Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Norms & Fringes

I got into an interesting conversation this week with a good friend of mine.  We're about the same age and started discussing the punk movement of the late 70s and early 80s that we grew up with.  Neither of us were really considered "punks", but we listened to the music and were influenced a great deal by the philosophies that arose from the culture.  As we talked, we began to ask each other how this type of culture compares to the "norm" of society today.  What determines "normal" American culture?  What determines some groups to be considered "sub-cultures" of fringes of society?  Is there a "right" and "wrong" way of living, simply in terms of amoral lifestyles?  Who sets the standards, and are those standards necessarily deemed as "normal" just because they have been determined to be standards?

Meditating further on this, we discussed trends in history and how other countries have followed similar paths.  Western culture differs greatly from Eastern, and influences in philosophy, as well as religion, have developed the images we as common.  We see this in the development of the enlightenment, modernity and the post-modern culture of today.  My friend also pointed to the fact that authority has great influence on what is considered normative, and results in the inevitable descent and those groups that consequently become subcultures.  Regardless if something is considered moral, those in authority dictate what is considered "normative" and to a great extent, how a culture develops over time.  You can see this narrowed down from state to state, and even city to city.  Any way you look at it, a great deal of normative and fringe culture comes down to one thing: authority.

My friend asked me what I think the standard looks like, and if there is a so called standard, then what does the fringes look like.  I'm a very visual person, so I instantly came up with a picture in my mind.  Think of a tree branch with several smaller branches stemming from the main one.  The main branch would be the average American picture of normal and the smaller branches would be considered fringes, or possibly subcultures.  However, that got me thinking as well.  Normal would depend of the culture you reside in, right?  The normal branch will look different for me because of the culture I currently live in.  For me, it's the typical suburban, minivan, 2.5 kids, soccer on Saturday picture of Americana.  But for someone living in Manhattan, their picture of normal is going to look very different.  Hence, the fringes are going to look different as well.  So depending on what the main branch looks like, the smaller branches are going to vary in how they look and what might dictate them to be such.  A fringe branch may be a main branch in other circumstances and cultures, and vice-versa.         

So, this got me thinking about culture and how it all coincides with faith.  One of the basic tenants of Christianity is that God is our ultimate authority for life and how we live.  Through prayer, revelation and Scripture, He communicates the details of His standards and we follow suit the best we can by implementing these aspects into our life.  When you think about this from one perspective, there would consequently be a normative life picture that would develop, right?  But let's look at this from another perspective.  Let's look at this from the point of implementation.  How I implement God's standards into my life may not look like someone else's implementation because of the culture we each live in.  From person to person, each may be identically incorporating God's standards into their lives, but from a cultural standpoint, they may look very different.  One may appear to be socially normal, and the other may seem to be in the fringes.

But when we look at culture from God's perspective, we see that the normative lines of society fade quite a bit, don't they?  When choosing to live in the Kingdom of God as a reality, we begin to see that the only authority worth serving is the one who rules the Kingdom.  Instead of setting cultural guidelines for normal living, He simply sets standards for the citizens to live by.  The normal becomes relative, as well as the fringes because we no longer few each other according to "normative" aspects.  The man in the business suit walks side by side with the skinhead.  The doctor shares a meal with a homeless man.  The drug addicted prostitute shares coffee with the stay at home mom.  The former Pharisee and murderer of Christian talks philosophy and theology with some Epicureans and Stoics. (See Acts 17:16-34)  Neither one sees each other as above or beneath.  Just citizens of in the Kingdom, following a higher standard than culture can dictate.  Do this sound like a Utopian view of life?  Idealistic?  Liberal?  Maybe.  But isn't that what the Kingdom of God is?  Isn't this more of what the King wants from His citizens?  And imagine what this would this look like in American culture?

1 comment:

John Presnall said...

Interesting post Jake. You raised some good issues for this discussion.

Looking at the culture from God's perspective raises the interesting issue of the relation of norm and fringe amongst the citizens of the Kingdom of God. How is it ordered? It is ordered in and through God's love. This perspective shows the limitation and perhaps the illusory nature of the norms of the earthly city in terms of its arbitrary distinctions between higher and lower--center and periphery.

I guess I'm Augustinian in the sense of the doctrine of the two cities. How difficult it is for the proud--living according to the standard of the libido dominandi--to be persuaded of the power of humility and love.

Augustine claims that citizens of the heavenly city--the city of God, an eternal city that God founds and over which he is king--find themselves as strangers, or pilgrims, or wayfarers in the earthly city. God provides support for those who attempt to act according to his perspective, but it is difficult. Grant me chastity, but not yet!

In this way, the faithful citizens of the kingdom are the "fringe" from the perspective of the earthly city--and will remain so. It is is a long and arduous task for the Christian who must nonetheless render to Caesar.

I don't think the heavenly city or Kingdom of God or whatever is necessarily utopian, but expecting American culture to be in accordance with that way might be. It might be dangerous to do so--as all the great "dystopian" writers (Orwell, Zamiatyn, Huxley, etc.) suggest utopianism becomes in practice. Albeit, these writers speak of modern utopia which relies on modern ideologies that are largely godless. However, even in terms of transforming the earthly city from the perspective of God, humans are perhaps too sinful for it to be done well or done right.

This post made me think of H. Richard Niebuhr's distinctions of Christ against culture, Christ above culture and Christ the transformer of culture. Each way his its pitfalls, but none diminishes the everlastingness of the city of God, nor the task of the humble and dutiful believer. A recent book by James Davison Hunter deals with these issues in an interesting way with regard to American culture--"To Change the World."

Lastly, I am curious what you think is the relationship of divine revelation to natural philosophy? You mention Paul's discussion with Epicureans and Stoics. Is the culture and politics of the earthly city to be guided by "natural law" or "divine law"? What is the relationship of church and state? etc. I know this takes us far afield, but for me, these are vexing questions.