Spring Cleaning

Ah, the sun it out, the birds are singing, and the first tornado of the season touched down this weekend–it’s springtime in Oklahoma. And with springtime comes spring cleaning, an often cathartic process where people shed off some of the physical clutter of their lives to be hauled away by the city in the seasonal clean-up, (here is the schedule for this spring). It is always around this time of year, looking at the rubble I’ve managed to accumulate, that I starting pondering consumerism, recycling practices, and some of the small ways I can have a positive effect on my local environment, which coincidentally enough are the topics of today’s rambling.

Recently, while walking through my university’s student union, I was approached by some young men working a table promoting some sort of DVD/CD distributer. In an effort to get my attention one man yelled out “Hey! Do you want some free stuff?” In reaction to this shout, I immediately had the thought that anything that can be called “stuff” is very rarely worth having.

In the consumption driven culture which is so rapidly overtaking the globe we are practically conditioned to start salivating at the ringing sound of “free products” without considering their actual cost. We are encouraged to view things on the short term, surface level, trained to identify ourselves with certain products, and taught to proclaim our significance in the world by boasting certain status symbols, all without realizing how much this stuff weighs us down.

I am not trying to suggest that we get rid of all our possessions and treasures, simply that a great deal of what we view as vital for our comfort is, in fact, something we can quite happily live without. Over the last year I have helped several friends move, and  they were always amazed by how much stuff they have acquired, lost in the garage, and forgotten over the years–only to be rediscovered and puzzled over in the mist of packing. It’s almost like watching a snake shed its skin or a butterfly emerge from the cocoon.

But what to do with all this extra stuff we manage to accumulate? There are generally two options–throw it away or recycle it. As someone who tries to be environmentally conscientious, I should recommend the latter without hesitation, but instead I do so with caution. The sad fact is that the “Green Movement” (not the Iranian one), which has caught on over the last decade really isn’t that green in many cases–especially the recycling industry. Like anything else is this world, you have to watch out when recycling, because often many “recycling” organizations gather up waste and export it to be dumped  in the developing world. This is a particularly prevalent issues in the area of e-waste disposal. For example, last year the EPA charged an Oklahoma-based electronics recycling company “EarthEcycle”  with committing such fraud.  As thisreport by the Int’l Imaging Technology Council highlights:

Guiyu, China, has become the world’s dumping ground for what is defined as “e-waste.” “Exporting Harm,” a 54-page report issued by the Basel Action Network (BAN), exposed the environmental horrors in this small town. Toner cartridges comprise a large portion of the town’s problems.

The e-waste comes from familiar places like Los Angeles or Chicago, as identified by tags and plates on some of the debris. How did they end up here? Because someone wanted to have them recycled.

According to the report and videotape from BAN, recycling centers may collect e-trash, but then they become mere distribution centers for exporting the same.

According to recycling insiders, about 80 percent of the e-waste collected by recyclers ends up in containers bound for Asia.

However if you do a little research it is possible to find reputable recycling programs, which can be a small way to help reduce the amount of garbage in lands fills and slow the demand for virgin resources. Like anything in life though, to affect real change through recycling it take times, dedication, and cooperation, (three things we generally abhor in America), but if done properly the results can be astounding. For example, watch this story about the rise of recycling in Cairo’s “trash city.”

Finally, what are some of the ways to work within the local community to improve the environment. The most obvious way is by paying attention to your own consumption and disposal habits and simply trying to consume less. For example, do you really need that free t-shirt that you know you’ll only wear once? Is it absolutely vital that you buy 10 cases of bottle water each month, or can you buy a thermos and drink tap-water, (or invest in a water purifying system if you really can’t stand tap-water). Are you getting rid of those electronics because they’re broken/completely obsolete, (like 8-track players), or because something shinier has come along?

Also make use of local recycling services, (after researching them!), and demand more efficient curbside recycling programs by the city. In its article “The Truth About Recycling”The Economist provides an interesting discussion of the evolution of curbside programs, including some of the pros and cons in regards to price. Part of the reason American recycling programs are constantly criticized as being non-cost effective, pointless, etc, is because such programs are so often implemented half-heartedly, created to earn “green-points” for the city rather than to actually allow for effective waste reduction.

Pay attention to local/state environmental legislation and how it is applied to corporations–which are often some of the biggest sources of water and land contamination. Take for example the dispute between Oklahoma and Arkansas over the water quality of the Illinois River which was fouled, (sorry I couldn’t resist the pun), by disposal practices of poultry companies.

Some even simpler ways to make a difference on the local environment is to spend some time picking up trash (for example take a trash-bag with you on your evening walk). Conserve water and use less fertilizer on you lawn. Make good use of local farmers markets, (the Norman market opens up on April 3rd!). Instead of throwing out used clothing/baby items/etc, if they are in alright condition donate them to local shelters. Explore the local freecycle network before buying large items or putting them out on the curb. Bike, walk, and car pool. Snip plastic soda-rings before disposal, etc. I’m hardly an expert on the matter so please feel free to share other suggestions about what local actions we can take to improve our environment.

Like/Dislike? Leave a comment!

On the Trail: I Got a Job

If you are regular readers of this blog, then you know that I have been writing about my work as a volunteer on a congressional campaign.  I have covered a number of topics including: the power of money in politics, the unconventional workplace of a campaign and the ambiguity that comes with not being in a traditional work environment,  the pace of campaigning, and being the baby of the campaign “family.”  It’s been a very useful outlet for my experiences ‘on the trail’ and hopefully you got a sense of what it’s like.

However, my heart rejoices to tell you that I have been hired on with the same campaign to work as the Press Secretary.  I have been on the job for about 10 days now and I am still very excited.  Our primary is June 8th so we have about three months of lead up before the election.  Because of my involvement as a staff person on the campaign, I have to temporarily forgo my reflections on the process.  It wouldn’t be quite right for me to be reflecting from the position as a staff person.  Maybe I will have some reflections after the race has run its course but until then I will be blogging on other topics.  Thanks for reading.

But wait, there’s more!  I cannot help but write a few words about the difference between being staff and being a volunteer, in the most general sense.

First, the boundaries are much harder to define.  When I was working as a volunteer, I only worked the time I had and if it did not work with my schedule, that meant that I could not be there.  Now I schedule things around the campaign and there are campaign events almost every night.  Therefore, making plans for anything personal is very difficult.

Second, spending time with the same group of people day in and day out is exhausting.  I see my fellow staff and core volunteers more than I see my housemates and I spend about twice as many hours in the day with them as I do sleeping.  I know that by the end of the campaign, I will be on their last nerve and they will be on mine.  But, spending all that time together also results in strong bonds.  We’re there to encourage one another.  Example: Yesterday three of my coworkers went to Panda Express, the Chinese restaurant literally around the corner from the office.  “Do you want anything?” one of them asked.  Jokingly I said, “yeah, I’ll take your fortune cookie.”  When they arrived back thirty minutes later I received three fortune cookies, one from each of them.  Indeed, we go to Panda Express so often I’ve started collecting the fortunes and taping them to my laptop screen.  The two fortunes added today say, “BEAUTIFUL THINGS AWAIT YOU” and “NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO FINISH OLD TASKS.”  I have more to add.  I know that these will be long month and looking up at encouraging words (even fortune cookie wisdom) delivered from friendly hands will keep me trudging on.

Third, I am perpetually exhausted.  Any political race is daunting and ours is no different.  The sheer amount of work to be done seems almost unachievable in such a short period of time.  I also had the wisdom to start work and move across town on the same day, which led to me shoving books and knick knacks into boxes while fielding calls from my candidate and my campaign manager.  Then all my possessions spent several days in boxes while I worked 15 hour days to try and get my bearings.  I pushed myself on Saturday (first day off) to unpack and organize everything.  Sunday morning I woke up with a cold.  Such is life, at least for the next three months, and hopefully beyond.

That is all for my campaign reflections.  I look forward to filling you in after the race has been run (and won).

When It Hits Home: ideas through dialogue

Last week, after the pre-screening of the film One in Three, The Xenia Institute facilitated a public dialogue session with the screening attendees.  We asked the group leaders to report ideas that the groups came up with and topics for further discussion.  These ideas and topics are in raw form, but it is our hope that they might be considered carefully and worked with further.  After all, the idea to pair a public dialogue with a film screening came from a joint Xenia and OU Women’s and Gender Studies event almost one year ago.  Who knows what might come next…

Below are the ideas and topics in no particular order:

• A series of school assemblies with speakers and videos, maybe in conjunction with a direct service agency or a group that specializes in violence prevention.

• Training a team of youth who could make presentations at other schools on the topic of intimate partner violence and rape, in particular engaging students in role playing and engaging young men.

• Public service announcements through the local media: newspapers, radio, and the public library.

• Start in preschool/kindergarten by educating children in what it means to be authentic with one another, especially concerning gender relations.

• Training teachers to recognize the signs of abuse, neglect, and relationship issues.

• Parents beginning conversations with their children concerning appropriate and inappropriate forms of touching etc.

• People need to understand how to say “no” and how to hear “no.”

• Educating the general public on how to be a “viable and effective third party” when they are faced with a potential domestic violence situation. (Getting hotline numbers and resources into the hands of the general public.)

Pondering Dialogue…

Seeing as you, my readers, are checking out a dialogue organization website I can only guess you share my interest in this particular issue. Working from this shared interest, I want to ponder on what it means to dialogue with others in a meaningful way, and  how dialogue is being promoted and carried out, (particularly interfaith dialogue).

These last few days I have attended a serious of lectures by religious scholar Stephanie Saldana, author of the lovely book “The Bread of Angels”, and active proponent of religious dialogue.  When retelling her  experiences as a Christian woman in the Middle East and her deep appreciation of Islam, Saldana made an observation about the nature of dialogue, “Dialogue is like marriage counseling…”. That it is only after you have built a deep relationship with someone over time that you can truly engage in dialogue where you bring up issue that you deeply struggle over and disagree upon instead of sticking to your comfort zones of similarities.

I found it interesting to compare this conception of dialogue to those put forth by Xenia members in the “What is Dialogue” video series, (which can be found here). For myself,  dialogue is not dependent on time. It is possible to know someone for years without ever having had a deep exchange just as it is possible to meet someone once and have a life changing experience with them. Indeed one of my own such experiences was an evening-long conversation at a local cafe with a elderly gentleman from West Texas. While we came from very different backgrounds and belief systems, we were able to see each other as human, sit down, and struggle together over issues which often send people into screaming matches. It is this seeing each other as human which I feel lies at the very heart of dialogue. While it often takes time to see others in such a way sometimes, it is an immediate realization which shocks one to the core.

However, instead of focusing solely on what it means to be in dialogue with others, a topic which I feel has been well covered by others within the Xenia Institute,  I instead wish to turn our attention to the ways we try to promote dialogue and organize “dialogue events”.

During her visit Saldana offered a critique, which inspired this blog, on the way major dialogue events are often conducted. As she explains from her own experiences, formal dialogue events are generally structured as a panel or meetings where the speakers, who have never met before, talk about issue of unity. The problem is that the panelists often do not end up engaging over the issues, rather they attempt to answer the questions from their tradition’s official stance instead of interacting with each other. Moreover they are put into the position trying to represent an entire tradition when they are just one person. Finally, as such events generally invite an “official” representative of a religion  instead of average practitioners, it is often the case  that women and members of submovements are left out of these formal dialogue opportunities.

For the most part I would agree with this critique. From my own experiences with interfaith dialogue events (and their political equivalent: the “bi-partisan discussion”) there is often a frustrating lack of deep engagement going on. Rather people tend to talk to each other instead of with each other. Moreover, at such events I often feel as though people focus more on discussing dialogue and why it is important rather than actually engaging in it. I don’t necessarily believe this lessens the value of such events, just that they accomplish a different level of conversation, which is still  important for encouraging future discussion. If personal dialogue is like marriage counseling which takes place after deep acquaintance, than dialogue panels are like the awkward first date which might lead to more promising things.

Still I feel that we need to start considering different models for “dialogue events” and new ways of facilitating dialogue within communities, for example, during formal events trying to focus on individuals as being part of their tradition rather than as being representatives of said tradition. One might also structure dialogue events to meet over an extended time in more personal settings, (such as Xenia does with its dialogue groups). Finally, for dialogue to occur there must be respect toward the other: a seeing them as they are rather than what you assume… But this does not mean dialogue must be harmonious or even particularly friendly at times. Perhaps groups might try to go beyond the unifying aspects of dialogue often employed to keep people polite and let members emphasize their difference even if it is challenging to others.

These are issues with which I have been struggling for some time as I work with what I hope to accomplish and learn by becoming involved in the dialogue movement. I feel it is important to occasionally take a step back and look at expectations, methods, and assumptions of  “encouraging dialogue” so as to understand how we have affected the world, to see what we need to do to remain true to the spirit of dialogue rather than being caught up in its ideals.

Last video on Dialogue released today…

Today we publish our last segment of the series called, “What is Dialogue?”  This four part series was produced with help from Xenia dialogue fellows, volunteers, community leaders, and Dr. Tom Boyd, the keynote speaker at our fourth annual Sam Matthews Social Justice Award Banquet.

Please enjoy, and stay tuned as we continue to explore dialogue in various ways at The Xenia Institute.

Who Would You Let in Your Political Bed?

It was Charles Dudley Warner who said, “Politics make strange bedfellows.”  I suppose that all depends on with whom you are sleeping, politically of course.  The truth of this quotation is that politics is all about coalition building.  If you want to create or change a policy, you need support.  But, in this game there is more than one ball in the air.   At any given time, a multitude of issues are being discussed, organized around and acted upon.  Political parties help to build coalitions and cohesion.  You will usually be on the same side of the aisle as those with whom you share a political party.  However, as watching health care in the US Senate has taught us, parties often find themselves trying to play “red rover” with the other side.

However, coalition building is difficult because some issues cut so close to the bone.  Can a gay pro-life representative join forces with a homophobic pro-life representative on their shared interest against abortion?  Taking a stand with another elected official is a serious statement.  But, are there some issues that prevent you from even standing up with another person?  For me, homophobia is a huge barrier to allyship.  Gay culture and people have always been a big, positive part of my life so I take issue with people who would seek to tear down the LGBT community for whom they love.  Other complete no-go issues for me are misogyny and racism.  Are there issues so dear to you that you could not work with some one who opposed you on them?  Or, in other words, “Who would you let in to your political bed?”

I have been reading Teddy Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass over the last couple of weeks.  He was constantly faced with the challenge of finding allies to support the issues which mattered to him, such as health care and immigration.  Here is a small section of the book.

Eastland’s racial views posed a moral problem for me.  Civil rights became one of the defining causes of my career.  How could I seek guidance, or cooperate in any way, with a proponent of segregation?

My decision regarding Eastland-in fact, my abiding impulse to reach across lines of division during my career-took strength from the concluding phrase of Lincoln’s first inaugural address, on the eve of the Civil War.  I decided to put faith in ‘the better angels of our nature.’  I worked with James Eastland; in fact, the two of us became friends.  Then and always, I would work with anyone whose philosophies differed from mine as long as the issue at hand promoted the welfare of the people, and I would continue to await those better angels, and to remain confident in ultimate justice.

I would like to believe in the better angels of all of us.  In fact, I would imagine that for the issues of racism, misogyny and homophobia, both sides would benefit from some relationship with the other.  When we isolate ourselves, we stop seeking to dialogue with the rest of teh world.  But, it is through dialogue and learning from those who differ from us that we learn the most.  As I have written, diversity is the servant of dialogue. Maybe bedfellows is too intimate of an analogy.  But, we can share a handshake, a meal and a conversation with even those who differ the most from us.

To Quote Samuel Taylor Coleridge…

Water conservation is perhaps one of the most important challenges humanity faces in the coming century, but it is still one that is overlooked and taken for granted by those fortunate enough to have regular access to the benefits of a clean water supply. Clean drinking water, indoor pluming, bottled mineral water, (flavored or otherwise), year-round green lawns, swimming pools, corporate farms in the desert, artificial lakes, diverted rivers, hydraulic electric plants–these are the luxuries of the rich, of which almost everyone is in America and Europe is in comparison to rest of the world. The many ways modern, developed societies use water truly displays our ignorance, arrogance, and sheer non-appreciation for this most important of resources, which has led to a growing GLOBAL water crisis.

There is always someone who quips, “The Earth is around 70% water, how can we be having a water crisis?” Yes, there is a huge about of water on our planet, but only about 3% is fresh water, most of which is frozen in polar icecaps, leaving less than 1% easily, (depending on if you have the technology), accessible for human consumption. And consume it do we ever. Over 70% of human water usage is dedicated to agriculture, of which nearly half is wasted through inefficient irrigation, evaporation, etc. In order to maintain these wasteful practices, (something which America and China are particularly culpable), we divert rivers and drain lakes and wetlands–thus destroying valuable ecosystems. And whatever water we don’t use, we pollute with sewage and chemical runoff from our farms, factories, and very homes.

The global south has born the brunt of the water crisis, particularly in Africa and the Middle East where booming populations mixed with depleted traditional water sources, (such as underground aquifers, lakes, and rivers), have created a state of increased tension which has only exacerbated various conflicts. Unfortunately, in the rush for these countries to develop, they have adopted many of the water practices and suggestion of the global north, which, to be quite frank, is a terrible model for sustainable water use.

It it important to realize that water shortages affect the global north as well where the struggle over water rights have increased dramatically over the last 50 years. Think about the droughts which afflicted much of the western US between 1999 and 2004, or the water shortages which hit Los Angeles in 2009. Just the past Sunday this article came out regarding the water quality of Norman Oklahoma’s own Lake Thunderbird, which revealed that the city’s principle water source  has already been classified as a Sensitive Water Supply by the state.

Dr. Baxter Vieux, a civil engineering and environmental science professor at the University of Oklahoma, said the need to keep a pretty lawn is a big problem for the lake’s water quality. “There’s a culprit,” Vieux said. “And we’re all a little bit guilty.”

Vieux said residents and others dump about 20 tons of fertilizer in Lake Thunderbird each year. He said the fertilizer in run-off water causes algae to grow at an alarming rate, causing the lake’s water quality to drop and creating an environment where fish and other animals may not be able to get as much oxygen as they need.

But it’s not just Norman and its residents who are the problem. Several other cities, including Oklahoma City, lie within Lake Thunderbird’s watershed. Vieux said urban development in the Lake Thunderbird watershed is expected to double by 2030 as sprawl creeps into the outer limits of Norman, Midwest City and Oklahoma City. He said all the added impervious surfaces — things like concrete that don’t allow water to soak in — will cause the lake’s water quality to decrease further.

Those are some of the facts and figures human water habits, but what does it mean in terms of the quality of life, social justice, development and world politics? In regards to water issues in the global south many development organizations like to fund well-drilling projects, seeing it as a relatively cheap, quick, and simple way to provide easily accessible water to rural communities. Some of the benefits of well-drilling projects are the freeing up of time for village women, (who would otherwise spend a majority of their day fetching water), having a clean source of drinking water, (which cuts down on disease), and having a steady water source for irrigation of fields, (which results in better crops, more food and money). Sounds perfect, right?

Unfortunately there is a down side. For example, in Yemen development organizations drilled wells in villages and for local agriculture around the country. As this article points out, by encouraging well drilling for farming and western style crop irrigation instead of the traditional rainwater irrigation, Yemen has now exhausted its underground aquifers and, as a result, its drinking water supply. Similar situations have occurred around the world, where by becoming dependent on man-made water works, (such as wells, dams, artificial canals, etc), communities neglect traditional water conservation practices in favor of a quick, easy source.

The problem is that having this easy source of water also allow communities and agricultural practices to expand beyond the natural limits of the ecosystem.But what happens when the well-pump breaks, the river becomes polluted, the lake shrinks, or the aquifers run dry? Suddenly communities are faced with drought, disease, famine, (if they depend on sustenance agriculture), and a host of other problems. In urban areas the major problems become water rationing and increasing water prices–which then raises a human rights question. Should people have to pay for clean water? After all, we can not survive without water so is it ethical for companies, cities, governments, etc., to charge people for it and to deny water to other communities in need? It is these issues which lie at the heart of various water disputes, such as those between Oklahoma and Texas, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon, and the Central Asian states.

We, as a global community, need to start addressing water management seriously. Water conservation in the global north is pitifully low, while water sources in the global south are insufficient for their current needs–at least when using current day practices. Water management is a huge issue which extends into environmental conservation, human rights, security studies, meteorology, politics, global trade, agricultural practices, scientific development, even religion, (for example the Indus river is sacred for many Hindu religious traditions). Water literally affects every single living thing on this planet every day and it can not and should not be ignored.

It certainly gives you something to think about next time you have a drink….

“What is Dialogue” video series: part 3

Today we release part 3 of our video series on dialogue.  Xenia dialogue fellows, community leaders, and friends of Xenia take up the question: what is dialogue, and how can it change the way we interact with each other?

I Embrace Religions, Except Other Interpretations of My Own

In school, I majored in Religious Studies.  I learned about Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), Islam (Sunni, Shia, Sufi), Sikhism, Ba’hai, Jainism, Hinduisms, and more.  I eventually came to the conclusion that all religions are seeking the ultimate truth.  In addition, I concluded that many religious traditions share common elements but emphasize them differently.  I can recall very clearly having this revelation in high school Sunday school while talking about non-attachment in the Buddhist tradition.  “What’s the one day that Christians focus on non-attachment?” my teacher posed to the group of us.  My mind was completely blank, is that something we talked about at all?  “Ash Wednesday,” he said, “when we receive the imposition of ashes and are told ‘Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.’”

I like to think that I am ‘beyond tolerance’ (as a t-shirt of mine says) when it comes to religious traditions.  I’m not just interested in “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.”  I want to embrace the diversity.  Even atheists and agnostics intrigue me.  The claim that there is no God or that any ultimate reality is unknowable are themselves statements about religion.  I love to talk to those people over a cup of coffee, not because I’m a believer and want to convert them, but because they have valid opinions too.

Having said that I can sit comfortably with a great diversity of religions and not only tolerate them, but embrace their perspectives, there is one tradition with whom I cannot sit comfortably, a conservative interpretation of my own.  Perhaps it’s from the years of being asked as a child in Oklahoma if Episcopal was Christian, or having someone speculate that my youth group van was decorated in race car type flames because we were going to hell, but I cannot speak respectfully with those Christians who would close the church to women’s ordination or full participation of homosexuals, among other things.

However, I could talk to other traditions that hold these exact same views.  What is it about my own tradition that creates such a blind spot?  Perhaps it is because I perceive Conservative Christians as an incorrect interpretation, whereas I am not similarly inclined to pronounce the same opinion  in say, the Orthodox Jewish tradition.  Indeed, it never even occurred me that Conservative Christianity was a religion of which I needed to be tolerant until a few years ago when my mother pointed it out.  I had been completely intolerant of a branch of my own tradition.

A friend and Hindu chaplain writes of his experience talking to the one religion which irks him.

I fashion myself a pretty tolerant and accepting guy, but there is one “religion,” I must admit, that I simply can’t stand.  Its doctrines and practices make my blood boil. Its champions bug me, its devotees test my patience.

So it’s not surprising that a recent attempt to dialogue with one of them left me feeling like I’d just spent time acquainting my head with a brick wall.

Here, he is writing about fundamentalists but I think that his experience is relevant to my own since fundamentalists of my own, Christian, tradition are some of those with whom I find myself least able to communicate.  Maybe it’s the lack of give and take in the conversation.  Maybe it’s my own prejudice against a culture by which I was largely surrounded as a child.

An author at Paliban Daily argues that it is in the very nature of religion to be intolerant.

Religions don’t bring that same spirit of tolerance and understanding to the table. They insist on it but they will not reciprocate. They can’t. It is against their very doctrine and dogma. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in particular, are political systems as much as they are theologies. They come with prescriptions, not only for their adherents, but for society at large. Tolerance can only be a one way street. Their doctrine, being divine, cannot be open to compromise or negotiation. They share many of the same bigotries and prejudices against women, foreigners, homosexuals and any who don’t agree with their beliefs and superstitions. Regardless of the good people want to see from religion, or have been trained to see and expect from religion, the truth is that the fundamental structure of religion is authoritarian, uncompromising and not open to negotiation. God’s laws and prescriptions cannot be edited, abridged or altered. God’s laws and teachings cannot be subject to the laws of man, society, or the state, and, most definitely, not compromised with another religion’s equally divine prescriptions and demands.

I disagree with this assessment.  Religions can embrace their traditions and suspend their claims of absolute truth.  Letting go of absolute truth claims is the only way that two people can sit down and discuss anything.  And so, it is with this appreciation that I suspend my own claim on absolute truth in the Christian tradition.  If you’re willing to sit down, so am I.

Crossing into Privileged Spaces

Got privilege? Most of us in the United States do, actually. We got privilege*, and we have a tendency to walk through the world not even aware that it floats around us like a protective bubble. The problem with that bubble, being see-through, is it’s pretty hard to spot and even trickier to explain. Not only to other people, but especially to ourselves.

I am in the middle of watching 36 movies for a class about theological issues in film, and last night I watched the movie Frozen River. Frozen River is a gut-wrenching tale about the struggle for survival experienced by two single moms, one white, the other Mohawk, set near the Mohawk reservation in upstate New York. The women, both living under desperate circumstances, end up smuggling migrants across the Canadian border in the trunk of their car to make money to survive. The white woman, Ray, rationalizes her actions by explaining that she’s “no criminal” and that she’s only taking part in the trafficking of human lives in order to make the lives of her own children better and more secure. Lila, on the other hand, is so beaten down by the circumstances in her life that she simply can’t care; the smuggling becomes her only way of surviving with any dignity at all, as she sees it.

During their movements, whenever Ray gets agitated over getting caught by state troopers, Lila, who’s already under investigation by police and being watched by her tribe, calms her down by saying, “They won’t stop you, nothing can happen to you, you’re white.” And as the movie plays out, Ray discovers that even though she’s poor and a single mom, she still has one prize: She’s white, and she’s a U.S. citizen. She makes judgments about the migrants and Lila, and thoughtlessly threatens their lives with her actions, and receives few to no repercussions for her actions. When the police start investigating the human trafficking, she’s never considered a suspect. Because she’s white. She’s got that privilege going for her, and she cashes that privilege in until nearly the very end.

I thought this movie was a great example of how privilege works, and how fluid it is. Most of us, even those of us who don’t think we have it, have privilege of some kind, it just depends on where we are. Most of the time we only encounter our privilege, or lack thereof, whenever we cross into new spaces or territories, and in meeting new people who lived in circumstances that gave us privilege where the others have none. Ray encountered her privilege by crossing the frozen river with migrants in her trunk, and came to understand what privilege is: Ultimately, it’s what we can get away with (Check out this cartoon by the fabulous Keith Knight, reposted at Alas, a Blog, to see an example of what I’m talking about).

Privilege is difficult to discuss because it’s so fluid – so fluid that it not only changes from space to space but can even change from moment to moment. When we encounter our privilege, we too often remember the moments when we didn’t have privilege and use that as our frame to looking at the world. We think, perhaps, that “I am getting away with what I can here because I can’t over there.” But I think Knight’s cartoon, and Frozen River’s plot, provide space for us to think about our moments of privilege and the immunities that come with it, and wonder whether things might be different in those moments if the cast of characters were changed and the scene advanced.The frozen river looked a lot different from the perspective of Lila, or the migrants riding across it in the trunk.

What can we get away with? And if we are to live in a just world, should we get away with anything?

*Privilege, according to Webster’s, is “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office.” The word is often used when discussing racial inequities (i.e. white privilege) but exists in other social relationships as, for example, gender or sexual privilege.

Next Page »