Technology and Privilege

“Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
Ephesians 6:14–17

Technology too often gets associated purely with computers and electronics when it applies to the most simple of implements as well, like a spear or a tent. Technology is the result of methodical, iterative crafting of a tool. And its purpose is to amplify already-present capacities, behaviors, and social dynamics. It is not the smartphone that brought maps to our fingertips — rather, it was our insatiable need to know where we are and where we are going. Smartphones’ mapping technologies amplified that behavior, just as the cartographers of old did through sextants and compasses. These amplifications make minor tendencies appear larger than life precisely because small differences play across orders of magnitude. The thrill-seeker that once jumped from high cliffs into waters below can now plummet towards the earth from thousands of feet in the sky. The writer whose writings were read by the literate few can now share their thoughts with millions with the click of a button. The murderer wreaking havoc on a township by killing one person at a time over the course of weeks can now, through technological advancement, wreak the same quantity of havoc in mere seconds. Such developments may make the underlying causes of such behaviors more immediate, terrifying, and hotly debated, but they were always there.

As he approached Lehi, the Philistines came toward him shouting. The Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon him. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. Then Samson said, “With a donkey’s jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With a donkey’s jawbone I have killed a thousand men.”
Judges 15: 14–16

It is a well-covered topic, and rightly so, how technological advances confer privilege upon those with the access and means to use them. This can range from a new means of protecting a waterhole, to a novel use of clay for documenting transactions, to an updated commute system that grants economic and social opportunity to those otherwise isolated. There is no denying that countless aspects of daily life, especially in the West, are privileged because of the plethora of technology at our disposal. However, I cringe at polemics against the evils of technology, as if the tool bears responsibility for its users. Rather, the focus ought to be on usage by those employing the tool, and access to the tools themselves. Are they used for the enrichment of others or for selfish gain? Who can get to the tool and who cannot? What behaviors are revealed, enhanced, or enabled by its implementation? That last question cuts to the heart of technology-as-privilege: technology itself often exacerbates the very capacities, behaviors, and social dynamics of privilege since it amplifies the already-present, socially-endowed benefits. To see this in an historical example, let’s look back at the phenomenon known as White Flight.

The post-war boom of the 1950’s led to countless African-Americans flocking to cities for the economic opportunities found there. Consequently, White Americans fled to the suburbs to escape this influx. This social movement by Whites was made possible by, among other things, the proliferation of the Interstate Highway system and Whites’ access to cars for the family. Thus, while urban centers remained centers of industry, the vast majority of wealth and political power moved to the intentionally homogeneous, White suburbs. As poverty and social dislocation consumed urban centers, the suburbs flourished and became the idyllic emblem of the American Dream. In this social dynamic, it is not difficult to see the already-present preference for Whiteness over and against Blackness in America being played out economically, socially, and politically. The desire of Whites to maintain their way of life is enacted through redlining, blockbusting, and other de facto segregating mechanisms (including municipal, state, and federal laws themselves). The capacity for putting one’s self and one’s in-group above others plays out on a national scale through massive social movement. We see racial superiority, community gatekeeping, and social mobility are examples of technology-as-privilege all encapsulated in the phenomenon of White Flight. More tangibly, we also see highways, cars, and home ownership as tools of privilege being employed to marked effect.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?”
Luke 16:10–12

But I would like to flip this script, not to disagree, but to offer yet another lens for understanding the crucial-yet-divisive concept of privilege. Rather than thinking of technology as privilege, consider privilege as technology. While the analogy breaks down, as all do, with over-reliance upon it, this may help bearers of privilege employ it justly and rightly. While both immutable and mutable aspects of one’s being and social location unequivocally confer privilege, the conversation often gets mired in defensiveness against the accusation. Usually the defensiveness revolves around two axes: either the person of privilege has had an undeniably hard life and therefore it rings hollow/condescending to be told they benefit from privilege, or there is an outright denial of the entire notion as the person of privilege’s worldview is (professed to be) meritocratic.

As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
Luke 21:1–4 NIV

Imaging privilege as technology means, rather than privilege inhering to one’s very being, it is a tool. A tool that can be used actively or passively, like a scalpel or a dwelling, to either maintain oppressive and unjust social realities or dismantle them. This is not to suggest that social categories deemed desirable aren’t still inextricably bound to who one is. This does not externalize privilege so that it can be simply discarded like a conductor’s baton; for example, skin color, sexual orientation, or your first language cannot be set aside and ignored. Such realities are carried daily, as mantle, spectacles, noise-cancelling headphones, and winged shoes. The goal is for the frame to shift from questioning if society has benefited you unduly or not, to discerning how the implements in your toolkit enable you to combat injustice and inequity. Rather than thinking privilege somehow protects you completely from adversity, think of it more as a shield: it deflects a lot, though not everything. Something as simple as a mundane American accent can prevent countless antagonistic interactions, thereby shielding you from the emotional duress, economic costs, and relational strain they can otherwise cause. Will that accent guarantee you’ll get a job for which you interview? Of course not. Does it fail to raise flags or question marks in the listener? Of course. Your ordinary accent is privilege-as-technology precisely because it is an innocuous tool of communication.

And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ’ “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Luke 12:16–21

In conversations where someone calls out a privileged action, filter the charge through this privilege-as-technology sieve. “The producer of La La Land does not deserve praise for simply doing that which is expected: vacating the stage for the rightful winners, the cast and crew of Moonlight. That he is heralded for this unremarkable act is White, Male privilege.” This critic is pointing out that the intersections of White and Male privilege are being used as amplifiers of what is otherwise a completely unremarkable action. They are technologies being employed to enhance the rudimentary actions of a human being. The fact that this entire event occurred to the detriment of an African-American cast and crew makes it all the more stark. Rarely did you hear a commendation of the grace of Barry Jenkins, despite him showing more.

The tools of privilege are used to amplify, to elevate, one action, one person over the other, thereby telling (confirming) a story to the world of whose grace, whose behavior, and whose presence is socially desirable. The question to ask yourself then is, “What tools do I have at my disposal to mitigate injustice now and prevent it in the future?” It may be your Whiteness, it may be Maleness, or it could be a TV show you write for; an Internet forum you participate in; or a conversation with a group unaware of the layers involved.

“A rebuke impresses a discerning person more than a hundred lashes a fool.”
Proverbs 17:10

“The institution of marriage is for only one man and one woman.” This declares that those who wish to participate in the institution of marriage and together constitute a “man” and a “woman,” are used as a means of highlighting the differences between heterosexual relationships and every other kind. Emphases on procreation, tradition, or the nuclear family make each of these institutions into technology. They all, in turn and in unique ways, get employed in the efforts to amplify certain capacities, behaviors, and social dynamics to the detriment of others. Privilege is an implement that must be regarded with the same seriousness as the countless instruments we recognize as carrying both great power and great danger: weapons, transportation, communication, etc. It is not a matter of whether the tool exists, it is a matter of how it is used.

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3: 31–34

Just like the more conventional forms of technology we all interact with regularly, privilege is born out of the same process of systematic iteration that gave us rocket ships and water desalination plants. It is a methodical, though not linear, historically-conditioned crafting that builds upon, and goes beyond, its products. Privilege constantly manifests in forms familiar yet novel, that exaggerate, undercut, overwhelm, or minimize perennial aspects of our shared humanity. It is incumbent upon those who have privilege-as-technology at their disposal, whichever they possess, to apply diligence, responsibility, and empathy in their implementation even unto the point of actively forsaking their benefits. Especially if there is an adverse pattern to their use, effects, or availability. To do otherwise ignores the amplification of injustice flowing from the very capacities, behaviors, and dynamics that make us human, together.

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good — except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
Mark 10: 17–23

Justice.

I am sitting in Nuremberg’s Courtroom 600 where, for the first time in history, heads of state were put on trial to allow the rule of law to judge them for their actions. The Third Reich’s second in command, Hermann Göring, was found guilty along with many other leaders of the National Socialist government.  However, as time wore on and the less-sexy culprits began to be tried, the grey area of legal responsibility began to grind the momentum of justice to a halt. Certainly the highest echelons of the National Socialists are guilty, but is the conductor who drove the train cars to and from Auschwitz? What of the chauffeur who drove Himmler around to the various camps for inspection and consultation? Or the administrator who kept the vast indices of prisoners at Buchenwald, but never pulled a lever, fired a shot, or poured out Zyklon B? Where does one draw the line between perpetuation and mere cooperation, active versus passive genocide?

Last night, I watched Amen. An excellent film about a Protestant SS officer, skilled in disinfection, is brought into the task of exterminating the Jews. He is so horrified by the entire enterprise that he seeks to get the word out to the world while staying in the SS. In so doing, he works with a Catholic priest to try and convince whomever they can of what is happening, specifically the Pope.  It’s a powerful film, showing how painfully ambiguous and unbelievable the actions taken back then were, by all sides.  The SS officer, in the end, is set to be charged with war crimes for helping with the mass extermination programs. The priest, in response to the Pope’s inaction, affixes a yellow Star of David to his cassock and is taken to a death camp.

Even in the aftermath of such an epoch, the matter of justice is not clear.  Many perpetrators escaped, many were found not guilty, pardoned, or let out of prison early, more still simply went about their lives until they died at a ripe old age.  My dear friend, Matthias, sent me a New Yorker article about a low-level administrator at a camp who had flown under the radar after the war, avoiding notice until someone tried to convince him that the Holocaust was a hoax.  He then broke his self-imposed silence and told his story, for the first time, which led, ultimately, to him being put on trial. Most of this took place after the year 2000. He was found guilty, which sparked another wave of attempts to bring lesser-known perpetrators to justice, but so many have died or are dying that the efforts feel in vain.  The world has moved on, different atrocities have taken place, and questions are left perennially unanswered.

Perhaps the greatest wisdom of this place is it remains open as a court of law.  The task of justice is never complete, ever inchoate, and forever necessary.
  

A Lenten Reflection

Luke 4: 1-13

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘One shall not live on bread alone.’”

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve God only.’”

The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. For it is written: “‘God will command angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered, “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time.

As I prepared for Lent, I came upon a tripartite approach to the season that I haven’t heard though I’m sure it’s well known by others. During this time, one should strive to focus upon justice towards God, justice towards neighbor, and justice towards self. Generally speaking, justice towards God is understood as prayer, justice towards neighbor is traditionally understood as almsgiving, and justice towards self often manifests in a form of self-denial, for which Lent is most well known. I found this to be a generative approach to the Lenten season, but did not see it mentioned with any particular Scriptural referent. However, when I considered the Lukan passage above in light of this Lenten perspective, it was all too clear how perfectly it fit. My contemporaneous reading of Yoder’s “Politics of Jesus” influenced my connection as he interprets this entire passage as Jesus eschewing and espousing various political approaches to his ministry; consequently, a three-pronged approach towards Lenten justice seems fitting.

“Tell this stone to become bread.” Arrogate power unto yourself by providing an abundance of food. The populace will rush to you and raise you on high, granting you immense power through popularity and undeniable control over bodily necessities. In fact, symbolize this power by providing yourself whatever you need. Display your power by revealing your independence from all earthly concerns. Illustrate your might through your self-sufficiency, that paradigmatically masculine trait wherein reliance on another is weakness.

“It is written, ‘One shall not live on bread alone.” Such power is an illusion, which Jesus rejects despite extended fasting. No one is an island and to bear a message of hope and justice cannot be predicated upon self-sufficiency. What hope is there in unilateral action? What justice is there in expecting each to suffice for themselves? What is self-sufficiency but a charade of inherently met needs? Jesus enacts justice towards himself by recognizing his inability to live alone, without relationships.

“I will give you all their authority and splendor.” A global coronation ceremony to commemorate your unfettered and meteoric rise! You are, quite literally, the king of the world. All of your wishes and dreams, in particular all of your convictions, can be made law and followed by all who serve you. The ease with which you can enact your will shall be matched only by the ease with which you perform this one act: worship another. Recognize another and all authority and splendor shall be yours.

“It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve God only.’” Absolute rule by fiat is rejected as the means towards Jesus’ ends. The newly baptized, newly inaugurated, newly named Son of God is offered a carte blanche for advancing his message and plans. But this would place him above the one whom he seeks to serve. It would substitute the ends for the means. Jesus rejects despite hyperbolic expectations. Jesus enacts justice towards others by valuing their involvement in God’s work as much as his own.

“…they will lift you up in their hands….” Wielding divine power over such mortal concerns as injury and death ipso facto grants immeasurable power. What better way to display religious legitimacy and divine power than to be saved by angels? And just above the Temple, just to be sure the “power over” part is clear. Place demands on God with absolute surety that they will be fulfilled. What can peasants, religious scribes, and Roman procurators possibly do in the face of one to whom even God bends? This one display will clear the way to freedom from oppression for all and assured rule for you. For all the good you wish to do, show them in whose corner God fights. For all the benevolence you wish to bestow, make it clear on whose side God labors. For all the righteousness your new kingdom will effuse, dispel any doubt as to behind whom God stands. If you cast yourself down from on high, you will have absolutely nothing to fear.

“It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Claiming or expecting that one’s exercises of power are backed by the full faith and credit of God is self-deification. This would be a direct injustice to God and Jesus rejects such a suggestion. The son of a carpenter’s wife does not presume to test God. Rather, Jesus strives to live out God’s purposes and live into God’s vision for community and, as evidenced throughout his life, there are a remarkable number of times when Jesus is unsure of the path before him. To conduct himself with absolute certitude that God ordains his actions would be to place himself above God. Jesus rejects Satan’s final temptation despite having just been declared the Son of God, in whom God is well pleased. Jesus enacts justice towards God via his constant turning to prayer throughout his life and passion.

Prop 8 Defense: Contradictory and Unsatisfactory

Article quotes below are taken from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-trial12-2010jan12,0,989948.story?page=1

“[US District Judge] Walker noted that many states once barred interracial marriage. [Prop 8 Rep] Cooper replied that those laws were based on a notion of ‘white supremacy,’ and not on a long-standing tradition.”

Again, I am just appalled at how completely lacking in substantive argument the proponents of Prop 8 are in this discussion.  The arguments put forth are either weak and easily refuted or they contradict themselves.  Consider the one pasted above.  When asked by the judge to account for the fact that people voted in laws banning miscegenation, the Prop 8 representative replied that “white supremacy” is the reason for those laws, not tradition.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “white supremacy” was (is) also a long-standing tradition?

He attempts to lay to rest a just question by invoking a rhetoric that has the desired effect of getting everyone on the speaker’s side (“I’m against white supremacy”) without addressing the fact that he just created an even more disturbing analogue.  It is precisely because white supremacy was a long-standing, near-axiomatic tradition that anti-miscegenation laws were passed.  It was not until enough voices cried out in challenge of this norm that justice was achieved, despite many attempts to the contrary.  The fact that Mr. Cooper attempts to dismiss an historical parallel regarding interracial marriage by citing an ugly accepted truth of the past points to how either clueless or blind Mr. Cooper (and, by extension, those he represents) are.

Did it not occur to Mr. Cooper that “heterosexual supremacy” is a long-standing tradition?

Within this same article, there is yet another bothersome argument made my Mr. Cooper.

“Cooper said the evidence would show that opposite-sex marriage is good for children, and that the “procreative purpose of marriage” would be “diluted or weakened” if same-sex couples were permitted to marry.

Asked what evidence exists to show that same-sex marriage would ‘radically alter the institution of marriage,’ Cooper replied that data from the Netherlands will show that it leads to a decline in marriage rates. He said it also would lead to more children being raised outside of marriage and higher divorce rates.

But he added that same-sex marriage is still too rare and novel an ‘experiment’ to draw conclusions about its long-term impact. Noting that only five states and seven countries permit gays and lesbians to wed, Cooper said, ‘The people of California are entitled to await the results of that experiment.’”

Which is it Mr. Cooper?  Is the evidence that you propose to show indicative of what is to come should gay marriage be allowed?  Or is same-sex marriage too rare and we cannot draw conclusions about its long-term impact?  If you are talking about evidence in the Netherlands being long-standing enough to provide indication of the future, then why keep referring to it all as “experimentation”?  Or, if we’re still in the experimentation phase, then how can you use the Netherlands as any sort of conclusive proof?  Or, further still, do you feel that the Netherlands and the United States are similar enough that information regarding one nation’s sociology is applicable to the other?

Either way you answer that will make your statement either more confusing or self-defeating.  Either the information is applicable, which would then make your statements regarding social “experimentation” misleading because your argument is framed on an unknowability factor, when instead you’re claiming we know where gay marriage will lead.  Or, if the information is not applicable, which is why we’re still in the social “experimentation” phase, then your bringing the Netherlands into the conversation as anything but another example of “experimentation” makes it seem like there is no longer any question.  The verdict is in.  Gay marriage does X, Y, and Z.  But no, Mr. Cooper does not go that route.  Because he knows that he can’t win either of those arguments.  He must attempt to cherry-pick from both sides of his argument-coin so as to have the best of both worlds because his position is untenable should he pick just one.  But alas, it seems the sociologists, anthropologists, and marriage/law historians will start to be brought in and this matter will eventually be settled.

“The day ended with testimony from Harvard professor Nancy Cott, an expert in the history of marriage in the United States.

She said Cooper’s opening statement that marriage between two members of the opposite sex was universal was inaccurate. Ancient Jews were polygamous, she said, and in some countries Muslims can marry several women.

In a 19th century case, she said the U.S. Supreme Court denied Dred Scott, a black man, citizenship partly on the grounds that he was not permitted to marry a white woman. The court said that was a ‘stigma that marked him as less than a full citizen,’ she testified. ‘In marrying, one is exercising a right of freedom,’ she said.”

Rinse and repeat until we get to the US Supreme Court.