What I do for a living...

So I haven't posted a real faith oriented post recently, which I apologize for if anyone has missed such things. I've been busy with my occupation as of late, which is being a sociology graduate student. So, I've decided to offer up a piece of what I do to bring home the bacon. If you don't understand some of the obscure terminology, it's okay. Neither do most academics who are supposed to understand this stuff (me included about 95% of the time) But for what its worth, behold the insanity that is evaluating and discussing social theory.

Integrating Agency and Structure:

An Exploration and Expansion on the Theories of Pierre Bordieu and Zygmundt Bauman

Many academics would categorize Bauman and Bordieu as having developed opposing theories. Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity dismisses the idea of stable structures and empirical social truth, opting for perceived structures and the creative agency of the individual, while Bordieu posits that social structures are essentially stable and self-sustaining, and largely limit the agency of the individual.(cite?) Bauman insists that empirical research, and especially statistical analysis, is largely irrelevant to investigating the social world, while Bordieu demands that theory be affirmed by empirical evidence. (cite?)

I would argue that any stated dichotomy between Bordieu and Bauman is not only misleading, but defeats the possibility of a rich social theory that incorporates the best intellectual contributions of both. The greatest goal of an adequate sociological theory is to explain the relationships between social structures and social actors, to account for the role of agents in forming society and society in shaping agents. Both Bordieu and Bauman provide a wealth of ideas on this topic, but there are deficiencies in the theories of both that can be addressed the other. Bordieu theory‘s greatest strength is its integration of structure into the behavior of individuals through the habitus, but it has been accused of not providing a deep explanation of the ability of agents to alter society. Bauman’s theory is rich with ideas regarding how the actions of individuals are capable of altering the social structures in which they take place, but it has a difficult time accounting for the tendency of certain features of those structures to persist. My position is that, rather than being in conflict, the ideas of these two theorists are complementary to one another, and that their theories are actually converging from different directions towards a more complete picture of a mutual feedback system of agency and structure, in which the relationship between the two is not linear but rather circular in nature.

The diagrams represent three configurations of structure and agency, all of which allow for agents to impact structure and vice versa. In the first model, which is representative of Bauman’s theory, structure has a weak but present impact on agents, while agents have a robust impact on structure. In the second model, representative of Bordieu’s theory, agents have a noticeable but rather weak impact on structure, but structure has a concrete role in shaping the behavior of agents. The third model, which incorporates features of both but does away with hierarchy between the two, represents a mutual feedback system of social phenomenon. Here, the impact of agents on structures and structures on agents are both quite strong, and both are impacted constantly by the process. The focus however, is not on the position of one in terms of its dominance over the other, but on the processes by which each shapes the other in a circular system. There is consistency in the process by which each is shaped, but both the social structure and the individual actors are constantly evolving and adapting to one another.
In this kind of sociological theory, the object of study is not effect of structure on agents or agents on structure, but the processes by which they interact. This framework expands our gaze beyond the configuration of society, which Bordieu visualizes quite well with his geography of social spaces, as well as the mutability of contemporary social structures, which Bauman describes in rich detail through his work on liquid modernity. These are valuable, valid contributions to the field, but to progress the study of the social world, we need to look further into how we observe and describe the “motion” present in the relationship of agents and social structure. We should look for the points of initiation where structure transforms or reinforces particular social behaviors in individuals (i.e. what kind of social phenomenon encouraged and maintained popular support for state sanctioned segregation?), as well as the specific characteristics and circumstances of individuals at the point where changes in their social worlds begin. (i.e. what are the characteristics and beliefs that allowed individuals to end state sanctioned segregation?)

The challenge to such sociology is that it is extremely demanding. We should not, as individual researchers, choose correspondence analysis and neglect ethnographic research if we are to get a fuller picture of the interaction between agents and social structures. We should do both with the same intensity for all subjects of research, and thus come away from our research with the fullest picture of that subject that we can. This is responsibility not only to the field of study we have chosen, but also to the public we claim to serve through our scholarship.

The Other nasally song.

Here's the other song I'm working on. Need a rhythm section and we'll be zeroing in on it.

All I Want is You by philagibson

Wishing I was Bob....Dylan that is.With a Hint of Bono. But Edgy.

I love Bob Dylan's love songs, so I recorded one of my favorites. Someday I'll sing this for someone in the evenings, and she won't even mind that I sing straight through my nose. Until then, here's me, a guitar, an a seven year old laptop playing "If Not For You." Deep writing to continue another day.

If Not For You by philagibson

Truth (or at least some version of it)

I don't think anyone has a handle on truth. I don't and neither do you. It can be a frustrating thing. I can believe in something, but I can never know with 100% certainty that it is true.

Yet without believing in something, without committing to a direction, we cannot act in any meaningful way, or at least any way I can think of. Those beliefs can shift and change in time, but they provide us with at least some idea of where we are going.

In other words, there are some core ideals that I feel are necessary to having some personal sense of ethics and action. These are some of mine, as best as I can understand. They represent my best effort at the age of twenty-six to put together the most self-honest, genuine collection of things I believe. You can substitute I for "you" or "we" if you feel it appropriate.

1) I am selfish, and it is inherently destructive in nature.

2) No system can change this fact, or turn my selfishness into a positive thing for the world (To disagree with one Gordon Gekko, greed is not, in fact, good)

3) Until I am aware of this fact and have owned it, I will be absolutely bound to it.

4) I need help (i.e. I have to get humble about it)

5) There is a way out of the cycle of selfishness and destruction. There may be others, but I always end up back at Jesus. Not Christianity, not religion, but the guy Himself. Whether you believe in God or the Divine or not, there is something about Jesus that just "feels" true. He had a way, and it started with the total transformation of our minds away from the thinking of our respective cultures or countries and toward something better.

6) I can make an active choice to turn away from myself and become a disciple of this "way." This involves trust, humility, and the willingness to lay down my right to be right. But to me, it is freedom.

7) This choice changes everything. It changes the definition of success, the means that are at my disposal, everything.

8)The means of Jesus' way are incompatible with nationalism and sectarianism. I think people have a problem with that, but I can't get around it. When I read the text, I see it everywhere. And it's a constant source of conflict, one that has been personally painful and costly for many people.

9)Hopefulness is absolutely crucial. In my own life I come off as a cynic constantly. But I'm learning to see hope, and it looking for and celebrating this hope feels more productive than hating the world. Jesus was so good at riding the line between sharp and necessary criticism and attention to hope in the world. I know I toot the guys horn a lot, but give the guy credit, cause finding that balance is not easy.

10) The greatest opportunity and challenge I face is to love people. I can support all the causes I want, think all the right things, vote a certain way, but in the end, the best thing I can do is work on sharing love with the people I encounter every day. It sounds stupid and cliche, but I believe this with my whole heart. We deride the "love everyone" thing all the time, but I think this is a defensive act. Loving people is hard. Being sarcastic about it is easy. I'm slowly learning this.

11) The way I find to love people and grow as a human being may not be your way. And that is okay. The only reason I think we ever try to push our ways onto others is to make ourselves feel more secure about what we think. I am offering the best findings I've come across thus far. Do what you will with them, take them apart, or ignore them.

This has probably been one of the less substantive posts so far, but it is a milestone. A check-in to see where my mind is at. Thanks for indulging.

The Creative (or Process, Not Production)

I was thinking about the Creation story today.

I think this particular text has been the bugger-bear of countless people who liked the idea of God but had trouble resolving this with reality. Likewise, it has been a major rallying point for fundamentalist Christians with nothing better to do than get angry at the big bad culture. If you are at all interested in the Evolution vs. Creation "debate" (I use this this term very loosely) then this will not be the blog post for you.(If you are interested in this, Francis Collins is doing some very creative work on the subject: http://www.biologos.org/)

What I am interested in is what the Creation story has to offer us regardless of personal preference in religious conviction. What can it teach us about the way we go about the business of living and dying?

Before looking at the story itself, I want to look at the definition of the word Creation. According to the freeonlinedictionary.com, four definitions of creation are

1. the act or process of creating
2. the fact of being created or produced
3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp. a product of human intelligence or imagination

4. the whole universe, including the world and all the things in it

Two words stand out to me here, conveniently printed in bold as if I planned on discussing them. I found it interesting that creation can be thought of both as a process (something we are engaged in doing) and as a product(an object that has already been made). It is present and past. So, if we want to talk about a Creation Story, it might be useful to think of it as still going on.

On to the story. I'm just going to summarize what happened on each of the first seven "days"

Day One: God spoke and created the Heavens and the Earth, Darkness and Light, Morning and Night

Day Two: God created Water and the Sky

Day Three: God created Land and Seas, Vegetation

Day Four: God created the Sun and the Moon

Day Five: God created Fish and Birds (also sea monsters apparently)

Day Six: God created Land Animals, Humankind (in God's own image, so the story goes)

Day Seven: God rested

There are so many things I could discuss about this story (such as the impressive ability of even ancient people to understand that there is a progression from the advent of the universe to the formation of the earth to the rise of life, but once again, not my topic). What I want to discuss, however, is something I only recently noticed; Creation takes time, and requires a pause for rest, even if you are an omnipotent being. However, if we look not much further down the road in this story, it doesn't take much to destroy it. One act, one choice, one diversion from the flow of things, and things go into disarray. The "first humans" of the story perform one act of disobedience, and all that has been created is wrecked. What took time and rest for God to do, humanity managed to subvert without even putting much thought into it.

I take this simple message from the Judeo-Christian Creation narrative: creation is difficult, tiring, and time consuming (and beautiful), but destruction is easy(and painful in the end).

Regardless of where you come from or believe, I think there is a lot of wisdom to be found in this.

Unfortunately, what often happens in our culture is that we lose perspective of and respect for everything that goes into the process of creation, and acknowledge only the product. In short, we have not the patience to look for the story behind things, and we are too quick to define something solely in terms of its utility to ourselves. (For a great example of the consequences of consumer oriented thinking, check out http://www.storyofstuff.com/).

As a society, we forget the process part of creation, and focus mostly on the product itself. As the Creation story points out however, the process is vital. God's act of creating the heavens and the earth, life, and humanity establishes the idea that we are part of what has been made, part of a bigger process, and not simply the consumers of creation. When we forget that, we abuse creation and damage it.

Fortunately, this is not all there is to the story. We have alternatives. The Creation Story makes a serious point of humankind being made in God's image. This has implications even within the context of the Creation story itself. God is established in the story as having a creative nature. The very first thing described about God's character in the Bible is that it creates. It engages in process, and it is pleased in doing so. After all, when each day was over, "It is good."

If the assertion of the story is that we are made in God's image, then it would seem that we would be fulfilled by engaging in the process of creation. We are creative beings, not just consumers of the creativity of others.

I got to listen to one of my classmates give a great presentation of Zygmunt Bauman's "The Art of Life" this week. Bauman discusses happiness as being the product of our engaging in an artistic life, by making choices and taking actions that have meaning for us. A vital part of this process is the choice. We decide to move, and what direction we want to move in. We do not determine the consequences. If our our "art" is not appreciated by others the way we want it to be, there is nothing we can do about it. Our joy comes from the decision to be creative itself, to pursue a meaningful life that in the process of being and becoming.

We do not pursue our lives alone. In the creation story, humans are in community with one another and God. After things get busted, God continues to bring people into community over and over again to pursue a different life from that of others.

Abraham has Sarah

David has Jonathan

Elijah has Elisha

Jesus has the Disciples

Paul has the early Church

We are not supposed to do this by ourselves. We are individuals, but we are individuals together. There is no individualism vs. collectivism. The creative life can and is both.

We can choose to live our stories together, to share them, respond to them, and then continue to grow and move.

One of my favorite church songs says it this way: "We will guard each one's dignity." In other words, we should respect and love one another such that we protect and support one another's unique journeys, and do not allow one another to be robbed of the lives we are creating. We should help one another paint without stealing away the brush, and fend off anyone who does.

We have an opportunity to turn away from the empty life of consumerism, false normality, and "us vs. them." We get to make a different choice. And when we do, we join a larger community. We are each painting our masterpiece, but are part of a bigger masterpiece, more beautiful than any of our own lives by itself. May we create with humility in awe of this.

Creation is good.