Anyone looking for a new-to-you futon? It's a double-bed sized 8" thick mattress, with a metal/wood frame (that's easy to take apart/put back together again). We were hoping to get some money for it, but we're flexible -- and are really just looking for a good home for it.
Email me or leave a comment if you want details about the futon or actually want it. It comes with a cover, and the mattress itself is white.
BILL MOYERS: How do you compare the gods of Greek mythology, with the God of the Old Testament?
JEANETTE WINTERSON: Well, of course, it's monotheism. The God of the Old Testament, Yahweh is one God. And the Greek gods were many. They were a pantheon of playboys and dodgy actors. But you know, they worked for the Greek people. And Yahweh is something which is much more, somebody much more intense, much more poetic, much more terrifying. I mean, the Old Testament is a terrifying book, because you never know what Yahweh is going to do next. And what's really scary, is that Yahweh doesn't know what Yahweh is going to do next. Again, it is a figure, a huge figure, full of inconsistencies.
You know, in the Book of Job, for instance, God actually has to hide people from himself, under His throne, because if he doesn't, he'll get so cross he'll destroy them. So, it's almost as though, this God splits Himself in two, and thinks, "On the one hand, I'm a merciful God, and on the other hand, I'm a vengeful God. And I'm both of these gods in one God. So, I'm gonna hide you in case I get too vengeful before I get merciful."
I think one of the pleasures of the Old Testament, is these contradictions, because the Right Wing fundamentalists won't have any of this. They make God completely in their own image, much as the Greeks made the Olympians in their own image. The mystery of the Jewish God, who became the Christian God; is you can't really make that force in your own image. Because there's nothing in the sacred text, which would really allow you to do that. And if God says, that He, She is made us in His image, then we are the ones who are full of contradictions. So, that might suggest, that God also, is full of contradictions. And if you look at the texts, that seems to bear it out. [transcript]
This has been a much beleaguered topic in classroom discussions, especially as of late. Non-verbal communication is an interesting topic -- but it's also one that is misunderstood.
One thing that I tell my students, as I teach them about personal accountability regarding their communication, is that they are partially responsible for how they are perceived by their audience. Sure, there's always a possiblity to be misread or misunderstood in what you convey -- but you also have to ask yourself, "what message am I sending that is causing people to react this way, and misinterpret me?"
And that's a hard question to have to ask yourself. It's far easier to blame others and say that the fault lies completely with them -- and not yourself. But, that's a shallow way of looking at the complexities of communication, and a way of avoiding any responsibility for "coloring" your language with the subtle tones and hints of chosen non-verbal techniques.
In a way, I suppose the posting of this topic is a non-verbal message of my own. In the last few weeks, I've had to deal with several instances of people conveying one message in words, yet through their tone/attitude, another message was perceived altogether. If your non-verbal message contradicts what you are actually saying -- then the audience will typically pay more attention to whatever non-verbal elements they're perceiving, rather than the actual words of your message.
An important element of non-verbal communication (which, incidentally, shows up in both written and verbal instances) is noticing the communicator's tone. I define tone for my students as the "writer's/speaker's attitude to the audience and material." It's a huge part of communication -- and usually is the first thing noticed by the audience, yet the first aspect that is denied by the speaker.
This business of teaching/learning about communication is like a double-edged sword. While it's great to know what's going on in relationship dynamics, it's also a burden when you see a disconnect, and others playing upon it.
That's a nice surprise for a Thursday. (and the timing of it is pretty remarkable, especially considering I've picked up HHGTG on tape, and I'm halfway through book 1)
I'm scheduled to go into a meeting tomorrow, where we'll discuss the different benefits that will be a part of my University employment. On the appointment confirmation email, the person wrote "Dear Professor Bennetch" -- not exactly true, considering I'm at the bottom-of-the-feed-chain* as an Instructor, but I think I'll enjoy the misnomer of that title when I see it.
*Well, I suppose graduate students and sessionals would technically be considered in a lower position than Instructor -- not that I'm complaining, mind you! This is a great entry-level job for someone with my experience and education. I just know I haven't been accorded the title of "professor" (yet).
Tonight marks the beginning of the second season of 30 Days, the TV show by Morgan Spurlock (the SuperSize Me documentarian). I watched all 6 shows of last season, and I'm looking forward to what this season will bring.
The basic premise of the show is that someone goes and lives in an unlikely situation for a month, in order to gain (and share) a different perspective. Last season a few of the shows included a West Virginian straight man living as a roommate in the Castro district of San Francisco with a gay man; a Christian living in a Muslim community for a month; and two energy-consuming NYC residents living and working in an eco-friendly commune. Needless to say, this is one reality TV show that goes beyond entertainment, and actually offers some interesting lessons to learn from.
The show's creator offers a preview of what's to come in this next season:
On July 26th - the first episode is about and is called "Immigration." In the show, a border patroling minuteman (who just so happens to be a legal Cuban immigrant) moves in with an undocumented Mexican family in East Los Angeles. This is one of the greatest hours of television I have ever seen in my life - you won't want to miss it. And I can't think of a more relevant or timely issue to kick off season 2. We also have episodes that deal with Outsourcing, Christianity and Atheism, New Age Healing, Abortion (Pro-Life/Pro-Choice), and Jail ... where I get locked up in the big house for 30 Days.
I'm already intrigued. I'll be sure to post my impressions of how well this second season goes over.
Now aptly titled "Operation Save America," these anti-choice advocates have been at it in Mississippi. I've blogged about the last women's clinic in that state before, and all last week Operation Save America staged protests outside the building -- their activities included brandishing 6x8' pictures of supposedly aborted fetuses, and the burning of several Supreme Court decisions, a gay pride flag, and a copy of the Koran.
Operation Save America has identified a whole host of things they call offensive to God. Their director, Pastor Phillip "Flip" Benham, told his congregation they had three choices with Muslims: kill them, be killed by them, or convert them. "Which is your choice?" he asked. "While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims," he said. "We destroy the Quran, not to desecrate their religion, but to set them free. [article link]
Funny, I think the activities of this group would constitute as terroristic, don't you? What about Timothy McVeigh? The Unabomber? Ted Bundy? Last I checked, they weren't Muslim, but rather white-bread American boys.
But the best quote from the group's leader is saved for feminists:
Pastor Flip has a special disdain for feminists as well. "Feminism is rebellion against God," he says. "They hate men. Gloria Steinem said, 'A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.' That'll help you to understand what feminists think of men." Pastor Flip believes feminists are angry, ugly white women who, for the most part, have been unable to find a male partner. And as they eschew having children, he says, they condemn themselves to a lonely and unhappy life, striving continually to be something they cannot be: men. "There is not a greater vocation in the world for a woman than to be a mother," says Pastor Flip. [link]
Whew, I was afraid he was going to say that there's no greater vocation in the world for a woman to want to be a man.
Yeah, this group is what you could adequately label as "extremist." Sadly, though, I think these types of activities surrounding the debate are becoming more mainstream than not.
But what women in Mississippi repeatedly say is that for them the issue isn't about belief: being pro-choice or pro-life. It isn't about being a feminist or organizing huge demonstrations to support a political cause. It is about paying attention to, taking care of and honoring the hearts, minds and bodies of women in Mississippi. And this means a whole lot more than simply protesting against organizations like Operation Save America. It means that women and organizations around the country must make a concerted and long-term effort working with women in Mississippi to improve the living conditions, economic stability, access to education and reproductive health of Mississippi women.
This quote tells me that it's not about making a point or about being "right" -- it's about providing the services women need in the first place, both before and after pregnancy. Whether that help is found in education, by preventing unwanted pregnancies or by helping women with the necessary social services after a pregnancy has already taken place. That should be something we all agree on.
January 23, 2007 -- our family of two becomes three! (that is, unless I'm having twins -- ack)
So no, I'm not just getting fat. There's a baby inside of there! I've been blogging about the experience here, and will probably keep doing so -- minus the occasional outburst.
Status of the soon-to-be mother? Excited and terrified. Stay posted.
The contraceptive pill saves the lives of up to 3,000 women a year in the UK and Europe, according to new medical research.
A number of studies now suggest that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer significantly. One study, reported in the British Journal of Cancer this week, found a protective effect of up to 50 per cent for Pill users, while another, reported in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, found a similar effect after analysing data on the use of the Pill since its introduction.
According to the studies, women who use the contraceptive pill reduce their risk of developing ovarian cancer by more than a third, and the longer they take it for, the greater the protection.
[...]"The favourable effect against ovarian cancer risk persists for years after Pill use has ceased, and it is not confined to any particular type of Pill,'' says Dr La Vecchia. "Since the incidence of ovarian cancer is already appreciable in middle age, and survival from the disease is unsatisfactory, the protection of Pill use corresponds to the avoidance of 3,000 to 5,000 ovarian cancer cases, and consequently 2,000 to 3,000 deaths a year in Europe." He added that similar numbers were benefiting from taking the Pill in the US.
A succinct breakdown of their ideology, found here:
The Republican "culture of life" is used to oppose stem cell research and abortion. It is rarely applied to capital punishment and never to war. They claim that they don't apply it to the death penalty because these people are not innocent in the way that fetuses are innocent. I suppose they'd make the same argument about Iraqi combatants. Of course, the civilians are unfortunate accidents. This seems like an awfully selective culture of life, doesn't it?
There are 3 possible positions that can be held: (1) all human life is worth preserving; (2) no human life is worth preserving; and (3) some human life is worth preserving and some is not. Obviously, #3 is the position that the administration takes. This allows them to oppose abortion as "murder" while promoting preemptive war. Comedians and liberal critics are fond of pointing out that the Republican Party ceases to care about someone the day they are born. The problem is that their rhetoric is designed to make it seem like they are taking #1. With their "holier than thou" attitude, the Christian Right claims #1 while accusing the rest of us of #3. [via]
I'm watching the first season of Grey's Anatomy -- oy, am I in trouble. Case in point: it's 3AM, and I'm just now getting to bed. While I've seen an episode here and there over the last two seasons, I wanted to catch 'em all from the beginning.
Beyond the visions of Dr. McDreamy now dashing in my head, I'm really enjoying the writing of the series (not to mention its soundtrack).
Granted, I'm not usually one for medical shows, but this one has a different feel to it. I think I like it.
“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”
-- Voltaire
In light of my last few posts, this quote makes a lot of sense.
[disclaimer: I'm sorry if I've been a bit of a downer with the news-oriented posts lately. For a while there this week, I was on a bit of a news-fast (I didn't think I could handle the negativity in addition to other events going on in my life). I'm just now catching up, as you can see! Tomorrow I'm off to a wedding, so hopefully that'll cheer my perspective up a bit.]
A documentary that adds understanding to what's going on in Lebanon/Israel right now. The film's description:
Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one.
The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel's PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.
What's interesting about this documentary is that it clearly illustrates the power of words to shape perspectives. "Attack" vs. "retaliate." "Neighborhood" vs. "settlement."
While I know that there are no easy answers to the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, I do know that I grew up in a household and country that was overwhelmingly pro-Israel -- this documentary describes some of the media language and propaganda techniques that help cement many Americans' Israeli-centric perspectives. Watch it here.
Key quote:
"Americans need to wake up, and find out what's happening in their name throughout the world. They have a responsibility, if they pretend to live in a democratic society -- which is being eroded, in terms of how democratic it is -- to find out what it is your government is supporting, and what it is doing overseas in your name with your tax dollars."
[Don't even get me started on those Christians who are rejoicing at this tragedy, looking up to the skies for the Rapture to occur at any moment. Sick.]
So Bush exercised his first presidential veto this week -- and sent down the stem cell research bill that passed both houses of Congress. Surrounded by "snowflake children" (adopted frozen embryos -- who were there, according to Stewart, to illustrate why stem cell research is wrong ... nevermind the fact that these children wouldn't exist if not for intensive embryonic research), Bush claimed to be upholding his promise of sustaining a "culture of life."
What's brilliant about the Daily Show clip below is that they use the President's OWN WORDS to show how hypocritical this "culture of life" business is. When it comes to preventing stem cell research, well, there's "no moral ambiguity" and that "every being counts, every person matters."
Yet when it comes to guesstimating how many Iraqi civilians have died in the conflict so far, we see Bush's shrug and nonchalant: "I would say -- 30,000 -- more or less."
Stewart: As it turns out, there seems to be a bit of a loophole in the "culture of life" promotion thing -- When spreading democracy, moral absolutes ... eh, you get a little bit of wiggle room ... it's not murder, it's a "lamentable side effect." The upset stomach and diarrhea of freedom, if you will.
So when it come to the theory that embryonic stem cells can help in the fight against disease -- [Bush] "this country needs to be careful not to destroy life to preserve life."
Bush, a pro-life (under certain circumstances) president.
Scene: Near the end where Phoenix is pitching a fit and destroying everything, and Wolverine is slowly walking up to her, his clothes disintegrating
Me: Mmmm, naked Wolverine!
Yeah, that didn't go over very well.
I'm pretty disappointed with the latest X-Men installment. I think the story had all kinds of possibilities, but they got too hung up in the special effects to explore the real issues at work.
Quick recap for those who haven't seen it: a vaccine has been developed that can permanently rid the mutants of their special powers. The government is offering it willingly to whoever wants it -- question is, are mutants just humans with a curable "disease" or are they unique in their own right?
There's so much to this story that I would have liked to have seen on the screen -- maybe some of the struggles of mutants who feel like the have to make this choice. My friend Todd has already explored this issue, and I think the writers/director really sold the storyline short by blowing things up rather than giving this flick some heart.
And don't get me started on the whole Jean/Phoenix bit.
By the way, I didn't stay until the end of the credits, but luckily YouTube has me covered -- here's the scene.
... there is the President's groping of German chancellor Angela Merkel from earlier today. Her reaction says it all, I think. How many backrubs did he offer the other G8 leaders? None. Of course, she was the only woman at the G8 table -- so I guess he was just showin' her a little male love. Eww.
... all US citizens that are being evacuated from Lebanon are being billed by the US State Department. Bomb another country and push them back to the stone age? Free. Escort your own citizens to safety? Bill's in the mail. Nice.
... As far as the "last throes" of the Iraqi war, today the UN reported that more than 100 civilians die per day in Iraq. It's a bit hard to "win the hearts and minds" of the area when they're dropping like flies.
Grandma made it through the surgery this morning, and the doctor said it came just in time. Still, it was a horrible experience for her, and she won't be going through it again. Now, we wait.
Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers and concerns.
I'm still sick, so I'm going to go lay down again.
(1) The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer, (2)The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility, and (3) The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. [via]
Echidne has a been doing a study on Christian Reconstructionists, and has found a rather "enlightening" post on the various spiritual reasons why young women should NOT attend forms of higher education. Echidne quotes this from the fundamentalist post:
Women today are leaving college disillusioned as to their Biblical roles. In college they are masculinized by feminist teachings, and after 4 years spent focusing on training for a career, few women exit college still focused on being content and submissive keepers at home. I think there are valid reasons for women to attend college, but I think they are few and much farther between than is generally believed.
Oh, but it gets better, if you can believe that. Wait til you read the comments that follow the original post.
Discuss amongst yourselves, and I'll be back once I can breathe out my nose or when my life calms down a bit -- whichever comes first.
Just got home from the hospital, after another long day.
Well, she made it through the weekend -- and it's really been a gift to us all. Not only do we have her for just a little while longer, but her demeanor and personality is so full of stories, laughter, and gratitude. It's been an amazing time of connection, despite the occasional fear element that is underlying the whole situation.
It's also been interesting to watch my extended family in action. I'm really starting to feel like a member of a family outside of my original own. I've watched some members of the family be so selfless and giving as they tend to Grandma in her last days. There really is something to the old adage of tragedy bringing out the best in some.
Tomorrow morning, first thing, Grandma is undergoing an emergency exploratory surgery to work on her liver (yet again). There's a 50/50 chance that she may not pull through -- so we want to be there for her before she's wheeled into the OR.
While both Jerry and I are exhausted from all of this, I think I can safely say we'd have it no other way. We know where we need to be, and are glad that we're able to be there.
Think of us tomorrow, around 8AM, MST.
UPDATE: 8 hours later, still no surgery. Apparently this required, urgent surgery has been pushed back another day -- of course, no one thought to inform the family or patient of this until long after we initially inquired. While I can understand the usual hospital delays of surgery scheduling, I'm really upset that Grandma has been forced to undergo the strain of 2.5 days of no food and barely any liquids, and she's still not been seen in the OR. She's already 80, she doesn't have much time left -- and the way she has been treated (along with the family) does NOT support any quality of life standards.
Needless to say, I'm putting my communication skills to the test, and I'm arranging a meeting with a Client Care agent first thing tomorrow.
a great interview in Salon this week with author Katha Pollitt. In light of some of the discussion around here this week, here's a taste:
It does seem like we spend a lot of time -- and I do this myself -- debunking myths about the death of feminism. So how do we change the conversation so that we're not just constantly defending ourselves?
Well I think that's related to the way that feminist victories become incorporated into society -- they lose the character of being considered feminist. For example, half of all medical students are women, but how many of those women in medical school think, "My presence in this seat is a victory for the women's movement"? How often when people write about this fact do they see that in terms of a social victory for women? People will maintain that this was part of the natural evolution of society, you didn't need a women's movement, that it would have happened anyway. None of which is true.
I think we need to reclaim the conversation in a number of areas. For example, when we talk about abortion, how often do we talk about it in terms of women's lives? As opposed to it being about a fetus being a person. The anti-choicers have so thoroughly switched the conversation over to the question of the personhood of the fertilized egg or fetus that now it's even a person before it's implanted in your uterus! So on the one hand you have that our victories aren't being acknowledged as real victories and that the problem areas are areas of enormous retreat. So I just think we need to start talking more about our own lives as being important. I think that we need to be much bolder.
I've witnessed this switching of conversation, first hand. I'm glad to be reminded of certain priorities that many try to diminish or beat out of you (using a number of guises). There's even some out there who'll try to say feminism is dead, and that it's no longer a battle worth fighting. Take a second to scan the newspaper and read about the many ways women are being held back and discriminated against both here and overseas, and that'll change your mind real quick.
Last night Jerry's grandmother had a really bad attack in the hospital, and she almost died. We've spent most of the night with her and the family at the hospital.
While she's feeling okay right now, it's still sad to be with someone so near the end of life. Jerry and I had a chance to sit and talk with her, and it was good. Tonight her memory was so active and she was both sweet and peaceful -- but it's difficult to know that in that in the next little while, she'll no longer be with us. It's also hard to see the sadness in her children's faces (including Jerry's mom).
We've been told that when she does go, it'll be a peaceful death. That's a small comfort, one that may temporarily mask some of the loss I know we'll all feel. I'm sad, and I've only started to get to know her.
In honor of her, I'll post one of my favorite poems by Dylan Thomas. One of my fondest memories in school was when my favorite professor read this poem aloud in class. I remember that he read it with such emotion, that toward the end, we all heard his voice crack. It was one of those powerful moments that words can't describe -- but you never forget.
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The above is a part of a trilogy Thomas wrote as he experienced the death of his father. The companion pieces are Lie Still, Sleep Becalmed and Elegy.
When it comes to prayer, I'm not convinced that we do it to change God's mind or the course of nature's events -- I'm more of the persuasion that prayer is an act we do to partially comfort ourselves and the ones we love, to show them how much we care and are thinking of them. Maybe it's the quiet act of putting our biggest cares into words, directed to someone we can't see, that gives us a sense of peace.
Whatever the case, tonight I'll be thinking about Grandma Friesen, and how her seven kids (and countless grandkids and great-grandkids) will fare after she's passed on. If you're of the praying persuasion, maybe you could think of us too.
In class the other day, as part of our ethics discussion, we discussed the 1937 pamphlet, "How to Detect Propaganda." Within the pamphlet are seven devices that help to distinguish manipulation (propaganda) from legitimate persuasion (rhetoric) -- it really comes down to the intention of the speakers, and how they position their appeals to the audience. If the appeals are overwhelmingly emotional, discouraging the intellectual integrity of the message -- well, you're probably in the realm of propaganda. Propaganda urges its audience to rush to judgement, often without examining the facts of the situation.
This is one of my favorite things to teach. I find that teaching what NOT to do in communication gives students more of an awareness of what is being communicated around them in their daily lives. Plus, it's usually easier (at least when you start learning about rhetoric) to point out apparent flaws in communication than it is describe what is effective in a message.
The first is name-calling, which is where you literally label an idea, concept, group, or person with negative qualities, with hopes that your audience will associate the negative connotations with whatever you namecalled. Examples: "evildoers," "Axis of Evil," calling a cop a "pig," etc.
The second device twists name-calling into something positive -- it's called glittering generalities. Glittering generalities use "virtue words," words that are overwhelming positive and feel-good, and are taken at face value and not explained. For example, whenever Bush talks about "preserving freedom," who can argue against that? Granted, he's defining freedom in an entirely different way, but that's another post altogether. Other examples: progress, new and improved!, family values, etc.
The third device is transfer, when you closely associate one thing with another. It could be linking your idea to an established institution, like your country or your church. The point of transfer is to let your audience literally transfer their knowledge and good feelings about one thing to another. I talk about this in my thesis -- Revolve is using a transfer device in aligning their insipid extra features to the Scriptural text around it.
Fourth is testimonial, which obviously is where you rely on the words of someone else to support your idea or project. Do any of us really think the celebrities we see on TV actually USE the products they're hawking? If we think about it, probably not -- but having their power of testimonial helps to sell products. Linked to this appeal is the fifth device, plain folks. Plain folks is where you are "one of the people," living your life and values the same as everyone else. Think of politicians or actors who project this type of lifestyle in their publicity -- or President Bush, standing alongside the rescue workers of NYC, days after the tragedy.
The sixth device of propaganda is card-stacking, and this is where you "stack the cards" against the truth -- using under- or over-emphasis. When you card-stack, you dodge or evade questions, hide facts, equivocate, or create a different diversion to distract your audience from the real issue. Hmmm, for an example of this, just think about the actions of the Bush administration for the last 5 years. That'll give you a start.
Finally, the last device is band wagon. Here is where the "everyone is doing it" appeals come into play. It encourages conformity and a feeling of belonging to a group. For example, the push to not question the president after 9/11 was undoubtably a band wagon appeal.
What's key to note about these definitions is that they are distortions or corruptions of legitimate rhetorical appeals. For example, name calling is the distorted, negative appeal of categorizing and labeling -- something we all do, everyday. Glittering generalities is the negative way of using appeals to genuine human virtues -- When Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about freedom, he wasn't using it in a glittering generalities sense, he was appealing to the real sense of freedom we all, as humans, adore. The same works with the other five devices -- they're the negative distortions of rhetorical ways of communicating.
Phew. Now that those definitions are out of the way, back to the title of this post. We only had a chance to introduce this pamphlet in class yesterday, but one of my students asked a pretty insightful question I had a hard time giving an answer for. After discussing a few of the propaganda devices, she asked if religion could be considered propaganda. Not wanting to start a row with the class, I was saved by the end of the class period -- but I couldn't help thinking that she may be onto something.
Looking up the etymology of the word "propaganda," the root of the word is from an association with the Church!
1718, from Mod.L. propaganda, short for Congregatio de Propaganda Fide "congregation for propagating the faith," committee of cardinals established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, prop. abl. fem. gerundive of L. propagare (see propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.
Propaganda originates from 17th century missionaries who went out to proselytize -- or, propagate -- their message to the unsaved masses. Knowing this detail about the word's history adds an entirely different dimension to what I think of when I hear the word "propaganda."
Now, I know that there are genuine religious people out there who aren't overtly using propaganda in order to have their message heard (and followed). But part of me thinks that these are the meeker minority. I keep remembering that horrible Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort video where they blatantly stated that in order to have your Christian message heard, the best technique was to go straight for the emotional appeals and avoid intellectual discussions. That signals a HUGE red flag for me, and the more I look back on some of my upbringing, the more I see that many times the persuasive force of spiritual discussions relied solely on moving you to tears or fears -- which, arguably, could be considered to be propagandic appeals.
Most people associate propaganda with Hitler, Stalin, and World War II. Maybe our associations with the word should be directed toward some of our religious institutions. I can think of people who would have NO qualms, whatsoever, using these deceiving propaganda appeals in order to "save" someone's soul.
Edited to add: Here's a project waiting for me to do -- analyzing much of the prolife literature and slogans. I think there is some pretty insidious propaganda waiting to be analyzed there.
I remember once getting into a discussion with an old friend from back home, where she continually kept evoking the use of cliche in her argument. Finally, I had enough, and asked her to drop the cliches and really tell me what she was thinking. I also asked her why so much of her argument/evidence was phrased in such trite form. She told me, "cliche? maybe, but what makes it a cliche is that it's been used a lot. there's a reason it's been used a lot...b/c it's the truth." Of course, this answer itself is begging for another post altogether, but I wonder if cliche could be added to the list of propaganda devices?
UPDATE: In case you haven't noticed, the blog's got new clothes. I changed the design again, and since this one seems to be loading okay, I think it'll stick.
(but something that I find amusing)
Here's some of the latest search terms used to find my site:
I have a new template, and something seems to be wrong with it -- it's not loading like it's supposed to. I'm not sure if it's something on my end or if it's with the template service I'm using. I've noticed that a couple blogs that use Blogger-Templates are also loading screwy, too.
Maybe I'm clashing with some CSS code or something. I dunno. But if anyone can figure this out for me, I'd be oh-so-appreciative.
Leave a comment or drop me an email, and I'll fill in some more details (if necessary).
Again, I'm blown away by this series. Moyers' interviewing style is both personal and intellectually-stimulating -- you can't help but be engaged by what you see and hear in the exchange. Rushdie offered an interesting perspective, as someone who's tangled with fundamentalist Muslims and been censored as a result (not to mention the 10-year fatwa that was on his head).
As always, you should watch the video on the PBS website, or read the transcript. Here are some of the parts of the interview that stood out for me:
BILL MOYERS: From my notebook of Rushdie wisdom, quote, "Human beings understand themselves and shape their futures by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the un-sayable, not by bowing the knee whether to gods or to men." Isn't that exactly what religious extremists do not want to hear?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yes, of course it is. Because it seems to me that what I'm trying to say is that the purpose of--you could even say grandly the purpose of life. A purpose of our lives is to broaden what we can understand and say and therefore be. You know, it's to become, it enriches us as people to push outwards against the frontiers of knowledge and, if you like, of acceptable ideas. And there are of course people who don't think like that. And who want to do the opposite really, want to push those boundaries in.
BILL MOYERS: When you say that we shouldn't bow our knee to any man or god you're going to fly right in the face of their sense of reality.
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yes. I mean I'm aware of that. But I'm not interested in their sense of reality. I'm trying to say that, that is an extremely reprehensible way to look at the world.
I'm finding it's hard to offer my own meagre commentary in light of such an elegant response. I really liked the quote of Rushdie's that started this exchange: "Human beings understand themselves and shape their futures by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the un-sayable, not by bowing the knee whether to gods or to men."
I often get in trouble for questions I ask, and then again for refusing to be content with the answers given me. I'm also finding it harder and harder to turn off my brain when it comes to discussing spiritual matters.
But here's series of quotes that I KNOW will cook some of your noodles. Here Rushdie talks about his view of morality preceding established religious systems:
BILL MOYERS: How do you think the fundamentalists see an atheist? How do you think you are seen in their eyes?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: As somebody entirely without a moral sense. You know, I mean, that's to say, it is, in a way, one of the weaknesses of religious argument. That they argue that you cannot have a moral life unless you accept the moral code, which is defended by an ultimate arbiter. You know, of whatever god it might be. Or godhead it might be, in the case of polytheisms. My view has been, quite simply, that religion has been one of the ways in which human beings, throughout history, have tried to codify and organize their moral sense of the world. But that's to say, I would argue, that our sense of good and evil, our sense of right and wrong, our moral sense precedes religion. It's not created by it. It is, in fact, what creates our need for religion. So if we can accept that, as human beings, there's something intrinsic in us, which wishes to have an understanding of right and wrong, you know, and that religion is an expression of that, then of course, you can find other expressions of that, which are not formal religions. You know, and I think the history of the last couple hundred years will show there's been much philosophy, much thinking, precisely about this. How do you base a moral view of the world on a non-religious platform?
BILL MOYERS: How do you respond to their argument, that without an absolute God, from whom come universal truths, we will simply descend on that slippery slope of relativism that leads us into anarchy?
SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well I think relativism is a dangerous-- is a dangerous slope, you know. I think if we simply see that we all have different ideas,
