Re-integrative medial interactions

The dream of reason did not take power into account.     - Paul Starr

Something I have been thinking a lot about lately (besides the fact that we are about to have a kid) in working on the dissertation is the place that power and authority plays in our interactions with other people.  We all have what Peter Berger call 'typification schemes' that allow us to quickly process, make sense of, and project our experiences of reality.  We get used to understanding certain actions of others as meaning something always - hugs show affection, yelling communicates heightened emotions, etc.  We use these cognitive tools to make sense of everything we experience and 'assign' meaning to it; we make sense of it.  We then assume that other people generally assign the same meaning to shared experiences, and on this basis are we able to have generally predictable interactions with other people. 

Sometimes, however, we are unable to make sense of some experiences.  When this happens we seek the help of someone we think can help.  This is what a physician is, essentially - a professional whose job it is to make sense of the experiences of others and ameliorate those experiences, assuming they are adverse ("so what do I have doc...").  Another dude, Talcott Parsons, once wrote about how illness is essentially the result of any given person shifting their self-perception to that of an 'ill' person.  This makes sense if you think about it - two people could both have a cold, and one asserts that they are 'fine' and goes to work while the other asserts that they are 'sick' and stays home from work.  One has shifted their identity while the other did not. 

Parsons asserted that one of the jobs of a physician is to re-integrate 'ill' people back into society as 'normal' people. 

What happens when a patient does not listen to their doctor though?  For example, someone may have trouble breathing but refuse the advise of their physician to stop smoking.  Starr, the dude who said the quote at the start, would say this is an instance where the physician has not successfully asserted their authority over the patient.  He thinks that one of the jobs of the doctor is to asses the nature of reality, which in this instance is the patient's experiences and needs.  The physician needs to interpret those experiences and the needs of the patient and literally create the conditions under which the patient thinks their advice is appropriate. 

This is where the interaction between a patient and a physician gets interesting though.  What if the patient is religious and makes sense of their world and experiences through a lens tinted by an engaged God?  The patient has a 'broken' identity when they are ill, and they are in need of being brought back to a state of 'normalcy'.  This requires that their physician successfully interprets and assigns meaning to their reality, but very often in a medical setting this meaning invoked by the physician does not include religious beliefs.  So we have a professional whose job it is to bring a state of normalcy back to a religious patient, but that 'normalcy' and meaning introduced by the physician is devoid of religious beliefs and meaning. 

Is it really possible for a religious person to be 're-integrated' with who they are in a setting that implicitly rejects religion?  Often this just leaves a bit more work for the patient to do on their own time, but recent changes in medical practice have gravitated more towards understanding patients in a wider sense than just a broken machine that needs to be oiled.  This is likely a good thing, but just as before, the interpretive work of the physician is a big challenge.  Cheers to you doctors who fully dive into the work you do.  Short cuts are easier, but they don't always get you to the same place or even where you wanted to go. 

Despair re-defined

This past week at out Bible study we were talking about New Year's resolutions, so I have been thinking about that this past week.  Last night I was thinking about how it is interesting that we tend to phrase our resolutions in negatives - lose weight - or in thinly veiled positives - be more productive (stop being lazy), be more organized (stop being sloppy), eat healthy (stop eating junk).  What would it mean, instead, to think of resolutions that were indeed positive ones.  'Productive' ones.

We talked about the verse in Ephesians (2:10) that says, "we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."  In this sense, having a productive resolution then relates back to our identity in Christ.  For the longest time I thought identity issues were interesting but at the end of the day had nearly no meaning for me.  I always thought, 'yes, I agree that my identity is in Christ,' but this carried no real impact, no real change it seemed.  It was a statement that sounded Christian, warm and fuzzy.  

Then I came across a statement in Kierkegaard once about despair.  He thought that one is thrown into despair when they come to the realization that they cannot be better, cannot change, or cannot fix something.  We all have habits we get into, things we do, talk about, think about or whatever that is not in line with who we 'are' or want to be.  This is the whole point of the resolution almost.  But Kierkegaard had it right, I think.  We must see, at some point, that those failings are endemic to who we are, and this realization shifts how we see ourself not only now, but also who we see our self becoming and even re-defines who we thought we were in the past.  It changes all.  Even that statement is hard to grasp without having had the realization; having had the veneer over despair ripped off.  That is despair, and it cannot be shaken off.  It can, however, be taken from us.  This is what it means to have our identity in Christ.  He takes the identity of despair from us and gives us his own identity of being right before God.  It is only in this way that, for me, 'identity in Christ' is not only a fuzzy little Christian saying, but a reality that changes all.  Who I am, who I can be, and who I have been.  

So, the resolution.  It is, can be or should be positive because it is first rooted in an identity that allows one to be productive in life.  To do what God intends for our life.  This is only possible because we are able to really be that person created by God and not someone who tries, fails and gives up, or forgets and deviates.  Yes we do forget and we do fail, but we do not despair and be overcome by lassitude.  This is why forgiveness is not once and done, it is frequent and redefining.  

Peeps during the Reformation talked about vocation in a new way.  Before them, it was seen as a cloistered life and they changed it to be a life of meaning.  The work we do matters and does something real of worth in the world.  They talked about how we are God's mask in the world doing his work.  That is how the work we do can take on a much deeper meaning and be 'productive'.

So, the question remains then.  What positive resolution, direction or path is there for us this year and in life?  Probably a good thing to think about and struggle with.  I actually think the struggle is central to the staying 'on path.'  Maybe we should be like the old Rabbi Akiva, who wanted to pay a soldier to stand outside his door and ask him every time he passed, "Who are you, and why are you here?"

all bundled up

As people we do weird things. Many of the beliefs and values that we have are not necessarily logical or coherent as a 'bundle.' The US may not do this more than other places, but there are some funny combinations that we have in the US that are not typically found in other countries. One of the more prominent causes of this is the religious nature of our country. Here, likely because of a high rate of religiosity, non-religious things are linked and bundled in people's minds with religion.

Some of the more interesting combinations will come out of a mix of religion and politics. In the US they are very closely tied, where as in other places, such as Canada, even the religious politicians are forced to not only be quite about their faith but at times work counter to what they would prefer to do in order to keep the job. Here, a candidate must publicly show that they are religious or they loose legitimacy. They are nearly required to say "God bless America" at the end of their speeches.

It doesn't end with just the politicians and their use of religion to get elected or get things done (or religion's use of them?). You see it in individuals as well. For a final project I was just looking at a set of questions asking people what they think one must do in order to be a good person. There were 7 questions in that section ranging from 'actively seek social and economic justice,' to 'have faith in God,' and on to 'serve in the military' and 'consume fewer goods.' I did a factor analysis in order to see which of these things most typically 'go together.' This shows us which of these things people will typically associate as being in the same category - like all things that have to do with God and all things that have to do with society, or something like that.

The result is mostly predictable, with one minor exception. In with the more 'religious' responses for what a person must do in order to be a good person was also 'serve in the military.' Because of the fusion of (conservative?) politics and religion here in the US, a high rate of people conceptually think of serving in the military as being in the same category as having faith in God. The funny thing is that it isn't just a minor association either - the alpha score (tells us how strongly the group is related to each other) is .73 (.5 to .6 is usually considered fairly good on a 0 to 1 range).

Anyways, we bundle things together cognitively as the result of the groups and people that we communicate with and are exposed to. The identity of who we are is often largely the result of who we hang out with, what we read, what church we go to, what news channel we watch and so on. While postmodernism as a philosophical construct may not be very clear or interesting, as a social reality it is very interesting. We constantly are engaging in creating our world and reality socially. What does religion and serving in the military have to do with one another? Nothing besides the fact that we have agreed they are related. The reality is in the agreement/common mental association.