The Phantasm of Race and the Honesty of Children

This is a response to, "White People, You Will Never Look Suspicious," by Michael Skolnik. Skolnik calls a spade a spade and gets right down to brass tacks -- ugly as it may be. But it's a reality/truth every (visible) minority in this country knows damn well already. Read it.

I have three additional thoughts to add.

FIRST, when I heard not just the description of how Trayvon was dressed that night, but how he responded to George Zimmerman, my first thought was, "That could be MY son." Trayvon wore clothes similar to Ian's standard gear right down to the hoodie. Furthermore, he did exactly what my own son would likely do if followed by a stranger: pull up his hood to hide his face, walk faster, and try to appear nondescript. But my son probably wouldn't have been hounded and shot. Why?

He's as pale as the moon.

Now sure, the investigation is on-going, and I tend to listen first before offering an opinion. It's the historian in me -- wait for the evidence. But the more I hear, the more evidence that comes to light, the more it looks like exactly what was first claimed -- this boy was racially profiled and killed for it. Zimmerman was a trigger-happy cop wannabe. He had an issue with blacks. He chased Trayvon and shot him. Yes, he was Hispanic. So what? If you think all minorities like each other just for being minorities ... well, there's ANOTHER myth we should bust right here. Suffice to say, Oh, HELL no. There's as much hostility between various minority groups in the U.S. as between any minority group and Euro-whites. Go back to the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King shooting. Much of the damage? Asian and black. Latino, Asian and black. Other minorities that don't always get along (or understand each other): black and Jewish, black and NDN, etc. Religion is another area that can create friction beyond ethnicity. So it's not simple.

But the more I read, the more convinced I become there is no excuse for Trayvon's shooting. That could be MY son.

Except ... yeah ... probably not. Again, why? He's white. My son will never be profiled even though he's native because he doesn't LOOK it. He'll never be pulled over in an old car to be breathalized for alcohol if he's driving under the speed limit (because the car won't go faster). He could dress like a bum and walk into a mall or Home Depot and nobody would edge away from him in the aisles. He won't be shadowed in a convenience store because he might shop-lift. If he's loitering, cops (probably) won't stop him to ask what he's up to.

And why?

What's that I hear? Oh, yeah, the refrain ... HE'S WHITE. Or looks it. That's what matters. He looks white.

I want to tell a story. It's a true story, happened in the winter of 1999, during the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association in Washington, D.C. I was doing job interviews, post Ph.D. As it was in DC, I opted to stay with my brother's family, not rent an expensive hotel room. That meant every evening, I took the Red Line (Metro) back to Shady Grove, where I'd parked my car. It was late the last night of the Meetings. I was headed back, and as we approached the End of the Line (Shady Grove), the Metro gradually emptied until in our car, the only people who remained were me, another nicely dressed business guy old enough to be my father (or close) ... and a pack of noisy, aggressive, tattooed late teen/early twenty boys (5-6 of them). When we all exited the train at this last stop, I headed for the parking garage where I'd left my car. Both the Pack of Boys and Business Man headed the same way. Well, Pack of Boys soon veered off to a stairwell to go up to another floor as Business Man and I continued on. I reached my car soon after. He then cut across the parking lot and headed for ... the main surface parking area.

I realized he hadn't been parked in the garage at all. He'd parked in the surface lot. He'd just been shadowing me to be sure I got safely to my car. He'd been worried by the noisy boys on the train. They turned out to be harmless, but he'd worried.

Now, let me ask -- as you read that story ... what COLOR did you envision the players? Yes, I'm white (or would look so). Well, my "protector" ... he was about as dark as they come -- that pretty blue-black. Elegantly dressed, clearly well-to-do businessman. But very black. The noisy boys? Skinheads. White, blond, tattooed ... To be honest, my protector was probably in more danger from them than I was. But he worried about ME. He made sure I got safely to my car. It was what any gentleman-father would have done ... regardless of color.

But what interests me most is the various ways this incident could be viewed. To the teen boys, who were ultimately harmless ... we were boring business types, we'd Sold Out to The Man. This assumes they paid any attention to us at all ... and they very well may not have. Adults assume teens notice them more than teens actually DO. They're usually more interested in each other.

I was more worried by the boys than the man. Why? They LOOKED more threatening. Is that fair? No. Predators (of any ethnic background) often learn to make themselves nonthreatening. So Mr. Business might have been more of a threat than the noisy teens. Predator camouflage is not just found in the Animal Kingdom.

Last, what did my Protector think? Hard to know, or even guess. Clearly, he was concerned for me -- probably a product of my gender, my age, and perhaps even HIS skin color. I do think our age difference had a lot to do with it. When I boarded the train, he'd looked up and smiled at me. I'm sure that (white or not) I probably looked of an age to be his daughter. Maybe he had daughters; maybe he didn't, doesn't matter. He could have been my daddy, even if I was probably older than he thought I was. Yet I brought out some sort of protective/paternal vibe in him. The man went WELL out of his way to be sure I got safely to my car.

But I've also wondered what, if any, racial element was involved for him? We often evaluate situations from OUR perspective (unless we consciously rethink). Had he seen "Skinheads" and assumed "Danger, Danger, Will Robinson?" -- a natural enough response for someone black (or Jewish, or native, or Hispanic, etc.) Maybe he just saw, "Rowdy pack of teen boys feeling their oats" -- nothing racial at all.

But what does all this tell me? We are not our skins. We are our experiences: our age, our family relationships, our occupations, our choices for how we present ourselves to the public. Yes skin color plays into that as it forms some of our experiences, but not all of them. Not even the majority of them (in most cases). If you take skin color out of the above story, it could be any story.

And that's how it should be. Gentlemanly, father-figure ensures young woman gets safely to her destination. End of story. The only reason I DO remember it? SKIN COLOR shaded everything. I sincerely hope a day comes when I'd have chalked up that incident to, "Whatever," and forgotten it 15 years later. Because that's how it should be. I shouldn't remember it. But I do.

And man, that's just Messed Up, ennit?

SECOND, one can be of Euro-colonial ancestry, hear about the fact racism still exists, and NOT HAVE TO GO ON THE DEFENSE. Really. I think some Euro-whites in the U.S. feel they must defend against, diminish, or deny racism, or they are somehow culpable. No. One is more likely to become culpable by sticking one's head in the sand ... and thereby perpetuating it. Our European ANCESTORS may have been guilty, but by denying or diminishing racism, we are MORE likely to continue what they started.

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Let's recognize and admit what's in black and white (and red and brown and yellow) in front of us. There is a difference between recognizing and being. Furthermore, it's possible for people (now or historically) to do really GOOD things and really BAD things. They're not mutually exclusive, and people are not that simple. We do not wear white hats and black hats. (And boy, there's a loaded metaphor, no? But I'm using it on purpose.) We can admire our ancestors for some things even while critiquing them for others.

Furthermore, when some of one's ancestors abused, took advantage of, or enslaved the other half of one's ancestors, it creates a weird internal quandary in the mind ... but perhaps that's good. When that happens, it forces us to consider the difference between ancestry and actuality. The sins of the fathers need NOT be visited on the sons (and daughters), as long as the sons and daughters recognize what was done and try to fix it.

THIRD, one can be curious about obvious difference without being racist. For instance, as a Euro-native, I find the differences in my hair and that of some of my black friends kinda interesting. I've had long conversations with them about black hair care. There's a big difference between natural curiosity and making fun of differences. What is it? Simple Interest. Does one approach difference as threatening? Or as interesting? The former is a large underpinning of racism (sexism, religious-ism, etc.). The later is healthy. It shows an active mind. I can vividly recall a conversation I had years ago between a really dark black friend, an India-Indian friend and myself, about skin tone. We were baffled by labels (at 7) because when comparing, Anula's skin was, yes, brown, by mine was pink, and Vanessa's was sorta chocolate. I wasn't white (or red), and Vanessa wasn't black, so where did these terms come from anyway? Seemed sorta off-base from what our skin REALLY looked like. This is how kids see things ... REAL. Individual difference trumps categories and defies cookie-cutter "Are you black enough to be black ... red enough to be red ... etc., etc.) These games of who IS, and who isn't weaken us. WE ARE NOT LABELS. But we are indelibly affected by them, and the assumptions they foist onto us -- assumptions we may adopt, reject, or passively learn to live with.

Yet when we can get back to that honesty about difference -- the recognition that it's there -- but not assign it relative value ("better" or "worse") ... THEN we've truly moved past racism. "Color-blindness" is not the opposite of racism. Color (or really ethnic) CURIOSITY is, and to enable this, we must recognize that "race" is a cultural construct, not a biological reality. As such, WE determine how we interpret it. Phenotype isn't identity.

What?, you may be saying. But race is so ... obvious!

Not really. We've just been taught to see a particular set of distinguishing factors and assign them special meaning. Ignore the usual "racial" markers. Look at your family. Imagine if "race" were determined by hair color. Or height. Or the size of one's nose. "Construct" a different set of markers and we have ENTIRELY DIFFERENT categories. In short, we decide to what (marker) we give meaning. Identity is chosen, and ethnicity (and race) is by self-ascription. I've known those who identified as "black" (or Latino) whose skin was no darker than mine. I identify as a part-blood American Indian due to my mother and how I was raised, even if my skin is Dane-fair. And the red hair makes me look even less native, even if it does owe to L'Oreal, not nature. (My natural color is black.) But look at my facial shape, features, body-type, and I look very native. In short, ignore coloring -- remove that as a marker -- and I could walk onto any rez and be recognized as native by other phenotypical criteria.

Identity (and ethnic-racial identification) is a complicated matter that involves everything from language and how one was raised to what one "looks like."

So yes, "black" is a construct that has reality because we give it reality. Why do we give it reality? For a whole host of reasons from the European tendency to view The Other in simplistic terms that denied unique identity, to the pragmatic reality that slavery erased original ethnic identification. African American ancestors were brought here against their will, subjected to dehumanizing tactics, and discouraged from ethnic memory. Thus, original African ethnic identity was lost.

Likewise, I know Euro-Americans who can't name their ethnic ancestry because their immigrant ancestors wanted to leave it behind. Both created a new identity of "black" and "white/American" that are CONSTRUCTS. (And notice that whites are more likely to use just "American" without qualifying it. Why? They don't need to. American Indians have more right to the simple label "American," but must clarify with American Indian.) Furthermore, what has been "white" has varied. It surprises most of my students to learn Italian and Greek immigrants were not considered "white" as recently as the early 20th Century. For that matter, Irish immigrants were a sort of "non-white white" in earlier eras. So even what constitutes a "white" American has altered over history.

This sort of "confused identification" is a frequent fact of colonial countries, or those with large immigrant populations. Identity becomes NEGOTIATED. Yet we all NEED and crave identity, so "black" becomes an identity (at least here in the US), as does "white" (as does "red" and even "Asian"). But we must recognize these are "created" ancestries (not biological). And we must also recognize the HISTORICAL situation that led to these categories.

Furthermore, if we scratch the historical surface of MOST places in the world -- look back a little further into history -- THEIR ethnic identity is often "created" as well. This goes for Europe, the Med, Africa, the Americas, Asia ... you name it. In history, PEOPLES MOVE. They immigrate, and emigrate. They intermarry with those they've moved to live beside, and their offspring create new identities. I don't care if that's Mesopotamia, Sub-Saharan Africa, North America, Northern Europe, Russia, etc., etc., etc. NO ethnic group is "pure." That's just not how history works.

Again, IDENTITY IS A CREATED REALITY. That doesn't make it "unreal." But it's real because we make it real. We ascribe "significant meaning" to certain categories ... but not to others. Change the categories, change the identifications. When we can RECOGNIZE that, see it not as biological ('essentialist') but as CHOSEN ('constructionist') ... then we can begin to see ourselves (and others) in more healthy non-racist/non-ethnic terms. We can recognize phenotypical differences, but not ascribe them to race ... just to the individual. Different can be INTERESTING, if we let it be.

The curiosity of a child. Kids see these same differences we do; they ask the same questions. They're CURIOUS. They just don't assign these differences any particular VALUATION until they're taught to do so.

We need to get back to the curiosity of a child. "You're different from me. I think that's neat. Tell me more about it?"

That's the death of "racism," folks.

Honest, innocent curiosity.

Confessions from the Professorial Side of the Desk #1

Confessions from the Professorial Side of the Desk #1: Did You Really Mean That, or Do You Just Want Something?

This is the first in what may become a series about how professors – or at least this professor – sees college life, intended half as myth-busting, half as frank (and occasionally irreverent) advice.


Something that virtually all professors face in their careers is how to interpret student enthusiasm.

Unless a professor is just bad (and there are always a few), he or she will – at some point – encounter the Really Enthusiastic Student™. The problem for many is whether to believe the student’s professed interest. This is something students should be aware of, if they want their professors to take them seriously.

Now professors were once students themselves, and many were (to quote Pink) “too school for cool.” We wound up professors because we actually got excited by ideas and theories – GEEKS of one sort or another. And many had a professor or three … or five … who they admired, and who inspired them to go on to advanced studies. So we GET that. And we’d LIKE to think all students who approach us fall into that category.

But time and experience have worn off the shine. We’ve had too many Close Encounters of the Lazy, Desperate, and Deceptive Kind, heard horror stories from colleagues about similar, and received dire warnings from college administrators. We’ve become skeptical, cynical, dubious …

So when a student approaches us to say, “Wow, I really like your class; you’re a great teacher!” we may smile and thank the student … but inside, our minds are clicking through all the possible motives behind the praise. This is all the more true if the compliment is given during a semester, not after final grades are handed out.

Some students understand that. I’ve had more than one offer some sort of qualifying statement that showed a little savvy for potential doubts. But others – more naïve – may not understand why their professor seems a bit … cool. Sometimes this is even interpreted as professorial arrogance, or not caring about the student. It might be. But more often, it’s professorial uncertainty.

Do you really mean that … or are you just engaged in the age-old student ploy called “sucking up”?

Professors build their careers on their intelligence, and being duped undermines that, so they can be TWICE as sensitive to attempts to play them. The last thing they want is to look like an idiot. So a student trying to fool his/her professor is challenging that professor’s fundamental self-identification: “Smart Person.”

Just sayin’…

The problem is simply that the longer we’ve been teaching, the closer we come to the, “I’ve heard it ALL before” … and learned to believe less than a quarter of it. You may tell your professor the honest truth, but if s/he seems dubious … remember, you’re the 23rd person to relay some version of that, and most of those who tried it before were LYING.

Student “skittishness” is much discussed. Students can be afraid to approach professors to talk about problems they’re having, or bad grades … or even how much they enjoy the class. They assume the professor won’t have time for them and could care less – based on bad experiences, or horror stories from their friends, or popular perceptions about professors in campus culture.

Professor skittishness is just as real but far less discussed (at least outside professorial circles). If students are afraid of how a professor will respond, professors are often equally unsure what a student truly INTENDS. This, of course, lessens the more a professor knows a student, but below are some tips to students for how to speed up the process and demonstrate their interest is genuine ….

1) CARDINAL RULE THE FIRST … NEVER TELL YOUR PROFESSOR YOU LIKE A TOPIC IF YOU DON’T. Nor should you ask to read a professor’s article unless you actually plan to read it. If you promise to do something … keep the promise. We’ll figure out if you haven’t, and we’ll assume your interest was mere flattery.

I think students sometimes feel they must at least pretend to like everything their professor does. No. Most (sane) professors do not assume that. A student taking my class on Alexander the Great may have absolutely no interest whatsoever in my class on, say, Rome and the Early Church. I’m not offended. Even when I act as advisor to history majors, some seem to fear that if they don’t claim some interest in ancient history, I’ll be upset. Well, no, I want to point students to classes that interest them, not fill up my roster. Yes, I know a few professors are territorial or will try to sell a class to a student who doesn’t want it, but in my experience, that isn’t most of them. We’re more likely to be annoyed if a student fakes interest.

If you are interested in something, but time got away from you … just say so. Professors are often extremely busy themselves and understand, “I’d really like to do that, but don’t have time right now.” Yes, they may wonder if it’s a polite-ism for “not really interested,” but they’re far more likely to become annoyed if you promise to do something … and don’t.

2) Give us time to believe in you. If you come up to us on the first day, oozing enthusiasm and excitement, and we’re just a little … cautious – it’s not you. (Well, probably not you.) It’s that we’re not sure what to make of your enthusiasm. We’ve had students pretend enthusiasm before. Rarely will a professor be so rude as to dismiss you outright, but if we seem to take a step back … it’s because we’re trying to assess motives. If your work and class participation supports your enthusiasm, we’ll be thrilled to have you.

3) Remember that we’ve probably heard every story under the sun. We’ve suffered some very obvious, some less than obvious, and some really clever attempts to play us. Sometimes strange things do happen that interfere with class, and sometimes a student’s beloved grandmother DOES die during a semester. But we get so many “dead grandmother” stories it’s a wonder there’s cemetery property left. If it’s real, you should be able to document it. Don’t be upset with us for asking you to do so, even if you’ve taken previous classes with us.

4) We’ve also had students who started enthusiastic and determined to work hard, but who got the proverbial inch and took a mile. They interpreted our encouragement as license to get away with murder … or at least with late papers, skipped class, and rickety excuses. We sour on such quickly, and begin to fear all students will Take Similar Advantage ™.

5) It’s fine to offer compliments during a semester, but we’re more likely to take you seriously if you send us a letter AFTER grades have been recorded. Then we’ll believe you (and probably thank you most sincerely).

6) “Repeat offenders” – that is, students who take more than one class with us – will more likely be believed if they say they like our class/topic/teaching style. We assume so, or they’d run far, far away from us. We’re also a bit more likely to grant such students the benefit of the doubt … BUT see #3 & #4 above. If the excuses get increasingly frequent and shaky, we go from tolerant to downright resentful fast. Why? A sense of betrayal. We wanted to believe that student really did like our topic/us … but maybe not. And (again) skepticism raises its ugly head … were we just played?

There is a simple way to combat this – one students rarely recognize or are too embarrassed to employ. Tell us the truth – even if it’s not flattering to you (or you worry it’s not). No, we don’t want excuses … but we do want reasons. When a previously good student suddenly starts performing sub-par, we aren’t sure WHAT to make of it. But if that student just broke up with his/her long-term S.O., or is dealing with a problematic roommate, or is now carrying two part-time jobs and trying to study, or even if he or she has just been having trouble deciding if this major is the right one … well, CONTEXT is all.

Remember – all professors were once undergrads, too. And not all were perfect students. Sometimes we didn’t study enough, we borrowed from peter to pay paul, we blew off tests, we partied late, etc. etc. We also had (and have) to deal with real life crises of our own. CLUE IN your professors about what’s up with you. Sure, a few won’t give a damn. Many will, especially if you’ve proved yourself to them before. You’re NOT 6, or 12, or 16. You’re an adult (if a young one, in most cases). Professors will treat you accordingly if you act like an adult.

7) A simple (if perhaps un-PC) truth … if you are an attractive young woman or man, be careful how you approach the professor. Professors of both sexes have had students try to flirt with or even seduce them for a grade. Male professors suffer this far more than female. To be honest, I’ve never had a male (or female) student proposition me, even when younger. This is partly a factor of cultural norms. Men do not, on average, date older women (even if the difference is only five or six years), nor will they date those with higher academic degrees (at least not if it’s a Ph.D). It may not be fair, and some may want to deny it or claim it’s changing, but I’ve still found it to be overwhelmingly true. Some men do flirt in an offhand, friendly way, but rarely press it. Instead, male students unhappy with a grade are more inclined to try intimidation. If they stand close, it’s to tower over us and seem menacing – not to flirt. Unsurprisingly, this is more likely to make a female professor really pissed off. But male students with a crush on a female professor rarely, in my experience, act on it. (In fact, in the few cases where I was told about such a crush later – usually by someone else – I’d had no idea the student had felt anything beyond casual admiration … if that.)

By contrast, women have always been open to older partners or those with higher degrees for a variety of social-cultural reasons. So a male professor with half a brain will be especially skeptical of young female students, skimpily dressed, who lean over the desk to show their cleavage (or young male students who get too friendly). Can some be flattered? You bet. But many won’t be, and may become cold and even hostile if you try. Professors can, and have, lost their jobs over affairs with undergrads.

8) Last … ah, the ethics of navigating Social Media. Undergrads, please don’t ask to “friend” your favorite professor on Facebook, or at least don’t be surprised if your professor turns you down. Some may keep an account meant for public consumption much like authors, journalists, doctors, musicians, artists, etc. But the majority I know don’t (they’re more likely to use Twitter or a blog – like this one – for that purpose). Facebook is for family and friends. Occasionally professors may friend select grad students, but many routinely draw the line at undergrads. (Besides, do you really want your professor to see that photo of you wasted last Friday night and wearing underwear on your head? I thought not.)

True Intelligence is Imagination, or Why neither 'Liberal' nor 'Conservative' is a dirty word

Two of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein:

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

I'm a fan of pragmatism, but also of imagination. Flannery O'Connor said, "Fiction is after truth." We dream our way into the future, and hearts are rarely changed through cold logic but through the power of NARRATIVE (story), which touches the capacity of the heart -- moves us in visceral ways, not intellectual.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Inspiration and imagination are what made Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs, or Tesla, Tesla, or da Vinci, da Vinci -- or Einstein, Einstein. Logic is a tool, not our muse. Yet as always, wisdom lies in the Middle Way (to paraphrase Apollo), or the Tao. The balance. Ungrounded flights of fancy can be impractical, idealistic ideologies can be overly rigid, but too much pragmatism locks us into outworn modes of thinking (and being) in which we try to solve old problems with old thinking.

The best road is the Middle Way: conserve what works, but be progressive enough not fear change.

To find the middle path is important. There is VALUE in both political approaches -- conservative and progressive -- although I'll be honest and say (optimist that I am), I favor the balance being slightly to the progressive side ... but not at the expense of (true) conservative input. Conservatism shouldn't be confused with any religious ideology (which is too often the case in current US politics). My late maternal uncle was a died-in-the-wool conservative Republican ... and an evangelical atheist. ("Evangelical" defines a tendency, not a religion: "evangelism" means "to actively promote and proselytize a particular viewpoint." One can be "evangelical" about her work at the local humane society, or about his vegan lifestyle.)

Please note that being conservative politically need NOT equate to promoting any particular religion or set of "faith values," may even lead to condemning religion. (Ayn Rand, anybody?) In fact, towards the end of his life, my uncle was (by his own admission to me) rather horrified by the Religious Right's hijacking of "his" party. In a long phone conversation once, he told me he wasn't really a fan of Reagan, even while he liked his policies, as he saw Reagan's presidency to be the beginning of (Christian) Fundamentalist dominance of the party of Teddy Roosevelt.

I did not always agree with his (political) conclusions, but particularly as an adult, I found him interesting to talk to, as he was well-read, intelligent, observant, and thoughtful. He made excellent points. I valued his opinion, even when I didn't share it, and I found that I often agreed with his assessment of problems, just not with the best ways to solve them. He was in favor of civil rights for blacks long before it was in vogue ... and at variance not only with other Republicans, but some Democrats. I find it interesting that BOTH my mother, a progressive Democrat (b. 1924), and her brother, a conservative Republican (b. 1919), supported civil rights for blacks before it was "popular." Both had the capacity to think outside the box. By contrast, my father, who I love dearly, still has issues with a black man in the white house, even while loudly proclaiming to his conservative Republican friends, "And what's WRONG with being a liberal?!" (Keep in mind, he's 87.) I doubt most of my liberal under-30 students and friends would consider him a "liberal." Yet by the standards of HIS generation, he most certainly is. Ironically, by some modern standards, so would my uncle have been, the self-avowed conservative.

Oh, those PESKY problems of human definition! What defined "liberal" and "conservative" has changed. My father is a liberal, and my uncle was a conservative by the (political) definitions of their WWII era. The Modern Generation may idolize the Greatest Generation ... but we don't view things the same. I find it somewhat ironic that religion has infused politics far more in our era than in the supposedly more religious era of my parent's generation. Or perhaps that's WHY religion has risen to the forefront. The dominant religious culture can no longer be assumed.

People don't always fall into our neat categories of expectation, and we have to grow OUT of our preconceptions. Real, flesh-and-blood human beings don't fit well into prepackaged ideologies.

That -- IMNSHO -- is a large part of the problem in politics today. Everyone wants to SAY the right thing, not do the right thing. Because in our world of Immediate Social Media (and 30-second soundbytes that promote over-simplification) not saying the right thing will likely result in a failure to be re-elected. and the flow of information about what people DO say is picked up and magnified a hundred times over what it was only 20 years ago. The slightest slip of the tongue (on either side of the political fence), or any deviation from the consecrated political canon of one's party can -- and often does -- go viral not just by the end of the day, but sometimes by the end of the hour.

It occurs to me that Term Limits grant a certain FREEDOM. Might be wise to explore them again for both the senate and congress ...

In any case, and back to my uncle, I found that honest respect gave us a point of contact from which fruitful dialogue could begin. Down the years, I've had other friends (and family members) who held conservative political views compared to mine, but who had an open mind (rather than a dogged, ideological one). I have valued their observations and thought, even when my own assessments differed.

I can not only disagree with you and still like you, I can disagree with you and still RESPECT you.

Can you do the same for me?

Mutual respect lies at the core of the fast-becoming-lost art of Jeffersonian Debate, of which the cardinal rule is RESPECT for the opposition. To use parliamentary terminology, we can each be "The Loyal Opposition" to the other; mutual respect grants permission for reasoned dissent. And that's why the current political climate is so poisoned. Our society has elevated disrespect in the political realm (et al.) to admirable status. Far BE it from us to consider *compromise*! "Compromise" has become a dirty word. One "compromises" values, one "sells out" to the other side, one "gives in" to the opponent's demands. A wo/man of STRONG VALUES wouldn't do such a thing! No compromise = strong values = good/moral person.

No.

That's Zero-Sum competition, not good politics.

I win. You lose.

With that sort of attitude, there's no room for discussion, so why bother?

We must come back to the center -- or we're doomed. Not just as a country, but as a world society. When compromise is seen as a moral weakness, not a necessity for a healthy democracy, civility (and civilization) is lost.

More than one psychological study has shown a link between fear of the new/change and those who self-identify as "conservative" versus those who embrace the new/change and those who self-identify as "progressives." This is hardly a surprise to those familiar with the old meaning of those terms. Truth is, sticking only with the "tried and true" gets us nowhere, while uncareful embracing of the "new" can lead right down the primrose path to well-intentioned disaster. Sometimes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is GOOD advice.

But as any decent military general, past or present, would point out, no battles are won by sticking only with what worked before. The Cyruses, the Alexanders, the Caesars, the Belisariuses, the Subutais, the Napoleons, the Tecumsehs, the Crazy Horseses ... they're innovators. THINK too much (and too long) and you lose the advantage. Rely strictly on what worked before, and you lose not just the advantage, but the battle.

"New" is not a dirty word. Nor is "progressive" -- nor even (gasp) LIBERAL. Yet the flip side requires that "conservative" can't be a dirty word, either.

It's the dreamers who will save the world. They see where we need to go. And history represents movement FORWARD. But the pragmatists will build the solid ground frame from which they can launch.

We need each other.

The Wounded Healer (or Happy Thanksgiving)

This Thanksgiving season, I’ve been pondering what I’m thankful for. See, I spent Thanksgiving Day alone.

My son was with his father’s family (which is a yearly tradition I believe important; I’m not angry). My own family is too spread out to get together easily. And this year, I didn’t get an invitation to another house on the day of Thanksgiving itself.

Of course the day celebrated isn’t important, whether Thursday, Friday, Saturday … or the Wednesday before. Who cares? But I was feeling a little sorry for myself on Thursday, to be honest. We’ve all been there -- the fear that we’re unloved and wouldn’t be missed if we died tomorrow. And note: I don’t think it wrong to ask for attention from our friends … as long as we give it ourselves in turn. Friendship is a two-way street, and martyr complexes are no more healthy than self-absorption. παν μέτρον άριστον. (All things in moderation.)

Now yes, I’m well aware I have a house, plenty of food, my health, a job I (mostly) like, and can pay my bills … all things too many don’t have. But when feeling lonely, material things don’t mean much. In my experience, on their death beds, people aren’t eager to say goodbye to their flat-screen TV or killer laptop or toaster oven.

We need people with skin on.

Trouble was, I was waiting for people with skin on to come to me.

On Friday, I went to share turkey and football with friends, and Saturday a buddy spent several hours of his time fixing my garbage disposal … because he could, and I needed help. I was reminded of what “thanksgiving” means … and rather disgusted with myself, I bailed on my own private pity party.

I also realized what I’m grateful for. Strange as it may sound … I’m grateful for a broken heart.

“The only whole heart is a broken heart.”

Because in breaking we are humbled.

“The world likes winners.” “Nothing succeeds like success.” Yet the world (or at least the U.S.) also likes underdogs and reluctant heroes who rise above … as long as they succeed in the end. And yes, it makes great story if we fail a little before we get to the top -- adversity overcome.

Trouble is, that’s the simple story. Most of us fail before we succeed, yes -- but we fail again (more than once) after we’ve succeeded, too. We fail, fail, fail, succeed, fail, fail, succeed, fail, succeed -- and maybe, finally, we realize success or failure isn’t the important part. That’s reality, not Hollywood.

When I was still doing hospital work and counseling, The Wounded Healer was a popular concept for what we were about. It’s even the title of a book by Henri Nouwen about ministry by service. I recommend it. Yes, it’s Christian. So what? It’s wise. The concept itself goes back to Greek mythology: the centaur Khiron (Chiron) who taught heroes. He was accidentally wounded by a poisoned arrow of Herakles (Hercules), but despite all his medical knowledge, couldn’t heal himself. Yet being immortal, he also couldn’t die. Condemned to live with the continual pain, he grew wise … but that wisdom sprang from compassion, not knowledge. (Educated by Apollo, he was plenty smart, but that wasn’t the point.) Jung would later discuss the archetype in his own work.

“We’re strongest in our broken places.” We heard that a lot in psych classes/CPE/training. It’s where we’ve failed that we learn most and can help others best -- if we take time to learn from the failure (which means laying down our pride … and/or our rose-colored glasses).

Some years later (back in grad school at PSU for my history degree), I re-read Ernest Hemmingway’s A Farewell to Arms. When younger, I’d disliked Hemmingway. A master of simplicity, he wasn’t dramatic enough for me when I was a teen. (Naturally -- everything’s a crisis to a teen.) I didn’t come to like him till my senior year in college when (an English major) I was forced to read A Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls … then wondered what the hell was WRONG with me not to love Hemmingway, or at least Hemmingway's novels? His personal life was a mess; J.D. Salinger once called him a “gallant rogue.” He did Testosterone-Poisoned things in order to look suitably “manly” (war correspondent, hunter, et al.) He drank too much, had affairs, and multiple wives back when divorce wasn’t common. He suffered from depression, and shot himself just shy of his 62nd birthday. I wouldn’t recommend him as a role model. Yet he loved his cats, and the very sensitivity that led to his depression also made him a humanitarian and great observer of human nature. He used his gift for language to tell profound stories. Whatever his rep, his works aren’t novels “for men.” They’re novels. Period. They show us to ourselves, both the really ugly and the truly noble.

If anybody knew broken hearts, it was Hemmingway.

And it’s Hemmingway who said, "The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places." He’s the originator of that paraphrased quote bolded above.

Yet there’s more TO that quote. It continues: “But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.”

Cynical Hemmingway? Perhaps.

But the people who get things done in life are not, usually, the naïve or overly ideological. Maybe that wasn’t quite what Hemmingway meant … but maybe it was. He had a talent for depth in simplicity.

After all, what are some of the most powerful statements we can ever make?

I’m sorry.

I was wrong.

I care about you.

How can I help?

Lean on me, I’m your friend.

I love you.

No 25-cent words in those phrases. No purple prose. But when meant, there is nothing deeper we can say. Nothing wiser.

Wisdom isn’t knowledge. Knowledge springs from intellect. Wisdom springs from compassion.

“The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places.”

The wisest man I ever knew (my maternal grandfather) had an 8th grade education. Ironically -- or wisely -- he made sure all his own children got through high school and even had some college if they wanted it. He knew education important. It can prepare the ground for planting. Yet the seeds come from living (existential). More, they come from failure. They come from screwing up.

Knowledge leads to arrogance. It’s one of the cardinal sins of grad students and young professionals everywhere -- the Snooty Phase of Knowing More Than Anyone Else. We become judgmental. We assume too much. And we forget how to hear. Not just listen -- HEAR.

If we’re lucky, somebody knocks the arrogance out of us and the sense back into us. It happened to me in the spring of my first year at PSU. I think I was fortunate, getting it early. I set myself against a (new) assistant professor in the department … and nearly lost my teaching assistantship as a result of my need to show off how much more I knew than the professor. And I was WRONG. Not in the details I complained about (I was actually right). But I was WRONG and a royal ASS in how I handled it.

In retrospect, I’m quite sorry that I gave the poor guy such a hard time. He didn’t deserve that. And some years later, *I* got called on the carpet for how *I* was teaching a class. (Karma.) Fortunately, the fellow sent in to evaluate me was a lot older -- and wiser -- and his response to the complaint was basically, “Chill. She’s young. She’s learning. She’s not that bad, and I’ll fix what she’s not so good at.” And he did. By being KIND.

Compassion is the root of wisdom.

And wisdom springs from humility. We think we know … then we find out we don’t. We were wrong. Mistaken. Maybe even deluded. We were arrogant.

We get our hearts broken.

And we become human in the process.

If we can pick ourselves up, our hearts get a little bigger, a little stronger. They beat a little harder for the pain of others because we’ve been there. We aren’t the very good, we aren’t the very gentle, and we aren’t the very brave.

So we’re still alive.

And that’s when we get busy, and get things done. And if we’re lucky, life won’t be in any hurry to kill us -- so we can get a lot done in the meantime.

Personally, I’m aiming for about 90 before I’m ready to pass the torch.

Happy Thanksgiving, friends.

Black Cats

Black Cats are GOOD Luck …

In honor of the 6th birthday of my son’s cat, Licorice, I decided to do a blog post on black cats. The superstition surrounding them leads to such sad circumstances as black cats staying in shelters and humane societies longer than any other color (some say almost twice as long!). This makes me cry. Most of my life, I’ve had Siamese, especially blue points. I love me my Meezers. Life isn’t complete without a (talkative) Siamese to welcome you home. That said, however, the next most frequent cat type I’ve had?

Plain ol’ Alley Black.

I love black cats almost as much as Siamese.

First, I think they’re beautiful. There’s nothing like the sleek, blue-sheen of true black fur. Ebony. Onyx. Carbon. Coal. Raven. They’re absolutely gorgeous.

Second, “black” is nature’s most popular color. Dogs, cats … there are more black dogs and cats than almost any other color (except maybe gray). But people consider BLACK “bad luck” and are more reluctant to adopt them.

This is silly. The association of black with “evil,” “witchcraft,” “sin,” and “death” is unfortunate. Nor is it universal. Not a few societies see WHITE as the color of death, not black. Let me also point out that BLACK soil is considered the most fertile. Black is RICH, not evil. In my own native culture, black is the sacred color of the north -- not bad at all.

The (obvious) connection seems to be that night = black = unable to see things (easily) = mysterious/dangerous/evil, while day = white/gold/yellow = good = able to see things easily. This makes a certain sense in eras before electric lighting. But it’s led to all sorts of unfortunate social assumptions that have harmed “black” beings … whether those were black African slaves, or black cats (or dogs), or even bats. But oh boy, where would we be without bats?! There’s another much maligned creature who are our FRIENDS. And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I should admit I think bats are the coolest mammals ever! (Who wouldn’t want sonar and hearing like theirs?!) Like bees, the world needs bats.

Black is beautiful. It may be a cliché of the ‘60s, but it’s also true. Whether skin or fur, BLACK IS TRULY BEAUTIFUL. So are white, and red, and brown, and yellow. But this blog entry is about BLACK.

Black cats. It’s considered lucky, you know, to OWN a black cat (or be owned by one!). It’s GOOD luck to have one enter your house. Being greeted at the door by a black cat, or touching one is also GOOD luck.

Adopt a BLACK cat. Please. Encourage others to do so. There aren’t a lot of statistics about adoptions, but -- as mentioned above -- what we have say black cats (and dogs, but *especially* black cats) stay in shelters longer than any other color. People fear them for NO good reason. Licorice was the only black cat with two gray siblings, but guess who got adopted first? He did! Ian saw him in the window as soon as we walked into the humane society, and he said, “Mommy, I want THAT one.” Mom, with due caution, suggested we look at several cats. So we did. But as soon as they brought Licorice into the room, he ran to Ian who welcomed him with open arms. That was the cat we took home that day, and secretly, I was glad that my son wanted the BLACK one. They’ve been best friends ever since. He saw the beauty of a black cat, and that cat has been one of the best-tempered, smartest cats I’ve ever known. The irony? We got a couple of extra “perks” for adopting the black cat, including a special knitted blanket. Why? People don’t WANT black cats/dogs.

Again, this makes me very sad. Take it from someone who’s had more than one … black cats are the BEST luck you’ll ever take home.

Next time you’re considering a new cat, look -- hard -- at the black ones.

Gods With Flesh On: some areligious, if friendly, musings on Emmanuel

Once again as Winter Solstice rolls around, I find my mind turning to the magnetic appeal of the concept of “Emmanuel” -- God With Us. And I don’t mean just in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, but in general. Christianity was one of several religious (mostly mystery) cults that celebrated Immanent Gods. (A minor side note to prevent confusion: “cult” is an all-purpose anthropological term for religious practice. I don’t employ it here in a derogatory way.)

What do I mean by “immanent” gods? These are gods who apotheosized -- e.g., they transformed (or transfigured, if you prefer) from mortal to immortal. HOW varied. Sometimes they were portrayed as incarnated (enfleshed) aspects/avatars/faces of God come to bring teachings to mortals (Mithras, Seth, and various other Gnostic Messengers). Sometimes these avatars not only became mortal, but died (and resurrected): Jesus most famously in the West, but Krishna as well. Sometimes they were divinities who were murdered and resurrected by a wife/lover: Osiris-to-Horus, and Adonis-Tammuz. And sometimes they were born the mortal sons of gods, died, and became immortal: Dionysos, the Twice-Born.

Several of the big ones are connected to the Solstice: Dionysos (his death), Horus son of Osiris (his birth), Mithras (his “birth” from rock), and Jesus (his birth, although Jesus’s birthday celebration was moved there by Constantine; originally it was in the spring). Others are connected to summer solstice, such as Adonis/Tammuz/Attis. And for those thinking, “Wait! Solstice is the 21st, not the 25th!” … you’re right. But due to Fun With Calendar Corrections (e.g., Julian to Gregorian), the original solstice was the 25th.

What they all shared -- what I think made them popular and appealing -- is that these god-men were believed to have walked among and interacted with humans. They took a personal interest in us: cared for us in a way that the more capricious or distant deities of the swathe of land from India to the Mediterranean didn’t. Another thing some if not all shared was their symbolism as Light Bringers and/or Teachers, and sometimes they taught messages of brotherhood.

The versions of several cults that had crystallized by the early and middle Roman Empire were largely syncretic. That is, they blended different elements from different religious traditions. So, for instance, the Mithraism practiced by Roman legions bore little resemblance to the original Iranian God of Light born of rock. Instead, it borrowed from the Greek sun god Helios, the Avestian Mithra, some dashes of Indian thought, and various other influences from the eastern rim of the Mediterranean in the cosmopolitan stewpot that resulted from Alexander’s tromping around Persia as far as the Indus, then returning. Ideas were exchanged west to east, and east to west. Roman Mithraism was about as much like Avestian Mithra as modern pagan beliefs are like early Celtic -- which is to say, not much. But then, I’m not sure the practitioners then -- or now -- necessarily wanted them to be the same.

Religions are living things, and so evolve. If they remain too stubbornly rigid, they cease to have meaning or relevance, and die. Christianity as practiced today also bears little resemblance to the early pre-Nicean church … which is a good thing for it, or it wouldn’t still be around.

But back to musings on these Immanent Gods, and on two in particular, both of whom died violent deaths and were subsequently resurrected: Jesus and Dionysos. Even more than Mithraism, the Dionysic Mysteries were Christianity’s strongest, most persistent alternative. For one thing, they were older in the Med basin than either Christianity or Mithraism, with roots at least into the Greek archaic age, as much as 600-700 years before Christianity and maybe more. (Nailing down the origin of these cults can be tricky.) For another, they shared key similarities.

Both Jesus and Dionysos are sons of the chief god (Yahweh and Zeus, respectively). Both are born to mortal mothers (Mary and Semele*). Both get themselves into trouble by teaching something a little “off” from more traditional religious expression at the time (Jesus as one of the Galilean Hasidic Pharisees who claimed authority by miracles and healings rather than via traditional apprenticeship to a teacher, and Dionysos as the bringer of ecstatic, unrestrained worship as opposed to the more usual measured, sober, civic sacrifice). Both were betrayed (Jesus by Judas, Dionysos by the Titans), and killed brutally. Both were resurrected and became immortal. Further, initiation into the “mysteries” of either -- that is belief in the story of their resurrection -- was the guarantor of everlasting life after death. To believe in Jesus’s resurrection would allow admission into heaven, and likewise belief and initiation into the Dionysic Mysteries would allow admission into the Elysian Fields. In the services/initiations for both, there was “baptism” (a sacred bath) as well as a symbolic meal of bread and wine for the body and blood of the sacrificed god. (No, Christianity didn’t “steal” these symbols from the Dionysians. Bread and wine were a common symbol for flesh and blood all over the Med basin. *Also, in some versions of the Dionysos story, his mother was Persephone, and he was reborn to Semele, but I’ll ditch the convoluted complexities here.)

To be sure, I’ve emphasized the similarities above and downplayed the differences on purpose because it’s ONE difference in particular that I want to focus on. It is, I think, THE key to why Christianity eventually triumphed over all the other Immanent Gods, even Dionysos.

Now, when it comes to Christianity's success we could talk about the fortunes of who gained imperial power, and how Constantine’s choice of Christianity probably owed to the happy accident that Mama Helena happened to be a Christian rather than, say, a Maenad. We could point to the later systematic closing and/or outlawing of other religious expressions (especially by Theodosius I), which made it increasingly dangerous for the alternatives to survive. As soon as Christianity ceased being a religio illicta (illegal religion), it turned to legislating the suppression of other religious expressions. It’s not a pretty story, and fault is easy to find on all sides.

So there are many reasons for Christianity’s success. Christians would also add that it succeeded because it’s true. Of course that's a matter of faith, which is perfectly fine. Yet here, I’m looking at it from the angle of social history, not pietism, and I want to go beyond politics or the accidents of history. At the root of things -- imperial interests and decrees aside -- there was a tide of popular interest in Christianity that eventually overshadowed Dionysian cult, Mithraism, Manicheanism, the cult of Isis, the various flavors of Gnosticism (even Christian Gnosticism), and everything else, including philosophical schools.

Why? What's that "key" difference?

I think it’s because Jesus, unlike Dionysos (or most other Immanent gods), was portrayed as a willing sacrifice. Dionysos was tricked and murdered by the Titans at Hera’s request because she was angry at Zeus, so she took it out on the child Dionysos (who is sometimes shown as only a toddler). He was a victim. By contrast, Jesus was in his 30s, and an active agent. While he may have been betrayed by Judas, the persistent theme throughout early Christian teaching was that he chose to become a sacrifice. He was not, truly, a victim. Thus, not only did God become a human in order to live with other humans, not only did this God-man then die like a human, but it was voluntary.

Now, certain other Immanent Gods also made a voluntary choice to become human. The Hindu Krishna, or the Divine Child, is sometimes described as he who was immortal and became mortal in order to bring the world to salvation. Sound familiar? Krishna died too, but it wasn’t voluntary; he was accidentally shot and then translated into Heaven. Likewise, most Gnostic Mystery Cults centered around a divine messenger come to right the evil created by the Demiurge -- a “False” God who made this evil (physical, non-spiritual) world that has entrapped us. By teaching us of our true spiritual nature, we can be freed. It’s not that dissimilar from, and probably owes to, the Hindu teachings of Krishna, in fact, but Gnosticism views the world far more negatively than Hinduism. These Gnostic Mysteries came in a variety of flavors from that involving Seth (the 3rd son of Adam and Eve) to Christian Gnosticism where Jesus became that divine messenger. But the voluntary death of the messenger was not a part of Gnostic teaching, which generally distanced “true” divinity from any taint of blood, gore, and messy physicality (like death). Gnostic messengers ascend back to Heaven (or to the Chamber of Light) when their business on earth is finished, or the divine spark flees the mortal “shell” before it dies. That went for the Gnostic version of Jesus, too. He didn’t die on the cross; a stand-in did. After all, real gods can’t die.

But what I’m reminded of every Christmas is that we here in the West LIKE our suffering, dying (and rising) gods. Gnosticism (mostly) never had the widespread appeal of Christianity, or Dionysic Cult, because much of it centered on HEAD knowledge: gnosis -- enlightenment. Intellectualism. It lacked visceral connection. We want to FEEL our faith, not just think about it.

The story of Jesus combined a unique alchemy of elements already present in other stories of Immanent Gods (either prior to or after him). Some of these things could be found in Mithraism. Some in Dionysic Mysteries. Some in the Mysteries of Isis, or of Eleusis, the Mourning for Adonis, the Gnostic cults, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita (teachings about Krishna), even the cult of Antinoos instituted by Hadrian. But the idea of a God who became mortal to teach and better understand mortals, then voluntarily died for them in order to show them the path to resurrection -- that combination was fairly unique.

And hugely appealing.

We want our God(s) to understand us, care about us, suffer with us. Transcendent Gods are hard to feel much for beyond awe, perhaps gratefulness, sometimes fear. But Immanent Gods -- we could sit down with them, have a beer or glass of wine and pour out our heart … and not only would they listen, they’d understand. Because they’ve been there too. In the end, maybe we want a sympathetic ear more than we want thunder and lightning and parted seas.

We prefer our gods with flesh on.

How The Early Church Redefined Marriage Long Before Gays Did, or, That Pesky History, messing up our trusty media sound bytes!

One of my biggest issues with popular objections to gay marriage is with attempts to use history to justify that stance. A student asked me about this a while back when CA's Prop 8 passed -- then came the media fracas regarding Rick Warren praying at President Obama's inauguration, more states passing, blocking, or repealing same-sex marriage rights, the question of 'Don't ask, don't tell,' and etc. So the matter remains not only pertinent, but front-and-center.

Warren pointed to "a 5000-year definition" to justify his refusal to call gay marriage "marriage." Not only was he wrong about that, but he gave several other examples of what he wouldn't call "marriage" that have also, historically, been called marriage, including a man with several wives, marriages between siblings, and marriages between men and very young girls.* It doesn't matter whether we legally recognize them today in the U.S. They have been recognized historically. As a result, it makes his justifications sound ignorant. I should add that I don't dislike Warren even if I strongly disagree with him on several points; as far as popular evangelists go, he's one of the least offensive and has some wise things to say even if one doesn't subscribe to his theology, or even his belief system ... and I've never been one for damning a whole group indescriminately. But that doesn't mean I think he has any business using history (badly) to justify his opinion.

See, there's not just one characteristic by which any group defines "marriage." Paying attention only to the gender of the partners is deceptive. Perhaps it's ignorantly deceptive, but that doesn't alter the fact. There are several different factors that ALL contribute to a definition of marriage for any given culture at any given time (present or historic). There have been marriages, called marriages, between people of the same biological sex, historically speaking. There have also been religious vows made between people of the same biological sex that were regarded as a more permanent and unbreakable link than that culture's legal marriages.

Perhaps most surprising to some of the (Christian) gay marriage nay-sayers, the Christian church itself REDEFINED marriage in its own early history, changing it from a civil contract ratified by families in a secular setting to a sacred vow made in a religious structure (a church) and ratified by a priest. So, can we even call Christian marriage "marriage" then? If you want to argue from "five-thousand years" of historical precedent then ... no. Rick Warren's own argument would illegitimize religious, vow-based Christian marriage.

I dare say that would surprise him.

I realize there are those who believe -- based on their religious convictions -- that gay relationships are morally wrong, so of course they wouldn't extend sanction to one via their own religious ceremonies. I have no quarrel with that, actually; the U.S. permits freedom of religion. I may not agree, but I have no right to tell you what to believe anymore than you have a right to tell me what to believe, religiously speaking. My irritation comes when CIVIL rights for same-sex partners are denied -- including the right to the term "marriage" itself -- based on ignorance of real (not imagined) historical precedent. Fact is, marriage is largely a civil institution historically, not a religious one. As such, even if one's religious convictions won't allow recognition of a religious marriage ceremony, that cannot and should not extend to civil/secular recognition of same. Trying to point to "history" to justify refusing it -- especially when I know better -- just torques me off.

"Marriage" is a slippery institution to define. Whatever the extremists would have us think, there is not a single, universal definition, and marriage has not been unchanged throughout time -- quite the opposite. Like most cultural institutions, it's gone through a wide variety of permutations.

Let me begin by stating I'm a historian, not an anthropologist, and my area of focus is not, strictly speaking, the legal history of marriage. There are whole BOOKS written on marriage in various societies. I didn't write them. I'm not Nancy Demand, Susan Treggiari or Maria Brosius to discuss the legal specifics of Greek, Roman, or Persian marriage. But I do know a fair bit about sex and sexuality in the Ancient Near East (ANE), the Mediterranean (Med) world, and the Early Church, and also marriage traditions among Anishnaabe tribes in the Great Lakes regions. I won't pretend to talk about marriage in, say, medieval Japan, among the Maasai in Kenya, or in T'ang China because I'd look like an idiot trying. Unlike Warren, I know my limits.

So ... marriage. In order to define it, we have to look at more than ONE criteria. It is not enough to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, as if this were self-evident in all places, times, and religions.

We must ask WHAT man and WHAT woman could be married? What were their ages, their blood ties, even their ethnicities? How many wives, or husbands, could one individual have? Was marriage a civil contract or a religious vow? Could marriages, once made, be dissolved, and under what circumstances? All these things together -- not just the gender of the partners -- determined what marriage MEANT.

First, let's look at social vs. religious functions and how that impacts the understanding of marriage as well as it's assumed indissolubility.

Most of the societies with which I work regard marriage primarily as a social institution that is "hemmed" with some religious trappings. Marriages are legal contracts made between a husband and/or his family and the girl's family (not the girl, note). They do not occur in religious structures and priests do not preside over them because a priest's role is to propitiate god/s through formal sacrifice (which typically weren't made at marriages). Likewise, oracles, soothsayers, or other religious functionaries weren't present at weddings either, although at least soothsayers (and sometimes magicians) were consulted in advance to insure any god/s didn't object to the match. Libations and prayers might be made at points during the ceremony, but these were performed by family members or friends, not religious functionaries. Pre-marriage dedications were often made in temples and shrines (especially for the girl), but this was only peripherally part of the marriage itself; they functioned more as fertility or coming-of-age rituals.

(We could discuss the whole "sacred marriage" of Babylonian tradition, which IS a religious rite, but it's also not marriage as practiced normally in Bronze-Age Babylonian society.)

In short, marriage served a SOCIAL and SECULAR function -- not a religious one. Religion was present only because religion was always present in any important activity undertaken in ancient societies because "atheism" as we understand it didn't exist -- nor did any separation of religion and "state" activities. In fact, we talk of most religions at this time as "civic religions." That doesn't make marriage "religious." In fact, it was notably less religious than warfare! (The latter included formal sacrifices and soothsayers.)

What WAS its social function? The production of legitimate children for purposes of inheritance was the main one -- but far from the only one. Political or business alliances could also figure into it, and the wife was often responsible for seeing to the private realm of home management, particularly in upper-class families. (See Xenophon's Oikonomikos.)

Please notice that LOVE was nowhere in those functions. Did these husbands and wives never love each other? Well, yes, absolutely sometimes they did -- but it typically came after the marriage, not before, and it was far, far, far from a requirement.

Some other details that would jolt many moderns when it comes to marriage ...

Husbands and wives weren't expected to be the same age, or even close. In fact, especially in the upper classes, the girls were half the age of their husbands -- typically married off shortly after their first menses. That's about thirteen or fourteen. In some cases, they were betrothed -- and even married! -- younger yet ... yes, even into clear "childhood." Today, we call that statuatory rape and child sexual abuse, not marriage. That's not a judgment on ancient society so much as a recognition that OUR WORLD ISN'T THEIRS.

Likewise, some of these ancient societies accepted polygamy at points in their history, especially royal polygamy; that includes the ancient Hebrews who wrote what Christians call the "Old Testament." Does that not count as "history" for Warren and friends? Surely so! Some societies also permitted marriages between closely related individuals -- marriages that would, today, be considered incestuous. I can't (off the top of my head) think of any society that permitted parent-child marriages, but there have been some that did allow brother-sister marriages in the upper classes to preserve inheritance (including both ancient Egypt and ancient Persia), as well as -- even more commonly -- uncle to niece, and first cousin to first cousin.

Also, there are cases where membership in a particular ethnicity (or city-state) was required for a marriage to be recognized. For instance, post-Perikles Athenian men HAD to marry Athenian women for their children to be legitimate. Similarly, Spartans had to marry Spartans. Why? Control of resources and rights of citizenships. E.g., it had POLITICAL -- not moral -- motivations. And marriage between slaves? Only permitted if the slaves' master allowed it. Sometimes slaves married (lower class) free citizens, but again, this was recognized only if the slave's master gave the nod.

So what WAS marriage then?

Not so easy to define, is it? Let me provide some helpful bullet points:

Marriage in the ANE/Med could or did allow:
-- union of an older man and young, even preteen, girl
-- union between cousins, uncle and niece, and even (sometimes) brother and sister
-- several wives at particular times, places, or for certain royal families
-- union as part of a larger political or business deal
-- dissolution of the union as long as the dowry (or equivalent) was returned

Marriage in the ANE/Med usually assumed:
-- a legal contract between her family and his family or with he himself
-- the fixing of a dowry or "how many sheep/goats/olive trees is my daughter worth?"
-- sexual infidelity on the part of the male
-- that any offspring belonged to the father, not the mother, and would stay with the father at divorce

Marriage in the ANE/Med could be restricted by:
-- ethnicity
-- city-state citizenship
-- slavery
-- religious cult affiliation

Now, some societies where the status of women was higher did have better protections in place for their daughters. Examples include Bronze-Age Minoan society, Etruria, Achaemenid Persia, pre-conquest Egypt, Canaan/Phoenicia (yes, that includes the Hebrews/Jews), and apparently Illyria and Scythia too. In some of these societies, "love" might actually become a factor, and protections for the daughters could be written into the contract -- but this is because the status of WOMEN in these societies was generally higher. One thing remains fairly constant -- marriage was a contract, not a vow, and it's primary purpose remained social, not religious.

Now, just to provide a complete contrast before I get around to how the Early Church redefined marriage (and why), let me talk briefly about marriage among pre-European-contact tribal groups in the Great Lakes region.

I bring this up because it, too, requires a reassessment of the WHO in marriage. Yes, I know some in the "marriage must be between one man and one woman" crowd would probably like to dismiss these cultures as "savage," not Christian -- and therefore not worthy of consideration. But if one wishes to claim that marriage is and always has been ____, one can't blithely reject historical societies that don't meet with one's preconceived ideas. That's selective truth.

So, among Great Lakes tribes, due to the relatively small size of bands and the fact they weren't nearly as idiotic as Europeans took them for, marriage was carefully restricted and incest taboos were extremely strong. Hot young buck sees the pretty daughter of his dad's best hunting buddy ... his passion rises ... What's to stop him from leaving his moccasins outside her wigwam and doing the two-backed dance with his new wife? Incest laws stop him.

Yup, that's right. He's her COUSIN, even if he (technically) isn't ... because, well, he probably IS -- some number of times removed. As a result, one had to marry OUTSIDE the clan (and sometimes outside the tribe itself). Therefore full tribal and intertribal social affairs were prime wife- and husband-hunting events.

Their strictures on WHO was eligible for marriage were actually much tighter than in many (nay, most) Mediterranean cultures, but beginning and ending these marriages was easier in most tribes. Marriage still served a particular social function -- the production of a next generation that's not horribly inbred. They were also made for political (and business) purposes, just like in the ANE and Med, as well as for love. And -- IF a brave could prove he could afford it -- he could have more than one wife. He didn't usually have whole harems, but wealthy tribal members could have two, three, even four or more.

BUT, you may be thinking, ALL of those examples still involve males and females, not same-sex partners! Well, yes ... sort of ...

... if you ignore what's sometimes under the skirt, or the bone-bead breastplate. E.g., the breastplate might be hiding actual breasts, and the skirt hiding a penis.

You see, a boy or man could decide to take on the dress and roles of a woman. "He" then became a "she," was referred to as a she, treated as a she -- and married accordingly. The reverse was true with girls. Are they "gay"? Are they "transsexuals/transvestites"? Well, those are modern terms, and I resist trying to slap modern terms created for OUR culture on people in other times and places. It's anachronistic, whether you're calling Plato "gay" or Shawnee berdache "transvestites."

Once again, their world is not our world. And are these marriages between a biological man and a man "by choice" still "male and female"? Well, the tribes would have answered YES. But I doubt most of the anti-gay-marriage crowd today would agree.

Definitions ... pesky definitions. ;>

Just what do you MEAN by "one man and one woman"? Native people believe that a person is who the Creator and his visions make him (or her). Even if that involves "cross-dressing."

Let's move on ... back to the rise of Christianity and what the Early Church did to marriage.

As noted, in the ancient ANE/Med basin -- the societies that gave birth to early Christianity -- marriage was never a religious institution, much less a sacred vow. So how did it become one?

Via some rather twisted, largely gnostic/neo-platonic beliefs about sin and the body. Plato himself never claimed the body/physical world was "bad," "dirty," or "sinful." He believed it a distraction from higher (philosophic) pursuits. But over time, a combination of influences that arose out of the highly diverse melting pot of the Hellenistic and later Roman eras -- drawing ideas from as far away as India -- resulted in a growing belief that the physical world was BAD, not just a distraction. We find it in belief systems ranging from the Persian-born Manichaeism to the various flavors of gnosticism to neo-platonism to, yes, Early Christianity. For a FAR more complete discussion of this, see Peter Brown's The Body and Society (just to name one text). But a widespread belief was found among early Christians that sex (and other carnal desires) were inherently sinful, and "Original Sin" came to be equated with sex, not disobedience to God. This gave rise to such ideas as Mary's perpetual virginity and her Immaculate Conception -- she couldn't be tainted by the sin of her own parents having sex to produce her, or she wouldn't be a good (pure) enough vessel to carry "God" -- become the Theotokos.

Unfortunately for these extremists, Jesus didn't come back quite as soon as they'd hoped, and sex was annoyingly necessary in order to produce future generations. The fledgling Church had to settle into a family-style religion, not a radical apocalyptic cult -- and those two things aren't easy bed-partners (pun intended). So ... how to legitimize that "nasty" necessity of sex?

Marriage was converted into a "sacrament." A sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." That's the traditional definition. Sacraments are actions that absolve sin. So baptism absolves Original Sin. Confession and the Eucharist (that's the Lord's Supper for Protestants) absolve typical, daily sin. Holy Unction gets rid of any left-over sins before death, making the stay in Purgatory less ...etc., etc.

And marriage?

It redeems that pesky sin of sex.

Now, I know some of the Catholics and Orthodox among you may be thinking, But wait! We don't believe sex is sinful in itself!

Well, no -- not anymore.

But the Church DID, historically. That's why marriage had to become a VOW, not just a contract. It's also why the Jews still have marriage as a contract like it always was. They never adopted those crazy Manichaean-gnostic ideas and sugar-coated them in Christian theology with the help of Origen's brilliant if troubled mind. (Remember, this is the guy who voluntarily castrated himself.) It wasn't just Origen, but he's probably the one most guilty of infusing neo-platonic and gnostic ideas into the (especially Eastern) church.

The only way to get around the issue of sex = sin was to introduce marriage as a holy sacrament that made sex "okay" within the context of a religiously sanctioned marriage, blessed by a priest. That, in turn, required it to become a vow and a religious ceremony -- not a secular civil arrangement.

So yes, Christianity REDEFINED marriage in the first place. And Christians have, perhaps, the least right to complain about modern society "redefining" marriage for new times.

It doesn't matter whether the various flavors of modern Christianity believe these same things. The change was instituted and has become so buried by "tradition" that most modern Christians have no idea whatsoever why it's a vow in the first place. Christianity ALREADY "redefined" marriage in a very, VERY fundamental way.

Now, let's just put the cherry on top here, okay?

Vows. Vows have religious functions. Vows cannot be broken (or shouldn't be) because they offend the GODS -- or God, as the case may be. That's why divorce was disallowed by the Church because it broke a religious VOW. That's a whole different kettle of fish than just dissolving a contract. The ancient world was well-familiar with vows ... they just didn't include marriage among them.

There were, however, vows of loyalty and fidelity made between individuals in the ancient Med. Let me hold up a little-known example. Like most historical examples, it belongs to a particular place and context: Fifth- and Fourth-Century Thebes, Boeotia (Central Greece).

The Thebans had a tradition that involved sacred vows exchanged in the shrine of Iolaus in the gymnasion (park) of the same name outside Thebes' Protiades Gates. The vow involved oaths of fidelity in peace, and courage in war -- to stand beside one's partner in all things, peace and battle, sickness and health, for richer or poorer, until parted by death. (No, we don't know the exact words of the vow; they've not been preserved -- but we DO know the gist of the promises. I've editorialized to make a point.)

It's from these pledged pairs that Thebes drafted members of their fearsome Sacred Band -- note the adjective SACRED in the name. This was THE crack hoplite unit of Classical Greece; it took out -- in a pitched, infantry battle -- no less an opponent than the Spartans (371, Battle of Leuktra). E-yup. Some real sissies there. ;>

The catch? Both partners were MEN.

Now, was that a marriage?

Well, if you'd asked the ancient Thebans, they'd have said, "No." Why? Marriage? Pshaw ... those are just contracts. This vow was more important than a mere marriage!

But if we define marriage as a sacred vow of loyalty to another for the rest of one's life ... then yeah, I think the Theban vow before Iolaus comes closer to the concept of marriage found in the Early Church than to Greco-Roman marriage contracts. Where it differed was, of course, that it didn't "legitimize" sex nor produce heirs. In fact, the fidelity pledged didn't involve exclusive sexual fidelity since many members of the Band had wives. (We're not sure if it involved sexual fidelity as regards other male partners ... it may have, but it may not have.) In any case, Band members could dissolve their marriages, but they couldn't break their vow to their lover (erastes) or beloved (eromenos). So depending on what "markers" one wants to use for definitions, I'd say the Band members were married to each other, and their 'wives' were just social accessories, necessary for inheritance laws and keeping their house.

So ... WHAT IS MARRIAGE?

Well, it depends on when, where, who and for what ... Pretty much like any other institution throughout history. There isn't a blanket definition now and never has been.

Oh, those pesky, pesky definitions again!

Marriage has NOT historically been between one man and one woman for the last five-thousand years, Amen. Not even close.

History just isn't that neat, nor monolithic.


----------
*Warren's exact quote: "I'm not opposed to that [benefits for partners of gays and lesbians] as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

To read a transcript or view the entire interview, go HERE: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html