I vs. We

I’m currently reading “The Enchantress of Florence” by Salman Rushdie. I’m about 50 pages in and haven’t quite decided if I’m enjoying it or not, but the passage below really struck me as I was reading. I’ve recently been thinking more about community, what it means to be part of a community, and how much responsibility I have to the (chosen and unchosen) communities in which I find myself. There’s a lot more than that discussed here (ideas about class, monarchs, and more), but I’ve italicized the items that particularly spoke to me. These questions have stuck with me over the past few days. In particular, I’ve been going over the self-as-community line. It’s ended up leading to thoughts like…Should my first thought of myself be as an individual or as a part of something greater than just my self? Can I be a community all to myself (based on the plural selves idea)? Where are the healthy boundaries between “I” and “we”?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!
—————————————-

[The emperor], Akbar, had never referred to himself as “I,” not even in private, not even in anger or dreams. He was – what else could he be? – “we.” He was the definition, the incarnation of the We. He had been born into plurality. When he said “we,” he naturally and truly meant himself as an incarnation of all his subjects, of all his cities and lands and rivers and mountains and lakes, as well as all the animals and plants and trees within his frontiers, and also the birds that flew overhead and the mordant twilight mosquitoes and the nameless monsters in their underworld lairs, gnawing slowly at the roots of things; he meant himself as the sum total of all his victories, himself as containing the characters, the abilities, the histories, perhaps even the souls of his decapitated or merely pacified opponents; and, in addition, he meant himself as the apogee of his people’s past and present, and the engine of their future.

This “we” was what it meant to be a king – but commoners, he now allowed himself to consider, in the interests of fairness, and for the purposes of debate, no doubt occasionally thought of themselves as plural, too.

Were they wrong? Or (O traitorous thought!) was he? Perhaps this idea of self-as-community was what it meant to be a being in the world, any being; such a being being, after all, inevitably a being among other beings, a part of the beingness of all things. Perhaps plurality was not exclusively a king’s prerogative, perhaps it was not, after all, his divine right…[I]t was accordingly inevitable that the men and women over whom he ruled also conceived of themselves as “we”s. They saw themselves, perhaps, as plural entities made up of themselves plus their children, mothers, aunts, employers, co-worshippers, fellow workers, clans, and friends. They, too, saw their selves as multiple, one self that was the father of their children, another that was their parents’ child; they knew themselves to be different with their employers than they were at home with their wives – in short, they were all bags of selves, bursting with plurality, just as he was. Was there then no essential difference between the ruler and the ruled? And now his original question reasserted itself in a new and startling form: if his many-selved subjects managed to think of themselves in the singular rather than plural, could he, too, be an “I”? Could there be an “I” that was simply oneself? Were there such naked, solitary “I”s buried beneath the overcrowded “we”s of the earth?

——————————–

Peace. Out.

Jesus People in the news…

Check it out.

Peace. Out.

Obama…

I don’t generally get too involved, especially here on the blog, in political discussions. I’ve especially avoided them this year because I’ve been a secret supporter of Barack Obama. “Secret” because most people I know and regularly interact with believe he’s (a) the antichrist, (b) a terrorist plant, or (c) generally evil because he’s a Democrat.

I’ve supported him, though, because I’m more of a Democrat myself these days, and I agree with a lot of what he’s said. I read two articles this week, however, that are really making me pause in that support.

I’d rather not get into my personal opinion on abortion here, because it’s a complicated issue and I feel like complicated issues are best discussed in person over several hours rather than in short, pithy sentences that can be very easily misunderstood. But what’s not complicated is that I value people. And “people” to me – at the very least – includes any living thing outside the womb. It’s sad that I can’t say for sure if Obama agrees with that position.

So, what’s a girl to do? More than anything, I find myself leaning toward the camp that asks,  “Does all of this politics stuff really matter?” Especially to Christians? Our call, our mission as individuals and as the Church doesn’t change, no matter what the political landscape looks like. I know my American value system says the right to vote comes with a responsibility to vote. I just don’t know if – given all of the information – my Christian value system supports that. Or has anything to do with it at all.

Peace. Out.

Don’t just stand there, let’s get to it. Strike a pose, there’s nothing to it. The Bible?

Hmm. How can we make the Bible “more relevant” to the modern audience? I know! We can jazz it up. Make it look like an issue of Vogue, add pictures of Bono, Angelina Jolie, and shirtless male models. Sounds perfect. Nothing creepy about that at all.

Actually, I like the idea of people interpreting the message of the Bible through modern art or photography, but something about this seems a little off to me. Can’t quite put my finger on it.

Peace. Out.

Christian community…

My pastor, Jonathan Martin, and I have a lively discussion about the nature and limits of true Christian community going on over on his blog. Please check it out and chime in. Believers and non-believers welcome.

http://jonathanmartin.wordpress.com

Peace. Out.