Category Archives: Deconstruction

Imagining what the world is like: The usefulness of windows & doors in our worldviews

Posted on by

Imagine living in a room with no windows or doors. You are not alone. After a while you would develop a worldview limited by those four walls. Anything else would be speculation. Of course your other senses would work fine. You may hear things outside your room. You may smell things. You may feel vibrations. You may speculate as to what your senses were telling you but you wouldn’t be certain. The group would come up with an idea of reality. 

Then imagine that all of a sudden someone else appeared and installed a window. All of a sudden your world view would expand. Not only because the window expanded your view but because you also realised that other people existed outside of your room. 

We can then imagine the changes that would happen as windows were installed in each wall and as more and more of the world became visible. 

Now imagine that a door was installed and the installer invited you outside. What would change? Then imagine what would happen if you actually went outside. How would the group decide who would go? Would everyone go? What factors would contribute to whether people went or not?

What would happen when those who went out returned? Would their stories be clearly told? Would those who stayed behind believe them or not? Would more be convinced to leave or would decisions be made to close the doors & windows? 

Some more questions arise. What if you didn’t enjoy the view? What if what you saw was unbelievable? What if you didn’t want to go out the door? What if you didn’t trust your senses or trust the one inviting you outside? 

The examples could continue on into absurdity. What if the view out the windows wasn’t in fact direct but was an elaborate system of mirrors bringing you reflections of the world outside. What if (ala Plato’s allegory of the cave) all you could see was shadows of activities outside? What if the decision of the group was to tear the walls down and live together with those other people in the world?

How would the worldview change process work? What senses would you prioritise? What senses would you distrust more than others? 

A lesson from Men in Black.

In the classic 1997 movie Men in Black, James Darrell Edwards III is taken into a room with “the best of the best of the best.” As part of their testing before becoming one of the Men in Black, they are all taken into a shooting room full of graphical alien potential targets. They are supposed to shoot the dangerous targets and save the innocent ones. All the candidates go in guns blazing except for James, who carefully looks at each scary monster before calmly shooting the “little Tiffany” in the head. Let’s take a look at the script:

ZED: “May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die?”

JAMES: “She was the only one who actually seemed dangerous. At the time.”

ZED: “And how did you come to that conclusion?”

JAMES: “Hook-head guy. You explain to me how he can think with a hook for a head. Answer; it’s not his head. His head is that butt-ugly bean-bag thing over there. ‘Cause if you look at the snarling beast-guy, he’s not snarling, he’s sneezing — he’s got tissues in his hand. No threat there, and anyhow, the girl’s books were way too advanced for an eight-year-old’s. And besides, from where I’m looking, she was the only one who appeared to have a motive. And I don’t appreciate your jumping down my throat about it. Or, uh — do I owe her an apology?”

James spent time carefully studying before going off guns blazing. He looked at the world around him to understand it so that understanding could better inform his actions.

The Windowless Room and Theologising.

It got me thinking about how much theology is done from the theologian’s office and how much from wandering about and observing? Which ends up being better? How important is listening to others’ analysis and evaluation as opposed to making your own? 

I love to read books. I particularly love escapist fiction because it draws me into a world that I can live in. I can dream while reading. I can imagine what life would be like if I were a character in the book. I enjoy people watching and trying to image their motivations for doing what they do. I also have a tendency to be shy. I prepare my sermons and lessons in isolation and them present them to people with real connections in the real world. But I realised after a while that my well was running dry. I had no more information to present and no way of finding a way forward into something new.

So I decided to study ways to better understand the world. That meant I had to study things like anthropology. I had to study about culture and society. Each of these fields has its own perspectives and theories that are useful in gaining understanding. Sometimes these theories offer criticisms of the current world. Sometimes they offer ways to better understand it. Sometimes they offer insights into how various and sundry parts of the world relate to each other. Sometimes they offer insights into how to interpret the world. It was great. It was like windows were being opened up for me to see out.

But more so than that, studying forced me to go out into the world and engage with it. I learned to observe people in the everyday environments and wonder why they did the things they did. I walked around my community trying to notice the things that I normally passed by. I learned to ask questions and listen for the answers. I talked to men on the street about their understandings of masculinity and religiosity. We talked about families. We talked about how to know the truth. We talked about their own ideas and perspectives. We developed deeper relationships with each other.

I certainly know that I gained more perspective once I got out into the real world. How do you maintain connections with the real world? How does that help develop your own perspectives and ideas? Please let me know in the comments below.

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Please also consider subscribing to this blog either via email or WordPress itself.

Image by Arm Sarv on Unsplash.

Denying the Metanarrative is a good thing, but the process of denial is a bit more complex than we sometimes think.

Posted on by

One of the tenets of postmodernism (if indeed it can be said to have tenets) is the denial of the metanarrative. A metanarrative is “an overarching account or interpretation of events and circumstances that provides a pattern or structure for people’s beliefs and gives meaning to their experiences.” For many, these metanarratives provide a framework for understanding the world. What’s sad is that sometimes these same metanarratives also provide a framework for oppression and hardship, if you happen to be on the wrong side of the narrative.

Postmodernism has it detractors, mostly people who adhere to a different philosophical system (cough ‘Modernism’ cough). One of their complaints is that denying a metanarrative is a metanarrative in and of itself. Apart from being a bit of a copout because it doesn’t seek understanding, this argument misses the point because it presumes that denial is single-stage process.

For example, in the 1970s, a number of Filipinos devoted their lives to overturning the metanarrative that basically denied their place in the world. Zeus Salazar started telling a new history with his Pantayang Pananaw. Virgilio Enriquez started telling a psychology story with his Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Pospero Covar started telling a new anthropology story with his Pilipinolohiya. Jose de Mesa started telling a new theology story with his work on contexualisation. These four men began telling stories that overturned the metanarrative that prioritised the West and saw places like the Philippines as “deviant.” In retelling the story with indigenous languages, using indigenous concepts, and respecting indigenous knowledge, they were able to open up a new chapter to a previously incomplete metanarrative. We have a lot to thank these pioneers for. And people are continuing the process today in ways that include anti-colonialism and post-structuralism.

But the process must necessarily continue past that point because, even though these guys fulfilled an essential service way back when, that service has now led to claims of essentialism among them. Essentialism meaning a specific definition of what ‘Filipino’ is. In their efforts to make the Filipino voice heard, they by necessity saw that voice as one voice. It was the Filipino voice.

What we realise today is that the Filipino voice is perhaps best characterised as “voices.” The Philippines is an archipelago of just over 7,400 islands of varying sizes, shapes, and populations. There are just over 180 languages in use on a daily basis. Filipinos are also present in all the countries of the world and live in both the most populated and least populated areas of the world. Filipinos are both fiercely nationalistic and regionally loyal. The family is the basic building block of society. All of this creates a rich diversity of identities. I like how Dr. Exiomo puts it: “Being can be expressed in many different ways.”

In other words, the metanarrative still needs to be denied because it doesn’t accurately tell everyone’s story in the proper way. It’s a continuous process of editing and revising that will ultimately lead to a fulfilled humanity.

Where do you fit into the metanarrative? Where does the metanarrative fail you? Feel free to let us know in the comments below!

Remember sharing is what friends do.

Image by Jakayla Toney on Unsplash.

What four myths do I need to consider when talking about deconstruction & how can I counteract them in my own process of deconstruction?

Posted on by

Deconstruction has been in the news of late — especially in the news surrounding Christian theology and practice. Christians, dissatisfied with the way things are going, have been pushing back against the status quo. And with good cause. For example, in just in the past year we have seen pushback against:

  • The usefulness of borrowed theologies to the church.
  • The Canadian Indian Residential School System and the church.
  • Gender and the church.
  • Race and ethnicity and the church.

So what’s the big deal? Why deconstruction?

Deconstruction is a push back against the idea that there is one standard interpretation of meaning in the world. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, “Deconstruction focuses on a text as such rather than as an expression of the author’s intention, stressing the limitlessness (or impossibility) of interpretation and rejecting the Western philosophical tradition of seeking certainty through reasoning by privileging certain types of interpretation and repressing others. It was effectively named and popularized by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida from the late 1960s and taken up particularly by US literary critics.”

For example, I grew up in the era when martial arts didn’t exist. What we had was the karate chop. As time progressed, and as our knowledge grew, we came to understand that the term karate chop was problematic. First of all, karate is only one of many martial arts, each with their own methods and systems. Second, chop is only one of many martial arts moves. In fact today karate chops seem to be limited to striking boards with the side of one’s hand. They have also lost much of their coolness factor — I challenge you to find a karate chop in a Marvel movie! The meaning system of karate chop has been deconstructed from its dominant place and been relegated to one small part of the larger category of martial arts.

Deconstruction is a necessary process but it is challenging because it deals with the very basic definitions of “meaning.” Those raised with a concept of Absolute Truth find it hard to separate Absolute Truth from the truths that I believe at any given time. [For more of my thoughts on truth, see my posts, here, here, here, here, and here]. For example, it is Absolutely True that the karate chop is a thing. There are many experts in the technique in the world today. However, what isn’t absolutely true is that the karate chop universally identifies all forms of martial arts today. The term has been replaced with Martial Arts.

I should also point out that it is important to not simply deconstruct — one also needs to construct a new system that is more reflective of the basic realities of the world. Granted this has been a rather simple explanation of a very complex topic. If you want to understand it more you will need to read Derrida for yourself. However, I do believe that there are four myths, or false assumptions, that we need to be aware of when we engage in deconstruction. Without understanding these myths we won’t be very effective in our deconstruction-reconstruction process.

The myth of the noble savage.

There is an idea that pre-civilisation was an idyllic time of peace, joy, and happiness that was subsequently destroyed by the arrival of various civilising forces. The noble savage represents the people unsullied by civilisation and is often the person that we wish we were and that we sometimes deconstruct to become. Of course, we can’t deny that colonialism has wreaked havoc on the world but to say that pre-colonial cultures were perfect is also an error.

Often our ideas of deconstruction want us to return to this idyllic time of peace, joy, and happiness. How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? Rather than assume that all new things are bad and all old things are good, it might be better to find culturally appropriate ways to deal with all these bad things so that our new, reconstructed world, is a better place. Even though both pre- and post-colonial times are problematic, deconstruction seeks to find indigenous solutions to the problems.

The myth of the tabula rasa.

Tabula rasa means simply, “clean slate” and is the belief that all people are born as blanks that are slowly filled up over a lifetime.

Theologically speaking the only true tabula rasas were Adam and Eve, who had original righteousness. Once they began their slavery to sin — a condition that now affects the entire human race — their slates were no longer blank.

What we often also miss in this is that while we may be born blank, the influences around us are by no means blank. We are socialised and enculturated using specific systems, languages, structures, and processes that may or may not vary from other systems, languages, structures, and processes in the world. One key aspect to military training is battle school that is designed specifically to extract a person from as many of these influences as possible and reshape them into soldiers.

Often our ideas of deconstruction want us to return to an existence where all influences are removed and a whole new set of influences are written. How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? We often wish that we were blank slates. I myself have said many times that I wished I was able to read the Bible for the first time again. The reality is that we are not blank slates and no amount of hoping will change that. Rather we can embrace our previous experiences and seek ways of writing into the margins of what we have already done.

The myth of cultural purity.

No one is an island and no culture exists in isolation. All are impacted by cultural hybridity.

I remember when our class on Philippine Society and Culture at the University of the Philippines read Alvina and Madulid’s Flora Filipina: From Acapulco to Manila that talked about how Spanish trade introduced many botanical species that are popularly considered native to the Philippines. This is called the Columbian Exchange. Alfred W. Crosby coined the term and defined it this way,

“In 1491, the world was in many of its aspects and characteristics a minimum of two worlds—the New World, of the Americas, and the Old World, consisting of Eurasia and Africa. Columbus brought them together, and almost immediately and continually ever since, we have had an exchange of native plants, animals and diseases moving back and forth across the oceans between the two worlds. A great deal of the economic, social, political history of the world is involved in the exchange of living organisms between the two worlds.”

On a more local scale, the church is not merely a bunch of individuals who share some common beliefs. The church is a community — a body, a building, a vine, a nation, a people — that shares life, work, and wonder. That’s why none of what the church does is to be done in isolation — we need the input of others in our theologising.

How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? Rather than trying to remove all outside influences, it might be better to embrace cultural hybridity by engaging others to find new perspectives, new ideas, new world views, and new paradigms that will help us to see things in a more complete and complex way. For example, if my own experience with Jesus is framed around guilt-innocence then dialogue with those who have an honour-shame or power-fear framework would help me to see that salvation is a much more complete and complex thing.

It’s also important to point out that this is a two-way street because both parties in the exchange are impacted.

The myth of cultural essentialism.

Cultural essentialism is the belief that cultures must contain certain essential characteristics. A simple example would be, “Americans are rude and Canadians are polite.” The problem that neither of these statements is entirely accurate — there are many polite Americans and many rude Canadians. Furthermore, there is no law that says that in order to identify as an American I need to be rude, or to identify as a Canadian I need to be polite.

Essentialism a form of generalisation that doesn’t take into account the differences that exist within cultures and seeks to smooth them out into some kind of manufactured, easily defined, timeless reality that isn’t really real. Reality is more nuanced than that. The example of Americans and Canadians above also doesn’t take into account a vast range of other factors that can’t merely be smoothed over, including but not limited to, gender, socio-economic position, race and ethnicity, geographical location, and political bent.

I should point out here that the oft-mentioned idea of “colonial mentality” is related to this. The term is used in a pejorative way to indicate those who don’t think in an appropriately indigenous way (which is also used often in a pejorative way).

How can I counteract this myth when I deconstruct? The simplest way is to find ways of looking through Other’s eyes. For me, a middle-aged white male, that would mean developing relationships with people different than I. The Bible’s meaning may be clear to me but is that only a false clarity? Is there another perspective I need to see?

These are some of my initial thoughts on deconstruction so I am sure that I have missed something. What do you think? Is there another myth we can add to this list?

Your voice is important to me. That’s why commenting is open on this post. Please let me know what you think below.

Sharing is what friends do.

Image by alleksana on Pexels.

Changing ways of approaching truth: When “West” sometimes means “North” (but still really means “West”)

Posted on by

Truth and its discovery has taken a beating of late. The above photo was taken while I was facing North and is often laughed at by the local kids who pass by daily on the schoolbus. “How can it be ‘Highway 31 West‘ when the road goes North?” they scoff. This is compounded by the fact that the arrow under ‘West’ on the sign does actually point North. How can this be? The answer is actually quite simple but it does take some extra knowledge in order to figure it out. We need to know that Highway 31 only heads north for another couple of kilometres before turning West once again. In addition, we need to know that the general trend of Highway 31 is East-West and not North-South. Finally we need to realise that the sign is on another road and the arrows simply indicate the direction one needs to travel in order to go either East or West. Once we know this additional information we realise that the sign makes perfect sense and that the sign speaks the truth.

It reminds me of the meme that circulates from time to time on social media where two people are looking at a number lying on the ground. From one’s perspective it is the number 6 but from the other’s perspective it’s the number 9. The meme is presented as a way of showing that truth is governed by our perspectives. What the meme doesn’t point out, however, is that a 6 is a 6 and a 9 is a 9. In fact on some playing cards where the context is not able to immediately determine which number is intended, a line is placed under the number to show us the proper intent. We can’t just change a 6 to a 9 or a 9 to a 6 willy-nilly depending on our perspectives. So then how can we figure these kinds of things out?

The process of knowing the truth is called epistemology and it is more complex than we might think. [For more on whether we can actually know truth, see my posts here, here, here, and here].

Luke’s prologue in Luke-Acts shows us the complex nature of the epistemology used it writing the book when he says “many have attempted to write,” receiving information from “eyewitnesses” and “servants of God,” that he himself has “followed everything from the beginning,” and all of this confirms as true “what you have been told.”

Just like Luke, we also use a rather complex process in determining whether something is true or not. This process often includes five factors: Ancient source, family, expert, frameworks and institutions, and self.

1. Ancient source. Sometimes this is the Bible. Even the textual criticism of the Bible is partially based on “the earliest and most reliable mansuscripts.” I like how the Manga Messiah says that Jesus’ stories are “Adapted from the Ancient Texts.” Other times it’s the older of two documents making truth claims about the same topic. For example, in the property disputes in the Philippines are often determined based upon whose documents are older. Regardless, we tend to prioritise older sources over newer sources, perhaps because they are tried and tested.

2. Family members. Family members are instrumental in both setting the stage for how we know if something is true or not and in how we negotiate truth on a day by day basis. The faiths that we follow, the truths that we believe, and the traditions that we hold dear are largely because of the family members who have helped shape our reality. Our family is also significant in helping guide us as we change our truths from one to another.

3. Experts and Guides. We often look to experts and guides when trying to determine truth. But sometimes our understandings of who fits this category change. For example, medical doctors used to be people that were listened to without question. Lately it seems that this is no longer the case. The speed of changes that have happened during the pandemic have opened the scientific process to scrutiny in ways that are unprecedented. Any change in official responses to or understandings of COVID-19 are viewed with suspicion because the general populace is largely unaware of how the scientific process works.

Of course none of this is news for people in science or in the medical profession as a whole. My wife Eva likes to recount her experience as a Public Health Nurse. She did it long enough for the advice she was giving to come full circle. She started out saying one thing, then that changed to something else, which then changed back to the original thing after a few years. Rather than this being evidence that medical experts don’t know anything, it is actually reflection on how the process of scientific discovery takes place. Each and every truth claim is constantly being tested and retested through a process that includes peer review, re-experimentation to try and duplicate results, other researchers discovering new things about old topics, and changes in the frameworks and perspectives behind the science.

Those who claim persecution [“I have been fired from my position for taking this perspective”] or censorship [“read this before it gets taken down!”] are often touted among some circles as experts because they are going against the flow. These outliers have assumed the role of new experts among some segments of the population. What is important to notice here is that there is also lots of evidence of manipulation taking place on this level, especially through the use of social media and big data. There is a complex system of networked disinformation that through an elaborate system of levels create a buzz on social media that seems to change political outcomes. See the Cambridge Analytica scandal for how this works. What this means is that a mere claim of persecution or censorship may be merely one of the cogs in the misinformation or fake news system.

4. Institutions and Doctrines. Many times our beliefs line up with the institutions or the agreed set of rules that those institutions espouse. Whether it is signing a code of conduct, a statement of faith, or a contract, these rules govern to a certain extent the way in which we interpret truth. Take for example the arguments churches have over the minute details of the church constitution when there is a problem.

There has been a growing mistrust of institutions over the years. From the concept of “the Man,” it has grown to distrust and sometimes anger towards the government, the church, etc. And for good reason — sometimes institutions get it wrong. Sometimes they only prioritise one perspective at the expense of the Other. Sometimes they have an agenda that may or may not be opposed to the interests of the majority. Examples abound.

Doctrines are undergoing deconstruction largely because people are dissatisfied with them. I like this quote from Zachary Wagner: “A huge percentage of people who ‘deconstruct’ are trying to save their faith, not abandon it. They’re reevaluating the relationship between the Christian culture and Christianity itself because they *don’t* want to lose faith in Jesus.” To this I would add, deconstruction is okay for the Christian, as long as it follows Jesus’ path of redemption, rebirth & resurrection.

5. Personal experience. Ultimately it all boils down to this. All of the above sources of truth are filtered through our own understandings and frameworks. Are we skilled enough at this? In reality it has always come down to this. But since our personal experiences have led to mistrust in the other parts of epistemology, our final decisions will be different than past generations.

This complex epistemological process is why it is difficult to change the way people think and act; why it’s nearly impossible to change how someone views the truth because even if we are able to change one of these factors there are four others ready and willing to keep on keeping on the way it has always been.

What do you think of all of this? Do you find these are also your go-to sources when determining truth?

Your voice is important to me. That’s why commenting has been enabled on this post. 

Sharing is what friends do. 

Please consider clicking “Follow” so you can be assured of getting the most timely updates. 

Image taken in Herschel, Saskatchewan, Canada is mine.