It's true, I love skiing. Flying down sides of mountains at out-of-control speeds, or working your way between dense trees trying not to crash. It's a fantastic experience every time, the best time I've had being in Utah Winter '03/04, when I repeatedly failed to land after attempting a small jump.
But this post is really inspired by Susan Bauer. She writes about the moral slippery slopes that find ourselves irrecoverably going down, out of control and helpless to resist. In the article she tells of how she has been accused (by US evangelicals) of going down the slippery slope, that once one accepts feminism as being a good thing, one is on a slippery slope to accepting homosexuals too.
Bauer points out that the slippery slope idea that is being invoked against her is a logical fallacy from Aristotle. She also points out that if you look back up the slippery slope that she is on, you see the liberation of slaves. In fact, the slope seems to be (in the US): liberate slaves, liberate women, liberate blacks, liberate homosexuals. What I want to suggest in this post is that slippery slopes are not necessarily bad.
Slippery is often seen to be bad, as it suggests that one is forced to do something against their will. And a slope is often seen to be bad, because it's going down (to the pit), further and further away from God (who we all know if up 'high' in/above the sky). But in (down-hill) skiing, a slippery slope is a good (necessary) thing. Take away the slippery and you fall over and stop, take away the slope and you don't move. Either way, you go nowhere. You need a slippery slope.
In the 'moral' slippery slope, you stagnate into a deadly conservativism if you're not on the slippery slope. Those so-called liberals who accept to a certain point and say "this far and no further" are following in the same deadly conservative vein. They go down the hill until they find a nice place to stop, whether that's accepting women, homosexuals, the polyamorous, or pagans. But each time if there is the cry of 'No further', the skiing stops, the fun ends, the exhilaration of life is lost. Conservativism kills another.
What we need to do is to keep skiing. It should be a joy to find another oppressed group that we can welcome into our community. We should uncontrollably accept people, loving them first. We should stay on the slippery slope, leaving the barren mountaintops far behind and keep skiing towards the fertile valleys, where communities live in harmony, peace and love (and other hippie-values).
Stu,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that all forms of conservatism are necessarily bad. I don't think that we can be uncontrollably inclusive. If we were, we would no longer have a community to welcome people into, without boundaries there is no possibility of hospitality.
We would not longer have an communal identity. I don't think that this means that we have to define ourselves in a reactionary way, we don't have to define ourselves by what we are not. We can define ourselves by what we are, but this doesn't have to be a form of essentialism, nor does it turn into a deadly conservatism. Because this definition (description is probably a better word) is dynamic, our identity is dynamic.
Nor do I think that not being all-inclusive means that we are being exclusive. Inclusive and exclusive may not be exclusive terms. Perhaps in some cases we can be neither.
I think we should love others from other communities, but I don't think that this means that we include them in our community, but it also doesn't mean that we exclude them.
So I think the fertile valleys at the bottom of the slippery slope are an illusion. There would be no communities living in peace, love, and harmony (and other hippy values) because if we included everyone in our community there would be no boundaries and there would be no communities, no possibility of hospitality, and no difference.
So I think that we shouldn't uncontrollably include people, but neither should we exclude them. we should dynamically and unessentially describe ourselves by what we are, making hospitality possible.
Stu, it's good to hear that you've finally given up your "deadly" conservatism and are on board, skiing down the slippery slope of change with John Suk! What a change of heart you've had.
ReplyDeleteZING!
ReplyDeleteWe're on different slopes.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I do believe conservativism is deadly. Those who move in the conservative direction also happen to generally not be too concerned with environmental concerns. This isn't necessarily the case, but is contingently and historically, meaning it is important to note. Oh, and those who don't want to do anything about the environment are deadly as it could wipe out humanity and does wipe out many other species daily. Conservatisim here is being referred to in a broad sense of those who want to keep the (global, consumerist) system.
Chris, I like what you say about inclusive and exclusive not being exclusive terms. I also am not arguing for a completely and totally inclusive community, as I agree with you, that would be no community. I would hope that the community I'm heading towards is one that, for example, opposes rape. It's probably also one which doesn't welcome people who drive hummers. It's the problem of trying to communicate this, and I think I have to resort to saying humans have an intuition that knows which groups are being oppressed and should be welcomed. Of course, not all humans are in touch with their intuition either. I dunno, I just wanted to write something about how slippery slopes can be seen to be good. Not my best post, but I get annoyed when people invoke the slippery slope idea against accepting someone who (I believe) should be welcomed.
Stu,
ReplyDeleteI liked the post. Though I don't really like to ski, because halfway down the hill I usually fall and roll the rest of the way down the hill.
And I think we are on the same page.
I think that we should be open to other ways of being in the world and though we may not include them in our community (though we possibly may include them), we should not exclude them either. I don't think that we should set up our community as a reaction against other communities. We shouldn't define ourselves as Christian (or whatever) because we are against homosexuals or against pagans, or against rock and roll. We should define ourselves positively, we are for health and wholeness, for life, for redemption, for peace, harmony, and love, and, as Christians, for Christ. This will exclude other communities (such as rapists, and possibly Hummer drivers, and even some who call themselves "Christians"), but can also include other groups (such as homosexuals, and rock and rollers) and, to a certain extent, it may also not include nor exclude other communities (such as loving, peaceable Wiccans).
With such communities that we neither include nor exclude we can form tenuous alliances, we can work together for the wholeness of creation even if we do not agree with each and every tenet of their community. We can show hospitality amidst and because of difference.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteYou're fantastic. You've said what I was trying to in a better way than I did. And as a wonderful complement to what I wrote.
I agree, I think we are on the same page. In fact, I find that most of your comments on my blog are helpful ones that clear up where I have been careless.
In fact, your comment runs very deep. I was defining myself in terms of not-... (not-exclusionary, not-anti-homosexual, not-ecologically ignorant, etc.). I instead need to foster communities in which the positive is primary. In speaking out against those who are exclusive, I was becoming exclusive. I instead need to focus on what I hope to be: Loving, accepting, generous, abundant, life-affirming, joyful, peaceable, etc.
Thanks again.
awww. feel the love between you two!
ReplyDeletebut seriously. i think i agree with chris. even though that puts me in the same camp with stu. which worries me a little. (ok. a lot.)
:)
Hey, it needn't worry you. You've already come to me for moral guidance. ;)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, it's not such a bad camp to be in. I love living in it. :)