The Whole Damned Online Thing

One thing I don’t like about social networking is the way applications and communication streams can breed added and perhaps unnecessary complexity in our lives. I appreciate the benefits of sustaining and developing friendships, but I’m loathe to invest any more time in “virtual” networks.

These past months I’ve been fighting the episodic urge to pull the plug on blogging. 2008 was a fractured year, with spells of great creativity and industry mixed amongst periods of angst and barrenness in a way that was more marked and palpable than I have ever experienced. My disquiet with blogging is really a symptom of something else - I’m just not enjoying computers, my uncomfortable chair, my personally uninspiring city, the lack of space and the limitations of my current studio.

Although I’ve been posting a lot of blogs recently, as I clear the vast cache, throughout 2008 my blogging slowed down to 10-12 posts a month; a lot less than it used to be. I’d probably like to to be putting 5-6 more posts out a month and if I restarted posting film reviews, together with a few drafts of my writing on film and globalisation, that would get me there. Overall, I’m happy with the substance of the blogposts, but I have to acknowledge that in 2008 there was more global politics and less global spirituality than I would have hoped for.

I’ve also been using facebook and twitter, though in different ways. For a long time I wanted both platforms to do the same thing, but I’ve decided that might be sub-optimal. Facebook is a broad church and more of a biographical directory. I appreciate that, but many (perhaps most?) of the connections are not active. It’s like relational velcro dragged over my biography. So, I’ve decided to use status updates there in only the broadest sense. By contrast, Twitter is much more active (and my following smaller and more specific), so it’s a good place to jot down thoughts, quotes and asides (the kind of stuff that doesn’t quite merit a full blogpost). You can track that feed at http://twitter.com/fernandogros

Whilst I still find online forums a good place for information, I’m no longer keen on the format. In fact, I’ve started to feel as though it is a little dysfunctional - like listening to taped recordings of football chants. I still read the local ex-pat forum, GeoExpat, which is informative, but still subject to the same problems that best all forums (randomness of interaction).

In fact, the whole idea of hanging out online is becoming problematic for me. I’m not sure it’s a good example to young kids when they see their parents constantly diverted by facebook, blackberrys or whatever it might be. I’m not becoming a luddite (I hope), but I am becoming all too aware that as parents we are role models for bad behaviour to a greater extent than we might care to admit. I do believe that social networking can be a good and we can teach our kids to use it to reinforce real relationships, develop creative productivity and have fun. But, that has to start with setting limits for ourselves and controlling our use of the media - rather than letting it control us.

New Year’s Resolutions And December Deletions

Happy New Year.

Although my iPhone tapping keeps giving me “happy new tear” and I’m sure at least one person has been emailed that dubious salutation. Perhaps it will catch on?

Anyway, I’m not writing any resolutions this year. Instead I’m enjoying the creative space that my December deletions have given me.

For the past few weeks, instead of trying to load up the future, I’ve been cleaning up the past. Mostly that’s involved lots of deletion, decluttering and disengagement.

Emails and writing drafts have been heavily hacked. I was carrying 112 draft blog posts and that has been cut to zero. I’ve properly sychronised my computers so the archives work, making it easier to maintain onbox zero. I’ve also gone through old writing projects and deleted a lit of stuff as well as archiving a lot more for future (unlikely) reference. For all you mac-heads, I’m making my documents folder reflect only current work!

The clean theme also goes around the house. I’m trying to better at how I assign storage spaces. Easy access fir commonly used things, deeper storage for less frequently used and getting rid of things that don’t get used. Through I’m starting to see storage space as an investment that always begs the question - is this worth investing myself into?

The stuff we keep always gets it’s hooks into us. Everything we buy carries a cost in terms of time, energy and attention.

Finally, I’ve been clarifying my commitments and disengaging from a lot of past images of who I was.

All this is tremendously liberating. In a way I don’t need to write goals for this blog right now, because the process is creating it’s own content. In the same way, where outdated agendas and ideas gas blocked my writing- the new space has given me freedom to dream differently and the ideas still come.

Maybe that’s the way to approach new year?

Finding Inspiration And Creativity In Routine

This time last December I set myself the goal of seeing 200 films during 2008. I didn’t make it. I did, however, manage to see well over 100 films and in the process spark my imagination.

I’ve long held that part of the problem with a lot of theological commentators on film (and popular culture in general) is limited exposure. You can’t really do much creative thinking about film if you only see a handful a year and then only from a small selection of studios. My best years as a writer on film were also the years when I saw a lot of movies, from a lot of different countries, in a lot of different styles.

The commitment to see so many films put one under creative stress. I had to make time to see the films, break the habit of TV viewing, go to the cinema alone more often and put more research into the films that were locally available, especially via film festivals.

And, the best bit is, I managed to write a brief review for every one of those films I saw. Nothing that will be published, per se, but all sitting there in Scrivener, should I chose to use those notes for future writing projects. If only I had started being so organised 15 years ago, I could easily write a book just from the reviews alone!

I’m not setting any audacious viewing goals for this year, largely because I’m confident there is now a (re)developed habit there that will flow on this year, since we are staying in the same location. The question I know have is if this kind of big number goal setting could help to break some other creative ruts.

In last month’s Guitar Player magazine, there was a feature on Tim Walker a musician who set himself the goal of writing and recording a song a day in 2007. You can hear the full collection here. Another musician named Paleo also recently completed the same feat.

Not surprisingly Walker commented in GP that the feat improved both his production skills and his guitar chops. What made me wonder though, was how this sort of a challenge would hit a different skill, which I often lack - the ability to complete projects quickly.

Or maybe to put it another way - the ability to make public a project that is less than “perfect.”

A few days ago I posted a link to some pieces by Ira Glass, on creativity and creating content for new media. One of the points Ira made was that when we learn a creative skill we are often trapped by the fact that our aesthetic values are ahead of our technical skills. It’s all too easy to become hypercritical of your own work, since it falls below the standard of excellence.

To be blunt, that’s the big problem I’ve had over the last four years. My skills as a guitarist who could bang out a cheap demo were not bad. But, once I started working on a “solo album” the whole big weight of technical expectation fell down around me. Suddenly I was confronted not just with my limitations as a guitarist, but also my limitations as a writer, arranger, engineer mixer and computer programmer (because we should never forget that in this age running a small studio is first of all a journey into computer geekdom).

What an audacious goal would force someone like me to do is accept lesser quality output in order to meet the time challenges. What I would fear most about trying to record and share 365 songs in a year (or even 12 a month) is not the time involved or the technical challenge, it’s the scrutiny and openness. The trial would be more psychological rather than practical.

Anyway, this is something I’m pondering right now - how to put myself under a bit more pressure and, in effect, lower my standards. Stay tuned.

Why Joss Whedon Is a Better Theologian than Most Bloggers and Preachers

A while back Ryan Torma made available his paper on Whedon’s Serenity and Firefly, delivered at the International Conference on Media, Religion, Culture (you can download the PDF here).

My only criticism of Ryan’s paper is that he tries to justify reading film/television works like these on missional and apologetic terms; that is, they give us ground to talk to those outside the church. Perhaps we can think more broadly than just that, both in terms of how film provides believers with resources for critical theological reflection and how films and the cine-socioeconomic context within they exist allow us to exegete culture. Studying film is not just a missio-apologetic enterprise, it is also a critically theological one as well.

But those issues aside, Ryan has a lot of worthwhile things to say about both the film and TV series and has inspired me to write more on this area.

I’ve long felt Whedon has a better grasp of the human condition and the contradictions in at work in the human heart than many “official” commentators on the faith. Most importantly, the popularity of his work reveals as a bald lie the populist notion that contemporary society does not want to think about or reflect upon ideas of sin and personal responsibility.

100 Favourite Films

As part of some writing for 2009 I’m creating a few lists of films; especially lists of five or ten films that deal with specific themes like religious conflict, women in the workplace, third-culture childhood and spiritual expression through music. This naturally leads to the general question of “best films ever.” I’ve never sat down to compile a list of 100 favourite films and, truth be told, it’s a hard task. The list below is a first draft and I would welcome comments, suggestions and ideas.

Aguirre: the Wrath of God
Alien
Basquiat
Before Night Falls
Ben Hur
The Big Lebowski
The Big Sleep
Blade Runner
Blow Up
Blue Velvet
The Blues Brothers
Breathless
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Dancer In The Dark
Dark Victory
Do the Right Thing
Dr Strangelove
The Fountainhead
The Godfather
Gone With The Wind
Goodfellas
In The Mood For Love
The Lives Of Others
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Logan’s Run
Lost Highway
Love Actually
The Matrix
Monsoon Wedding
Network
Now Voyager
Om Shanti Om
The Omega Man
Patton
Primary Colors
Psycho
Random Harvest
The Shawshank Redemption
Solaris (original)
Solylent Green
Star Wars
The Third Man
The Thomas Crown Affair (remake)
Toy Story
12 Angry Men
Vertigo
Wall-E

Why Spanglish Made Me Cry

Some of you may not know this, but, for most of the 80s and 90s I had long hair, seriously long hair, not unlike the seattle grunge look (though more eddie vedder than kurt cobain). A little later, in ‘95 I decided to cut my hair, for two simple reasons; a) i was sick of the maintenance and b) too many church kids and accountants had long hair so it couldn’t possibly be cool anymore. I will never forget the senior minister of the church where I was youth pastor pulling me aside, mentioning my haircut and saying “I’m glad you have decided to stop making an issue of your ethnicity.”

Say what? I had never mentioned my ethnicity in any context at that church and it was something I chose to downplay at every possible turn during that phase of my life (it wasn’t lost on me that my denomination had no immigrants in any senior pastoral roles, or teaching positions, or heading any denominational committee at that time). My hair was a statement of many things, mostly related to the same youthful rebellion that led most of the non-ethnic crowds at Big Day Out concerts in those days to have long hair (or green hair or whatever hair). It had nothing to do with ethnicity as far as I was concerned. However, it did for him (and others in the church/denomination). Because my hair looked “ethnic” (OK it gets ringlet curly when long in a weirdly three musketeers way) it was assumed I was making a statement. Wow, I thought to myself, it really doesn’t matter what I do, people like this pastor have stitched me up in an interpretive grid of racial stereotypes. It just didn’t seem to matter that his “reality” about me bore no relation to mine.

That’s what made me cry at the end of Spanglish. When the kid “chooses” her ethnicity. I wish the issue of my ethnicity, or my ethnic identity or however you want to put it was up to me. But it isn’t. Not for me, not for anyone else.

On Having Been An Ethicist

Believe it or not, I was once an Ethics lecturer. I still struggle to understand how that ever happened. I don’t think of myself as especially ethical and I’m not inclined towards the pontifications of public ethicists, especially those from church backgrounds.

In a way, it was an accident. At theological college I developed three great academic passions - philosophical theology, cultural theology and biblical theology. But, my college placed an emphasis more on biblical exegesis (in a narrow, non-systemic way), populist doctrine, apologetics and church history. These distinctions might not mean anything to people who haven’t breathed the rarified air of academic theology, but, for those that have, it might be clear how I struggled to find an intellectual home in those formative years, despite the opportunities to teach and lead seminars.

It soon became clear that my interest in teaching was matched by a small amount of skill. The curriculum offered few options in the topics that really interested me, but a lot of possibilities if I shifted my focus to ethics. As many people experience everyday, I was making “career” choices on the basis of short term prospects, rather than long term passions.

Being an ethicist was always a bit like wearing an ill-fitting jacket. I think I did a good job teaching, running seminars, marking papers and, hopefully, inspiring some students to think a little more deeply about life. The feedback was certainly positive (overwhelmingly so). When I left for London, I was even formulating my research projects from the perspective of ethics. But, I knew I really wanted to occupy a different conceptual space.

Now that I’m a full five years away from the academic world (it’s not easy to write that), the ethicist label has fallen off. I still have those old passions at the intersection of theology, philosophy, biblical and cultural studies. But, with no professional or denominational affiliations to speak of, there’s no need anymore to tailor my “image,” so to speak.

In a way, “ethical issues” still interest me. I want to think about them, write about them and support practical solutions for them. In Early 2007 I tried to write a series of blog posts about what I saw as some key ethical issues (global debt, pharmacolisation of obesity, politics of cynicism, mercenary and private armies, gender imbalances). It was then that I realised something was wrong in my approach.

I’ve always struggled to write sustained pieces for the blog, the sort of thing that fill a multi-post series. Writing 400-500 words is not too taxing, but writing 3000-5000 on one topic, when you are unsure if there is any audience at all, is a different proposition.

However, the deeper issue is that I don’t necessarily think in “ethical” terms anymore. I’m prone to see problems more as issues of economics, politics, cultural policy and so on. The “ethical” category has ceased to be central - and maybe it never was. Perhaps it was always just a way to speak about something else?

What I see at the core of most “ethical” debates is not a clash of morality, but a clash of interpretation (hermeneutics). Different ethical positions reflect not just different ideologies, but different interpretations of reality (increasingly so in our globalised moment). The solutions to these seldom lie in ethical statements or ideas, but in practical policies and politics. Ethics is helpful as a way to “think” about problems, to define and corral our philosophical tools, but that’s about it.

To really address ethical problems you need more than just ethics.

Christmas Hope

And in despair I bowed my head
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”

from I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day

What Do People Really Think Of Stay At Home Dads - Or Why Women Are Using The Playground To Killing Feminism

“In all the families in which the fathers stayed at home with the children, two findings emerged across the board. First, the children, when tested, showed signs of accelerated intellectual development without any harm to the important sexual identification that develops during the first years of life. Second, all the families endured criticism about the arrangement they chose - from grandparents, employers, friends and even from the other parents in the playground.”

I’ve had the opportunity to befriend a few guys through the years who have decided to radically alter their career to play a greater role in bringing up their kids.

That sentence is written in such a long winded way because the phrase “Stay at Home Dad” is not really accurate in a lot of ways. It doesn’t reflect the complexity of the decision these guys have made, or the range of solutions they have found to make it work.

Some guys put their career on hold, or give it up. But, they seldom, if ever, go into a totally “domestic” mode. Often they will freelance, work part-time, change career, start their own business, go into consulting, return to academic study, etc. Through all those various avatars, the key point is that they are men who are earning less than their partners, maybe seeing more of the kids and interfacing more with the daily parenting responsibilities.

Oh, and they are social outcasts.

It’s been my experience that guys in this category usually love their role in the family life. They find it very rewarding. Sure they are occasionaly prone to questioning their decision, but seldom do they regret it. Usually they feel confident about looking back to this stage of life with fondness, especially at the chance to spend so much time with their kids in their younger years.

But, they are typically very, very histant to talk about how their decision to be a male primary caregiver is seen by friends, family, or society at large. It’s not just a feeling of being odd or different, but something much harsher. The sense of being judged as morally suspect.

“The prejudice that the families encountered is best demonstrated in the story of one father, whom the author calls Amos King, who gets a knock on the door after his wife, a nurse, leaves for work. With his 4-month-old son in his arms, Mr. King opens the door and finds a police officer and a social worker. They are responding to a report that a man is ”keeping” a young child in the apartment. The investigative duo are not satisfied until Mr. King shows them his son’s birth certificate and baptismal record. SUCH condemnation, Dr. Pruett says, is the price for being involved in a pioneering effort, an effort that society is going to have to understand and make accommodation for if men are to realize their full potential.”

I suspect every father who spends a decent amount of time with their kids (especially during “office” hours) has had that experience - the stare that implies you are some kind of predator. I’ve certainly spoken to a number of men who won’t volunteer for kids’ related activites, especially with smaller kids, because of the fear of being labelled.

In coming years I expect we will see more and more stories like this one, where a guy was banned from taking his kid to a playgroup, simply because he was a man. As a male primary carer you simply have to accept that your kid will have fewer opportunities to play in this hyper-regulated “playdate” age.

The deep irony is that this suspicion of men in caring roles undermines the goals of feminism itself. Men being more involved as carers doesn’t just provide opportunites for them to realise their potential and for kids to flourish, it also provides greater scope for women to have more career options.

From Him Indoors: The Stay At Home Dads

“Hewlett is at pains to point out that when the high-earner is female, a supportive spouse is rare. But some high-achieving women do manage to swap and some of their men spend all their time looking after the home. Juliet Blanch, head of international dispute resolution at McDermott Will & Emery, an American law firm, has a family that she sees only on weekday mornings before she catches the train from Surrey into her London office. When we speak, she is looking at a schedule that has her away for three of the next six weekends, leaving her husband John, a former lawyer, in sole charge of their son and two daughters. “So you see,” she explains, “he really does have to deal with this as if he was a single dad.”"

In “A Woman’s Place Is In The Boardroom” the authors point out that a supportive partner is a crucial for many high acheiving women. This might not mean a steretypical solution where one works and one doesn’t. But, it will usually mean that the guy is willing to adapt to a greater parenting role than has “traditionally” been the case and may, at a minimum, have to become the “go-to” person for parenting and school issues. Very often, this will imply a negotiation where one partner is willing to forgo the conventional “path to sucess” self-definitions and think in less structured and more flexible ways about their vocation.

“David Hewison, senior couple psychoanalytic psychotherapist at the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships in north London, thinks couples hide their anxieties. Even when the swap works, each partner “tries not to let the side down” when the subject comes up, he says. “And it’s hard to talk about, which suggests that the stereotypes still run very strongly.”

I suspect this is something that feels quite different from one context and culture to another. When we lived in London, it felt a lot less problematic than it does here in Hong Kong. Maybe that was down to being less of an “ex-pat,” or maybe it really was a different working culture - being around academics, creatives and the self-employed more than around bankers and bankers and bankers.

“A full-time father may attract curiosity verging on suspicion, because he clashes with our expectations. But this very curiosity, Hewison suggests, gives a father privileges denied to most mothers. As rarities, these men have value and interest, and therefore status. “It’s an adventure, a bit of a holiday for them, it’s not like a kind of life sentence. Also, you get a lot of attention from women, which is nice.”"

Yes, but, sadly, it is not always positive attention.

(Also note - Hope Springs Paternal and Return To Work Not Easy For Stay-At-Home Dads).

A Faith Founded On Fear Or Hope?

For me, one of the most fascinating things about Obama’s election is that the US has chosen as it’s leader a TCK. Not only that, but TCK’s look set to play a major role in the new administration.

For those unfamiliar with the jargon, a TCK is a third-culture kid. That means someone who has grown up in a culture that is not their “home” culture. Of course, that’s the experience of ex-pat kids as well as immigrant and refugee kids who grow up with a home and family life that is more rooted in the culture their family moved from, rather than the family they have moved to. As Ruth E. Van Reken highlights in a great article on the implications of this for Obama’s administration, TCKs share some common traits and also tend to have a different outlook on the world from kids who are more monocultural.

I suspect that the global support (and relief) at Obama’s election is connected (maybe even subconsciously) to this fact. There’s a real possibility that a TCK like Obama would be more naturally inclined to understand different points of view, especially as they are informed by cultural assumptions, than would be the case with someone like Bush who consciously chose a localist and provincial outlook on the world.

However, it seems the global support for Obama’s victory scares the living daylights out of some American fundamentalist Christians. It appears that global goodwill is a fearful omen, that being liked by the international community is in fact a weakness and that global co-operation is, in principle, bad for the USA.

What I find interesting from a lot of the commentaries on Obama’s election (such as World welcomes Obama with open arms, demands) is express desire for American leadership, on economic issues, on global warming, on human rights, on security. As I’ve said before on this blog, the era of US dominance as a hyperpower was only ever going to be a short term thing and the war on Iraq was an ideological act of desperation, trying to change the geo-political equaltion before that window of opportunity closed.

That makes me wonder about those who are tying their theology to an ideological loathing of Obama’s global popularity. What is driving that fear? While the world does hope for a changed attitude to diplomacy and international agreements from the US, there is no widespread desire to write the US out of international leadership.

Could fear be the central factor here. What may well change under Obama is the use of fear as a tactical weapon of statecraft, not just domestically, but internationally. Could it be that this subset of the church in the US likes the idea that the rest of the world fears them, fears their weapons, fears their tendency to retaliate with force. Could it be that they feel impotent at the prospect of losing that power to project fear globally?

I’m not sure. Perhaps that answer, rooted in a resentment explains at least a small part of the negative reaction to Obama’s global popularity. One thing I do believe is that church leaders and church-goers should reflect seriously on the way fear has become so central to our discourse.

Jesus said, “do not be afraid.” Yet we preach fear, we exploit fear, we encourage fear. Has the church become an industry of fear?

Writing, Presenting, Preaching And Storytelling

“Not enough gets said about the importance of abandoning crap.”
Ira Glass

A while back, Garr posted an excellent summary of Ira Glass’ presentation on creating content for new media. Ira is the host of the consistently excellent “This American Life” radio show (and podcast and now also a TV show).

“Everything is more compelling when you talk like a human being, when you talk like yourself.”
Ira Glass

To be blunt, if you speak in public in any way - presenting, preaching, teaching, or if you create online content, blogging, podcasting or video, do yourself and your audience a favour; block out half an hour and watch the five short videos and read Garr’s summary. This is excellent and transformative stuff.

Unlearning Theology

Quite a while back, Paul at One for the Road asked me to elaborate on “unlearning the habit of being right.” Every personality test and many life experiences have reminded me that this is a perpetual “growth opportunity” (as the dreary businessspeakers like to put it). It’s not something I have mastered, so I write with a degree of trepidation and diffidence.

Wanting to be right, to win the argument, to be acknowledged as having the best ideas is, more than anything else, a curse. It’s like being hardwired for pain, both self-inflicted and imposed on others. For me, it is an imprecation with a complex origin.

No doubt being a youngest child (by many years) played some role. I grew up to be a hesitant and cautious speaker, not prepared to make my thoughts public unless I had carefully scrutinised them first. Of course, that makes objections and criticisms harder to take, because you can’t help but feel attacked in a way that would not matter so much if your words were more provisional and less anxiously chosen.

School didn’t help much. Sure, there were opportunities to speak in formal ways - public speaking and debating. But, in my school, being captain of the debating team carried as much kudos and being good at knitting and, for a guy, the same level of “suspicion.” Mine was not a school that encouraged free thinking and the open exchange of ideas in a collegial environment. It was a school that trained the sons and daughters of builders and labourers to be clerical workers, tradesmen and housewives. How I ever wound up there remains a mystery to me and that I ever got out with an semblance of sanity remains a point of deep gratitude and amazement.

Of course, the darker shadow of my school years was the spectre of racism. I wasn’t especially big, or strong as a young kid, which made it hard to avoid fights. Towards the end of my high school years I cultivated the persona of someone who was violent, unhinged and unpredictable (at least two of those were true). But, in my younger (and smaller) years I wasn’t able to do that. Thankfully, or so I though at the time, I quickly learnt that words could hurt in ways that fists couldn’t and from a safer distance. Although I used physical violence more as a threat and bluff, verbal violence was established pattern.

Be yourself, is the mantra, but for most of the first thirty years of my life it was a myth. Being someone else always seemed a more effective (and safer) strategy. I don’t believe it was a coincidence that when I moved countries it became easier to be myself and in some ways, easier to make friends. Context matters.

It was that experience of being in a different place that made me think hard, really hard, about the ways I used language. My rhetorical strategies, acquired both as a means of survival and as a way of “fitting in” had to go.

One of the problems with church is that the perceptions we form of each other (and especially of those in leadership) are so piecemeal and asymmetric, often built up from small fragments of conversations (as well as hearsay and observation). The problem that created for me was training for ministry in a system that worshipped the cult of leadership. Being a good leader meant having authority and being authoritative means being right - doesn’t it?

I don’t know and in away, I don’t really care. I’m not in that world and not about to return to it. Leadership is not a game I play, so I’m no longer inclined to spend time defining it.

Which brings me back to the curse of being “right.” These days I’m much more interested in being honest that in being right. That means paying more attention to where one stands, in relation to the conversation, rather than the outcome of it. Good conversations matter more than winning strategies. I’m not jealous of the pyrrhic victories of those who would rather shut down other talkers than let ideas form and develop. What I want, most of all to resist, is the sordid temptation ot change my interpretation of reality for the sake of popularity or approval.

State Of The Blogosphere

Every few months, we get journalistic Cassandras who counsel us on the blogopshere’s impending demise. It’s probably fair to agree that the “blogosphere” as a realm has little meaning anymore. Personal publication has merged with social networking and earlier forms of online content and commerce for most people.

It’s also fair to say that most people are reading fewer purely biographical and confessional blogs. My experience is that traffic to this blog has dropped dramatically in the past eighteen months and in turn, I’ve thoroughly cut back on the number of blogs in my reader.

This is far from the first online “crisis.” In the late 90s there was a sense of frustration as people got online and felt that information was hard to find, unreliable and poorly formatted. That was the era of the static, slow-loading and perpetually out of date website. Over the next few years, online commerce, chats and forums really took off in popularity. They gave people a “reason” to be online, but there was still a dearth of personal publishing.

Blogging took off in 02-03 in a big way, but hierarchies soon developed and by 05 it was becoming harder for smaller blogs to attract attention. Established bloggers became broadcasters, many dropped comments and marketing and PR companies became more prone to “use” pro-bloggers as channels for communication.

In my view, something broke when a lot of bloggers stopped using track-back. The reasons for this were various (and often related to SPAM). But, it became harder for smaller blogs to be found and for “blog-conversations” to develop. I suspect that blog-readers behave very differently today than they did five to six years ago - treating blogposts more as standalone “articles” rather than pieces of a rhetorical jigsaw. Do we really follow links from blogrolls, or chase down the blogs of other commentators as much as we once did? I don’t and Google Analytics suggests to me that readers of this blog don’t either.

How cool you are with that probably depends on where you locate yourself online. For me, blogging has failed to deliver as a medium for conversation, shared ideation and to some extent, networking. Where I feel blogging has delivered is in personal publication. I think if the sheer fact of getting your thoughts out there, even if there is little feedback in the short term works for you, then there is no crisis in the blogosphere.

Of course, the real change is social networking. Facebook, Twitter and the like are a better solution than blogging for a lot of people. I’m not using Facebook much and will probably use it less and less in 2009. Twitter is, however, a gift (you can find me here). In some ways it helps me clarify what to blog about, since there’s less compulsion to turn every good link and idea into a “post.” My impression is that these kinds of sites are taking some traffic away from blogs, but also leading bloggers to post a little less.

Which might not be a bad thing. One of the most wearisome things about many blogs is how poorly written they are (this site included). If we all posted less, edited more and exchanged comments more freely, we wouldn’t be talking about a crisis in the blogosphere, we’d be building better conversations.

isn’t that the point?

The Anti & Un Identity Thing

The recent US election season was a fascinating study in political spin. In particular, the far Right’s strategy of claiming Obama was being Anti or Un- American. It’s a “Rovian” strategy; take a politician’s key strength (in this case Obama’s post-global national identity) and turn it into a perceived weakness (like claiming Obama’s cool, cautious detachment is really egoism or a lack of passion for “our” America).

But, it’s also a deeply malfeasant strategy that would be familiar to anyone with a minority background - it’s just another version of the “you’re not really one of us” game that has, at its core, the nascent tinge of racism. In a lot of ways, it feels like a tactic from John Howard’s play-book of Australian politics- the hoary claim that someone or some idea is UnAustralian.

Consider Stanley Kurtz’s short op-ed piece, Wright 101. Notice how Kurtz manages to sneak in the phrase “Anti-American(ism)” nine times and “extremist” seven times, without really substantiating either claim. You don’t have to read with much detachment to get the sense that here extremist might just mean someone the author disagrees with.

But, there is a deeper failure in the piece that is highlighted by this quote from Michael Eric Dyson’s study on Pride,

“…most discussion of race in America centers on what it means to be nonwhite. Very few whites are ever asked to think about what it means to be white or how whiteness defines so much of what we take for granted in the world.

White pride works best when it has not been up for discussion - when it can be denied as the purpose of talk or action and can be seen, instead, as the very framework of normal conversation and behaviour.”

and as he goes on,

“White pride has often been smuggled into national discourse under other labels; citizen, American, individual. many whites, failing to see themselves as members of a race, define themselves as citizens, all the while denying that privilege to others. Whites are individuals and Americans; blacks, Latinos, native_Americans and other minorities are viewed as members of racial and ethnic subgroups. Whiteness has a doubly negative effect: it denies its racial roots while denying racial minorities their American identities.”

In “A Woman’s Place Is In The Boardroom” a similar issue is raised when a group of business leaders are asked to reflect on how gender has shaped and determined their identity in the workplace. Women were able to address the issue with depth and clarity while men, overwhelmingly, did not understand the question.

Cohesion and community flow undeniably from shared identities and experiences. That is true, even of the most diverse groups (where what is shared may be the belief in diversity and the experience of its benefits). Homogeneity is not always evidence of sin.

But, we should ask ourselves what good ever comes from exclusion for the sake of exclusion, from the highlighting of otherness as a sole reason to ostracise someone, from the claim that difference disqualifies someone from the ability to lead.

What If There Is More Than One Reason For The Season?

The way we respond to the commercialisation of Christmas often says more about us than it does about the commercial culture itself.

Those who want to share their faith will use the opportunity. Those like to pick fights will fight. Those who want to explain the true meanings behind the symbolism will do so. Those who just want to run and hide when reality doesn’t shape up to their ideological image of perfection will scope out the perfect bit of sand to bury their heads in.

Year on year, for the last decade, I’ve found people ever more receptive to hearing about Christmas (and learning about Advent) in ways that transcends consumerism. I This year, with the financial troubles, it will be even more prevalent. We shouldn’t underestimate how deeply and seriously a lot of people are thinking right now about what matters to them in life.

I’ve loved the Simpsons ever since I saw the shorts on the Tracy Ullman show. Animated comedy is a great way to approach cultural criticism and The Simpsons always do it well. Like a lot of people, I’ve drawn to the way the show portrays Christians, Christian themes and the Christmas season.

There are obvious Christian characters like Ned Flanders and Revered Lovejoy. There are also deep spiritual crises faced by the family themselves, especially Bart and Homer. But, there’s one character that has increasingly become, for me, symbolic of contemporary evangelical Christianity. Jeff Albertson, or as we all know him better, Comic Book Guy.

You know him, revelling in his arcane language, expertness of fictional worlds and complex rules about conventions and fandom. He’s prone to ask complex and detailed questions about obscure topics, to mock the limited knowledge or passion of those who know less than he does about comics and sci-fi and to prefer being right and alone, to being accommodating and sociable. Oh, and he is not a little bit socially dysfunctional and prone to spending too much time online

“Last night’s ‘Itchy and Scratchy Show’ was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.”

What’s interesting about Comic Book Guy’s relationship to society is that he is very culturally aware and in a way scholarly. But, he is only willing to participate on his own terms. Unless the discourse is perfect and rarified he “will not partake of it, lest it sully his expertise,” as we might imagine him saying in that weirdly King Jamesian inflection he uses. Comic Book Guy doesn’t put his amassed knowledge behind any effort to educate, to grow the appreciation of his passion past a narrow clique or to even enjoy when people show an interest in his cultural treasures. Instead, he stoops to condescend.

Doesn’t the church often do the same thing at Christmas? Rather than delight in the proximity to our message, we criticise and cast derision. Rather than welcome people’s fumbling attempts to articulate their understanding of the season, we jump in brazenly to correct and “teach” the “true” meaning of the Christmas.

But, what if we just accept that Christmas functions on a number of different levels? What if held back a little on the tendency to regulate every level of Christmas, as if the etymology of the word somehow gave us alone the privileged to use it?

I’m not saying that we dilute our own understanding of Christmas - either it’s place in the liturgical calendar or its theological significance. I’m just asking that we think a little more hospitably about the place we fill in the broader culture at this time.

Imagine Christmas as being like a giant bookstore, with a range of books; some serious, some populist, some trashy, some noble. Every book is a “Christmas” book though, of course, not every book is equal. People are browsing and choosing, talking and comparing. It’s an active and buzzing place - most people are not sure why they are there, but they are trying to make sense of it and trying to have a little fun. Do we really want to be hanging out in the comics section, chugging a slurpy and passing judgement on the people who “don’t get it?”