 books of 2012.

But that’s not really the point of this post.  The point of this post is to ask you: are you still reading books that “piss you off?”  Or have you settled into a genteel reading cycle where the books you read simply confirm what you already know to be “true?” 

Facebook: Complicit or Unwitting Accomplice?

In response to seeing a friend’s Facebook relationship status go from “in a relationship” to “single” last night, I found myself curious.  Does Facebook play a role in the destruction of relationships, or is it merely an unwitting accomplice to humanity’s propensity towards using and discarding people?

According to a 2010 survey of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), 4 out of 5 divorce lawyers now report that they are seeing an increased number of cases in which evidence of infidelity has been derived from social networking sites.[1]  Likewise, the British website divorceonline.com reported that more than one-third of all divorce petitions in the United Kingdom cited Facebook in their divorce filings.  This is markedly up from the 1 in 5 petitions that listed Facebook only two years earlier.[2]

While this would seem to suggest a positive correlation between the use of Facebook and divorce, we should be hesitant against drawing too firm a conclusion.  According to the Center for Disease Control, the overall rate of divorce in the United States appears to be relatively unaffected by the emergence of social networking.  In fact, the rate of divorce in the U.S. appears to actually be on the decline.

In a statement issued to the Guardian, a representative for Facebook had this to say:

“It’s ridiculous to suggest that Facebook leads to divorce. Whether you’re breaking up or just getting together, Facebook is just a way to communicate, like letters, phone calls and emails. Facebook doesn’t cause divorces, people do.”

Of course, this sounds an awful lot like: “Guns don’t kill, people do.”  And I’m not sure that a flippant dismissal by a company that has a vested interest in the public perception of its product is the most reliable source of information on the subject.

So the question I pose for you today is this:  In the absence of a definitive correlation between Facebook use and divorce, what, if any, Facebook boundaries would you  be in favor of establishing as a married couple?  What about boundaries for your children?  Are their current Facebook habits training them in accordance with the boundaries you believe to be appropriate for married partners?  If not, what about their “single” status makes you believe that their boundaries should be different  than those of a married couple?

[1] Sixty-six percent (66%) of the lawyers responding to the survey cited Facebook as the “primary source” of evidence in the divorce proceedings.  An additional 15% cited MySpace, while only 5% cited Twitter.

Burning Down the Constitution as We Lay the Foundation for a New Guantanamo Bay

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a recurring federal law that has been adopted on an annual basis for each of the past 48 years.  Broadly speaking, it seeks to establish the budget for the United States Department of Defense.

This year, the 2012 NDAA has been passed with a controversial new proviso.  According to section 1031, United States citizens may now be held for indefinite detention, without access to either a trial or a fair hearing.  Such detention “under the law of war” could last “until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

When the bill was first being considered in the upper chamber of the United States Congress, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) proposed an amendment to the 2012 NDAA, which would have expressly protected American citizens from this Act.[1]  Unfortunately, in a rather short-sited move, the Senate voted the amendment down, leaving Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with the unenviable task of drafting a new amendment to try to salvage the rights of American citizens.  While Feinstein’s amendment was passed by a vote of 99-1, the wording was extremely vague, allowing for broad latitude in interpretation.  Feinstein herself believes that current U.S. law prohibits indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, while senators such as John McCain and Carl Levin and even the Obama administration itself argues that current law allows for such detention. Thus, the Feinstein amendment ultimately means nothing; and the 2012 NDAA stands.[2]

So what does this have to do with Christians?  And why is this being discussed on a website about theology and culture?  Because Christians have an obligation to stand up for justice.  And any system that allows for the indefinite detention of its citizens is, at bare minimum, on the road towards injustice and tyranny.  This is why the Founding Fathers of the United States saw fit to pass the first ten amendments, the sixth of which reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

So what do you think?  If a man or a woman is suspected of colluding with terrorists, should that trump his or her right to a fair and speedy trial?  Should it trump the sixth amendment?  And what does it say about us, as a society, when we allow fear to be a governing force in restricting access to justice?  Should we do this in the interest of preventing another September 11th?  Or do we lose something just as valuable as the lives we lost on that infamous day, when, in seeking to defeat the monster, we become the monster ourselves?

[1] http://www.markudall.com/content/page/full_text_of_the_udall_detainee_amendment.

[2] Knickerbocker, Brad (3 December, 2011). “Guantánamo for US citizens? Senate bill raises questions”. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 18, 2011.