From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #622 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, February 22 2002 Volume 01 : Number 622 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:45:55 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes - ---Original Message From: harlowclark@juno.com > I suppose it depends on how you define the phrase "AmLit > Since the 60s." I could teach such a course by concentrating > on Mormon writers and Mormon-related writers, say, Virginia > Sorensen, Wallace Stegner, Bernard DeVoto, May Swenson, > Eldridge Cleaver, Samuel W. Taylor, Emma Lou Thayne, Michael > Fillerup, Orson Scott Card, Linda Sillitoe, Eugene England, > Marden Clark, Dennis Clark, Leslie Norris (I think he and > Kitty were naturalized a few years ago), Margaret Young, > Robert A. Christmas, Lance Larsen, Susan Elizabeth Howe, > Richard Scowcroft, Phyllis Barber, Tim Slover, Bela Petsco, > Doug Thayer, Levi Peterson, Dean Hughes, Bruce Jorgensen, > Wayne Carver, and a bunch of others. > > Of course that list leaves out dozens of fine writers, and if > your goal in a period class is to represent the most > significant writers of the period it won't do. No one > semester class can do that adequately--you just get a good > taste, but together the group represents the broad spectrum > of American literary writing in the last 40 years, represents > the movements and spirit of the period. And many in the group > have written cogently about the literature of that period, > and worked with many of the famous writers of the > period--especially Bruce Jorgensen. > I took a modern poetry class from Leslie Norris reading > people like Vernon Watkins, Willa and Edwin Muir, Dylan > Thomas, Danny Abse, John Ormond and Ted Hughes and ignoring > T.S. Eliot, Ezra Lb., and a bunch of others. Leslie explained > on the last day or so of class that what he had been doing > was exploring an alternate tradition in 20th Century > English-language poetry, essentially tracing his line of > descent as a poet. > > I read Eliot and Lb. and others in other classes and on my > own, and I'm glad I had someone with Leslie's knowledge to > introduce me to a whole tradition I would otherwise not know. > If he hadn't introduced me to Abse I might never have found > Abse's wonderful, horrifying, tragic poem "In the Theatre" > about his father's experience with a steel probe trying to > find a tumor in someone's brain. (Much different from my own > experience with brain surgery.) And the class also gave me a > name for a character when I needed it. I think it was while > reading one of Vernon Watkins' or Glyn Jones' poems that > Leslie said, "This is about the mari llwd." I forgot the > explanation of the mari llwd, except that it means "gray > mare" and involves witty banter, but the name stayed with me, > and I knew I wanted to create a character with that name. > You could also represent the last 40 years of AmLit through > American Indian writing, people like N. Scott Momaday, Louise > Erdrich. Barry Lopez, Sherman Alexi, Louis Owens, Martin Cruz > Smith, Leslie Marmon Silko, and a whole bunch of others. I > suspect Louis Owens' _Mixed Blood Messages_ would make a fine > textbook. I need to find a copy somewhere. I haven't read it, > but was quite interested at the 1999 RMMLA in Santa Fe to > hear that Owens scolds Sherman Alexi for his nihilism. I > imagine that the book would reveal among Native American > writers every tension and thread that we see in the larger > national literature, and while it wouldn't give us the whole > range of literary voices any more than my Mormon example > above, or Leslie Norris's poetry course, it would give the > range of literary themes and influences and cultural tensions > you would find in any well-wrought period class. I'm not entirely certain I understand what you are saying with the points above, Harlow. Do you mean that you can put together a representative literature class for a period and still have it concentrate on a specific sub-grouping of authors? Or is it more of a case of finding values and concerns that represent a period in any works from that period regardless of sub-grouping? Or do you mean that there is value in exploring sub-cultures of a period for the increased perspective it might give you? I think there are some good general points there. My concern (and what I was trying to express) is that I think that survey courses are valuable and should be required for an adequate English degree (as they were required when I received my English degree at BYU in '94). Further, survey courses should include the very best there is to offer in English literature for the topic of that survey course and should not be skewed to emphasize a particular sub-grouping. In the cases you brought up, it may be possible to teach a course on 20th Century American Lit. with all LDS authors (or American-Indian or African-American) by generalizing the specifics to encompass the particulars of the period. But doing so means that the students must rely entirely upon the experience conveyed by the professor to know what is general to the time and what is specific to the sub-culture. Such an emphasis puts even more power than usual in the professor and his/her "objective" pronouncements of the covered topic. The students would have to trust the professor to inform them which themes, influences, and cultural tensions are representative of the subject of the survey course. If the professor is at all politically agendized then you run a very real risk that the survey course can be subverted to the cause of a specific agenda at the expense of the intent of the survey. So to me, I would much prefer that survey courses concentrate on the best that survey subject has to offer and avoid the added complication of an arbitrary sub-grouping. There might be room to include one or two books from a specific sub-grouping and a resulting discussion/treatment of how that book compares to the other course offerings, but I would not want that to become the entire emphasis of the course. I think it is important for the *students*, and not just the professor, to have the perspective of familiarity with the best the survey topic has to offer. How interesting would it be to read *an* LDS (or American-Indian or African-American) novel in the context of 20th Century American Lit.? Very! But I think that only belongs in a survey course as a single intrusion and not as a pervasive emphasis. That isn't to say that the courses you describe aren't valuable. I *loved* my class on Victorian Women's Lit. It was one of the best classes I had. But it wasn't a survey course. And frankly, that class had a lot more meaning to me because I had already taken a survey that included Victorian literature in general. Similarly, I *loved* Richard Cracroft's LDS Lit. class. But again, my experience with American Lit. was an important backdrop for my participation in that class and added substantially to my ability to relate the LDS works with what was going on around those works. >From your description, I would have greatly enjoyed and benefited from Leslie Norris's poetry course. Frankly, I wish I had known that I liked writing poetry before I graduated (sadly, that discovery was not made until several years later). But I would not give up my experience with John Donne for his course no matter how valuable. You can probably learn as much as you need to know by strictly studying modern poets. But personally, I am forever grateful that I read (and discussed and analyzed) Donne and Eliot. By comparison, most modern poetry leaves me cold. But that is an uninformed perspective. I would very much prefer to have both poetry emphases available. My hope is that Donne and Eliot are *required* for a degree in English while courses like the one you describe by Leslie Norris are also *available*. It seems to me that a degree in English would be lacking if Donne and Eliot were missing. Maybe a degree in *poetry* (if such were offered) should require a Norris-like requirement (and a degree in English *could* include a Norris-like course) but I don't think that a degree in English is lacking for want of a Norris-like poetry course. > > A college professor teaches the same course over and over > > and becomes *very* familiar with the course curriculum > > over time. To them, an exploration of alternative literature may > > be very interesting and intriguing. But doing so neglects the > > fact that for many of their students, this is the only opportunity > > they will have > > Do you mean _have_ or _take_? Big difference between those > words in both implication and implied responsibility. One > thing a good lit class should do is to send you into the > stacks to look for other writings from the period. I couldn't > afford most of the textbooks we used, and my father didn't > have them all, so I got good at finding the works in the > library--learned a lot, too. > > > to study and discuss those authors/works that are so old-hat > > and thus easily dismissed by the professionals. I mean that for many, the courses that they take in college will be the only opportunity they will *have* to study and discuss those authors and works. Not just the only opportunity they will *take*. After graduating, many of us find ourselves in a position where serious discussion of specific shared literary works is simply impossible. I am personally in such a position. My church, work, and family obligations preclude my participation in a class-like environment with a literature emphasis. A college course draws interested people together who are normally very dispersed in the population. I don't know anybody in my sphere (church, work, or acquaintance) who shares my interests in literature. This despite my open advocation for literature (i.e. I am hardly stealthy in my interests). Further, there is a lack of qualified professor-level input to lead such exploration. I get *some* related value from participation in AML, but that is very different from the involvement of a college course. > It's not a matter of easily dismissing a writer. I asked my > father one time why he had dropped a particular story and he > said that after teaching something for a few years it gets > stale. I don't see any problems with picking unfamiliar work > to represent a period or movement, as long as your students > know that this isn't all that's available. I agree that substituting some works for others is probably valuable. But I would not want to have those substitutions ideologically driven (or at the very least, I would want the criteria for selection to be explicit and I would want quality and applicability to be the primary emphases). And I would want to make sure that substitutions are rare and put into a context that allows comparison with a broad, representative perspective. I think it would be very hard for professors to teach survey courses because of the lack of variety. But that lack of variety helps provide a solid foundation for students that will enrich and inform valuable courses later in a degree. For me, the lack of that solid foundation is a scandalous tragedy. And frankly, it's no different than the poor math professor teaching Calculus or the Economics professor teaching Econ. 101 or the Poli. Sci. professor teaching Statistics. You need that solid grounding for the later courses to have meaning and context. You need to have the tools to understand and appreciate further light and knowledge. Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:43:28 -0700 From: Bruce Young Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes As someone who teaches English at BYU and has been involved in at least three curriculum revisions over the past 18 years, I have some information (and some opinions) that might be helpful to those who wonder what's going on with the English major at BYU: (1) The latest revision does require survey courses that give a sense of English and American literary history and also requires a Shakespeare course. (2) The previous curriculum (which was technically a transitional arrangement while we worked on a more permanent solution) did not require a Shakespeare course, except for English teaching majors. But it did require a major authors course, which could be filled with Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Milton (occasionally others) and was in practice almost always filled with a Shakespeare course. The biggest weakness of the transitional curriculum was the lack of a sense students had of literary history (unless they made sure on their own that they got it). Its strength was flexibility. It did not allow students to take only fluff or insignificant courses (I hope we don't teach many of those anyway), but did ensure that students had a broad range of kinds of courses, including some traditional British and American literature courses and a variety of courses in language, rhetoric, critical theory, and possibly folklore or ethnic and other "minority" literature courses. The current curriculum tries to correct the weaknesses of the previous one but keep some of its strengths. The previous curriculum was itself a response to some major problems in the curriculum that preceded it, included gigantic sections of literature survey courses that tried to pack in a "great author" or great work or two every week and ended up frustrating many students and teachers--while, for those who could handle the ride, giving a sense of the broad outlines of English and American literature. (3) I too love Shakespeare (my specialty). And in addition to Donne and T. S. Eliot (note the spellings), love many other writers who, in my opinion, are even better (than Donne and Eliot, not Shakespeare-- again, in my opinion): Edmund Spenser, George Herbert, John Milton, Samuel Johnson, Jane Austen, George Eliot, and others. I think English majors ought to know Shakespeare--and Chaucer and Milton-- before graduating. And they ought to know as many as possible of the other giants. But I think English majors also need to know something-- a bit at least--about women writers before Jane Austen and black writers and others from outside the mainstream. As they do so, they may now and again run into a work that is truly great, by any standard. And they should know some literary theory (we've been trying to improve how that acquaintance is made). And (personal opinion) I think English majors at BYU ought to know something of Mormon literature, from its beginnings to the present. The challenge is how to do all of this, and get a broad and balanced university education in other areas as well, and do all of it in four years. Or even five or six. Maybe some of the learning has to happen after the B.A. is earned. Like during graduate school. Or the rest of life. Bruce Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:48:55 -0800 (PST) From: Darlene Young Subject: Re: [AML] Re: A Third Phase (Get Together) Couldn't we somehow do this in conjunction with the Annual Meeting that's coming up? (A purely selfish suggestion since I will be in town then.) Maybe the night before, or as an alternate to--or attachment to--the readings in the evening? - --- Nan McCulloch wrote: > Atten: Margaret Young and List members. D.Michael > Martindale and I both = > volunteered to host, at our homes, the get-together > Margaret suggested. = > I am open most nights and I will supply the > refreshments. Why don't you = > choose the location that would be the most > convenient for the people = > that will be attending. > > Nan McCulloch > Draper =20 > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of > Mormon literature > ===== Darlene Young __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:12:34 From: "Eric D. Snider" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Box Office Report Feb. 8 >44 The Singles Ward ~45,000 Kurt Hale >(writer/director) ~100,000 There is an error here. For the weekend of Feb. 8, "The Singles Ward" grossed $28,395 (according to Variety). The $45,000 figure was accurate for the weekend before ($43,149, actually). The $100,000 total amount is approximately accurate, due to additional money accrued during the week. Eric D. Snider _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:30:46 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] A Third Phase (Get Together) There is an evening session at the Annual Conference, hosted by Ann Edwards Cannon at her home, 75 "O" Street, 6:30 p.m. Hope everybody comes! Cheers! Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: Darlene Young > Couldn't we somehow do this in conjunction with the > Annual Meeting that's coming up? (A purely selfish > suggestion since I will be in town then.) Maybe the > night before, or as an alternate to--or attachment > to--the readings in the evening? - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:06:24 -0700 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Cultural Imperialism [MOD: I sense the danger, here, of getting into the kind of purely political discussion that is really off-topic for AML-List. I appreciate Jacob's efforts both to clarify his own thoughts and to treat with respect the opinions to which he's responding, and to preserve the literary tie-in that makes this topic appropriate for AML-List to begin with. I'll be putting out a separate email message as moderator related to this thread; watch for it.] I am going to respond to a number of posts in this one email. I am sorry for the length. - ---Original Message From: Todd Petersen > Jacob and Rob indicated that they think that people just > take in culture if they like it which isn't true at all. I indicated nothing of the kind. I didn't say that Cultural Imperialism didn't exist. I said that Imperialism requires force and that I don't understand when I am labeled Imperialist when I employ no force. I personally brought up the British Empire as an example of an Empire. What I specifically said is that I don't see how a culture can qualify as Imperialist if it doesn't employ force and I asked how Mormonism could therefore be considered Imperialistic. > 1. The BIA Indian schools forced language and education on > Native Americans in this country, made them cut their hair > and beat them when they didn't speak English. > > 2. England forced Ireland to abandon Gaelic and then imposed > the Protestant faith upon them. We're still watching that > conflict as well as the Native American one. > > 3. The simple fact that anyone in India speak English is also > witness that people don't always choose this stuff--it is > sometimes (often) foisted upon them. > > 4. Islam has a history of forcing that faith on the tribal > people of Africa. I don't know what you want to point out with these four examples. They are all adequately described as Imperialist. My question is how can you describe Mormons as Cultural Imperialists when we aren't like any of these examples? How is the term applicable in the way it is being used? > 5. Even in small town America, the values of the big cities > and their culture is being foisted upon people because it's > all that is available through media channels. > > 6. Coca-Cola is the largest private employer in Africa. How is this Imperialism? Coca-Cola isn't holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to work there. Coca-Cola offers jobs, people accept them. Coca-Cola tries very hard to sell its products, but all the marketing in the world, all the media in the world, are unable to force a person to change their culture. I am personally a willing participant in the culture surrounding me, but that doesn't mean I am a pawn of that culture. Nor does it mean that I accept all aspects of it. I accept those aspects that I find valuable and worth adoption. Absent some form of compulsion, I assume that others do the same. > It is common for the Imperialist to not see that these people > aren't necessarily choosing. What you need to do is read the > literature of the oppressed people to see what's really going > on. That's why lots of professors are assigning this stuff, > so that the sheltered (sheltered by the canon) people will > see what's going on for real. No offense to you personally, Todd, but I'm getting *really* tired of people telling me that I don't know what I'm doing--that I can't see the effect I have on others. I got enough of that from Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to tell me what I really believed. If I'm a Cultural Imperialist, tell me how that is so. I sincerely want to know what you mean by that term that I am missing. What aspect of that term do I, as a Mormon, or as a person, or as a conservative, or as a free-market capitalist, deserve? How am I forcing people to adopt my culture such that I earn the epithet of Imperialist. I am not going to accept that I just can't see how I am an Imperialist because Imperialists are blind to their Imperialism. That's simply a tautology. I try *very* hard to protect the dignity of others and to extend the courtesy of self-determination that I expect to enjoy myself. I'm vocal about my beliefs. I exercise as much discernment as I can in determining right from wrong. I *do* believe that some cultures are better than others (Aztec ritual sacrifice all by itself makes that culture worse than, say, whatever culture was prevalent in the City of Enoch), but I'm not prepared to say with finality that I know which cultures are better than which others (though I'll offer opinion if you wish). I *do* see that some cultures are being subsumed by my own, but I don't attribute that to Imperialism as much as I attribute that to people changing as they experience new ideas. That happens. I do that myself. I *hope* that cultures are changed to be better. Absent compulsion, I assume that at the very least, cultures change because they *think* they'll be better. > And yes, you do have to walk in other people's shoes. That's > what our Savior did in the atonement and to think that we can > get around that approach even in a mortal way is a big problem. Okay, you conflated this from the racism thread, but it does relate so I'll answer here. I have no problem trying to walk in others' shoes. I actively seek to understand the culture of others. That's a duty not only of Christ's admonition to love and understand others, but also the essence of the 13th article of faith to seek out that which is praiseworthy and good. It's an effort I make as often as possible. But I'm kind of tired of people telling me that I am racist because I haven't walked in *all* people's shoes. Or that just because I haven't changed my mind to agree with them I must not *really* have walked in someone else's shoes. It is a way of telling me that no effort is enough, that no point exists where I won't be considered a racist. What that does is puts me in the position where anybody who wants to can simply label me a racist and I am denied any adequate rebuttal. And, more insidiously, the accusation can be made without ever revealing criteria that might allow one to be considered non-racist. By never, ever, defining a realistic way to be non-racist, I am kept marginalized in issues concerning racism. No matter what effort I might expend, it will never be enough--the bar will simply move further away. One of the things I liked the best about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that he gave a goal, an end point. He had "a dream" that his "children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin." Cool. That's a goal I can get behind. It is something that I can strive for. It is something that I can achieve. > What Jacob and others are missing is the insight that people > do not always get to choose what kinds of cultural materials > they must accept, how they must learn, what language they > must speak, etc. Every empire brings its culture along with > it, some parts people end up wanting, others force themselves > in virally and never leave. Virally? What does that mean? Viral Imperialism? How can the force necessary to earn "Imperialist" be applied virally? Most people have choice over what they accept into their culture. For example, I live in the U.S. and I'm surrounded by messages that tell me that sex is great as long as you kind of like a person and they agree. I don't accept that cultural message. My choice. Absent force, I choose the cultural elements I wish to accept. I may dislike some of the culture that surrounds me, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. media is Imperialist just because that's essentially all they present for my consumption. > This is one of the things that riles people that we want to > marginalize: China, the Saudis, Afghanistanis, Indonesians, > North Korea, etc. They don't want Western Culture but it's a > package deal with economic growth, so they can't not get it. > They don't get a line item veto. Um. "We" want to marginalize? In the words of my uncle, you have a mouse in your pocket? *I* don't want to marginalize people in China, Korea, or anywhere else. They get all the vetoes they want, line-item or otherwise, as far as Western Culture is concerned. They don't *have* to adopt the methods we used to become prosperous. They can try to find another way. They *have* been trying other ways. History is essentially one big experiment of people trying to find ways to be economically prosperous (usually by being bigger and badder than their neighbor, which is actually quite successful on an individual level as long as you are willing to accept certain trade-offs--like paranoia, economic stultification, threatened pay-backs, and going to hell :). Certainly, if they want our success, then one sure way to achieve it is to do what we did. I doubt that the U.S. way is the only way. But the U.S. way is a known, demonstrated way to achieve economic growth and they make improvisations only by risking the intended destination. That said, the people objecting to Western Culture in those countries are mainly the governments who don't want their people to be able to choose an alternative. It isn't the Chinese person going into McDonalds who objects to fast food hamburgers--it's the tyrants who want to ensure that their people don't have the chance to choose McDonalds. The Cultural Imperialists in China aren't the Western companies coming in, it is the communist tyrants who want to keep their subjects ignorant and dependant. If anything, the Western companies have strong incentives to understand others and supply their true wants--as opposed to tyrannical political leaders who can do anything they want to because they have all the guns and the resolve to use them. An invitation or convenience is hardly equivalent to the image of a gun to the head that is evoked by the loaded term Imperialism. > Cultural Imperialism is best understood as that impulse that > makes developed nations think that it is their right and duty > to civilize the "noble savages" of the planet and raise them > up to our standards. Look at how corrupt and damaged our > families are and how damaged our land, air, and water is. Who > would want all that? The impulse to "civilize" the "savages" may be condescending, but it can hardly be termed Imperialism unless it includes force. At least, that is how I understand the term. Some people *do* go around forcing others to adopt their culture. The British Empire is, as I said before, an easy example of this. What I want to know is how we earn being lumped into that same category when we employ no force? Our water quality is better than almost any other nation in the world and improving still. Why should we not want to share how we did that? We are able to support more people on less farm acreage than others. We want to share with others how this was done. Being able to do what we did involves the rule of law, guaranteeing personal freedoms, and secular government. We aren't forcing people to adopt our culture, but those that do enjoy the same benefits we do. Some people accept parts of our culture and reject others. Some people reject our culture entirely. Which is just fine as long as they don't simultaneously want to enjoy the benefits of our culture. Cultural choices have consequences. I don't want the consequences of sleeping around so I reject that aspect of popular media culture. If exposure to our culture causes some people in China to want to adopt parts of our culture themselves, then how is that Imperialism? Some people will want to adopt parts of our culture that we don't like--like sexual immorality or fast-food or utilitarian evaluations of art. But that doesn't give us the right to force them to keep a culture they decided they'd like to abandon. > I know that lots of people still see America as the promised > land, but lots don't and those are the ones who are feeling > this Imperialism the most acutely. > > LDS people do this by saying that to be Mormon you must not > only be baptized but you must now wear white shirts and > listen to western hymns played on pianos. Anyone who watches > a church video must think that we all live in homes with > pastel color treatments, or that we all live in HOMES. That > image of the LDS identity is then held up as the ideal (and > this can be done implicitly or explicitly, but it is still > done), and then all these folks all over the world start > felling like they either don't measure up or that they need > to changes things so they will. > > There has been a certain amount of growth in this area, but > it hasn't hit street level in my opinion. I agree with you that teaching U.S. culture along with the discussions is inappropriate. I *hated* it when Elders in my mission in Germany would teach American values alongside the discussions. I had one District Leader who particularly offended me with his blatant Americanism. He knew that America was the Promised Land and the Germans would do well to emulate us in every way. He as much as told me that my problem was that I didn't teach my investigators enough of "church" culture--by which he meant the way we do things in America. Nothing we did in America was wrong and every comparison between German culture and American culture was accompanied by the assumption that the German was inferior. He thought it was a good idea for native missionaries to be paired with American missionaries because of the culture the *Americans* could teach the *Germans*! Bah. And I don't like the pastel church videos much better. They are particularly telling because they have such interesting in-grained assumptions--like that a family can be depicted as struggling financially when they have a family room separate from the dining room separate from the kitchen (oh, and a piano). Bring welfare assistance to a family in a one-family house? (as opposed to an apartment--even a family living in a duplex is considered very well off) The videos play poorly in Germany because the people look so affluent in a country that crams 40 times the number of people into the same square mileage we have here in Utah. So I don't like the careless conflation of American culture with "the church". But not because it is Imperialist. We don't *force* people to accept any of our customs. I object because our message is an eternal one and should not carry such unimportant trappings that have little eternal purpose. When I was a missionary, I actively avoided discussing America or comparing Germany to America. Not because America is inferior or because Germany is inferior or because I was incapable of making comparisons. I avoided it because my message was a gospel one and involved eternal truths and I didn't want that message polluted by cultural trappings that could only distract from the true message I was trying so hard to share. I don't consider my District Leader an Imperialist. He was just wrong. But even he could only invite. Which is why I re-iterate my original query--is there something more significant in the term Cultural Imperialism that I am missing? What is it that is meant by that term that makes it applicable to Mormon culture? Do you just mean that people abandon one culture for another? You could as easily term it Cultural Emigration. Do you mean that we are eager to explain our culture to others? You could as easily term it Cultural Proselytizing. Do you mean that we have a large culture that others wish to emulate? You could as easily term it Cultural Success. Why is it that we are described as Cultural Imperialists when we employ no force? To me, Imperialism is linked to ruling by force and seems inapplicable to the U.S. in general, and to Mormons in particular. - ---Original Message From: John Williams > Angels, as we all know, sing > Handel and Mozart, not Chinese folk tunes. Why is that? That's a very good point and one that is certainly worth exploration. I wonder how many of us will hear the choirs of angels announcing the Second Coming and be surprised that it sounds like, say, an 80's hair band. There *should* be room in a heavenly choir for descant, harmony, a capella, syncopation, and power chords. > So, in a way, I think Todd is exactly right. We are guilty > at times of > Cultural Imperialism. We confuse the doctrine with the > culture where it > originated, and in this sense we attempt to force cultural > patterns on other > people. Of course, "force" is a strong word, I know, but to > say to someone > "look, you can either join the Only True and Living Church > and take the > culture that comes with it, or you can go to the telestial > kingdom," to say > that sounds a bit coercive to me. I think Todd's point is > that any work that > makes us stop and think about how our culture may overshadow > our message is > definitely a good thing. I agree that we should be careful not to package unnecessary cultural trappings into gospel lessons. However, I've never heard anybody say that you have to join the culture to stay a member. There are very few things that will get you kicked out of the church. None of those includes dissing the culture. Or disliking the hymns. If you don't want to sing along, don't. Nobody is going to apply enough force to justify the Imperialism moniker, IMO. If they do, their own membership stands in jeopardy (as, for example, the GA who was teaching that those who didn't support Indian relief funds weren't headed to the Celestial Kingdom). Can you really see a bishop calling a member in and telling them that if they don't like MoTab they'll be excommunicated? Enjoy basketball or get out and never come back? I have a hard time imagining such a thing even being implied by someone in authority. John, did you really mean to imply that as long as the message is good, any excess is justified in getting it across? I disagree very much with your statement that "any work that makes us stop and think about how our culture may overshadow our message is definitely a good thing." At the very least, I'd say that calling somebody a lying nazi scumbag is a bad thing (and possibly libelous) regardless of any introspection it might prompt. I think there would be more advantage to accurate and careful communication than in hyperbole. Being accused of Cultural Imperialism wouldn't encourage me at all to examine my beliefs in any way if I weren't making extra effort to understand what you (and Todd) mean. My natural tendency is to simply dismiss such an accusation as unfounded hate. How (I ask myself) am I an Imperialist when I have no power over others? It isn't possible even if I wished it. That's why I want to understand what prompts the accusation. What am I (or my culture) doing that would prompt such strong censure? - ---Original Message From: Lisa Tait > BRIEF SUMMARY: Cultural Imperialism is the assumption that > your culture is > superior to another and that your culture therefore should be > imposed on > others for their own good. I can almost agree with that definition, but I don't think that it is enough. I don't think you can be Imperialist with a belief or assumption. Imperialism is like Murder--it isn't enough just to think it. You can want to force others to do your will all day long--but until you *actually* force someone to do your will, you are only guilty of hubris. What you describe might be termed condescending, but I don't see how the mere desire earns "Imperialism". > LDS APPLICATION: The early missionary efforts of the church > to non-white > peoples shared many of the same assumptions as their non-Mormon > counterparts--i.e., that they were bringing "culture" and > "enlightenment" to > people who lived in varying degrees of "darkness." While in > strict terms > Imperialists probably did not care much for the natives > beyond how much > cheap labor they could get out of them, missionaries went out > in hopes of > saving souls. One hopes that this implies a somewhat more humane and > enlightened attitude towards those people. But there was no > question which > culture was superior, and if it seemed a little uncomfortable > at first to > impose that culture on the natives, well, it was for their > own good in the > long run. Again, I'd term that condescending. I don't like the confluence of culture with gospel, but that isn't Imperialism. It's just wrong. You might as well call it Cultural Homicide because of the desire to wipe out the other culture. > I also > recalled stories I had heard about the church in Hawa'ii and > the Pacific > Islands--as one former missionary I heard put it, the people > there are so > "immodest" it was always a battle to get them to dress "properly." This is a great story and very illustrative. My question is which part of this story did you object to and why? This takes us away from the original discussion of Cultural Imperialism because I don't think any part of this statement is Imperialist. Despite the word "battle", I imagine that the conflict was mainly one of using words trying to convince them that it was important to dress properly. Nothing Imperialist there unless they burned all the natives clothes, prevented them from making more, and left them with nothing but Knickers and neckties to wear. On the other hand, what do you do with the rest of it? On the one hand, there *is* a gospel principle that promotes "modesty". So there *is* a real problem here. Modesty is important (though subverted to many other important principles like preserving life etc.) so teaching the island natives who wished to be members to be modest is a good thing. So one aspect of their culture is out of line with the gospel and should be changed (IMO). But then you have the phrase "dress properly". This *could* indicate that the author is inserting his/her own cultural norm. This isn't a given, really, because "dress properly" can very well be synonymous with "modesty" if you assume an innocent reading, but let's assume it is as harsh as it can be. The problem would be if the missionary decided to teach that "dressing properly" meant corsets and neckties. That would be very regrettable and condescending. We *do* see some of these strains in our culture as we attempt to impart important gospel principles and get tangled in our own culture. I think stories that explore this split would be *very* interesting and educational. I would love to read something that tried to show how important principles can fall foul of unacknowledged cultural assumptions. I don't think that much has been done with this, at least that I am aware of. Okay. To sum up this truly long post. I think that Lisa has a *great* illustration of our misunderstanding. I don't like being labeled an Imperialist with what I perceive as inadequate justification. I'm not forcing anybody to do what I say and I resent being lumped in with tyrants and despots so casually. I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am missing something important to understand so I am asking for clarification. On the other hand, I suspect that what is really at issue here is this problem illustrated by the difference between "modesty" and "dressing properly". The terms look close enough that I can see how honest, caring people could confuse the two and hurt people in ways they never intended. Important gospel principles like modesty, showing respect, and priesthood authority can get mixed up in cultural trappings that don't necessarily have bearing on the actual principle being taught. On the one hand, you can have a culture that is definitely wrong (running around nekkid is wrong--that isn't cultural, that's a principle that has been taught since the knowledge of Good and Evil was unleashed though how much nekkid is too much nekkid is open to discussion). The problem comes when you impose the solution from your own cultural heritage instead of explaining the problem and encouraging people to not only understand, but to find a solution that fits them and that will make them comfortable (as much as possible--some principles just aren't terribly comfortable, really). Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #622 ******************************