Excellent piece in today’s Washington Post by a former JAG in the Nevada National Guard: “Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime.”
Category: Social and ethical issues
-
Unresolved questions
A couple of questions that I continue to turn over and which I’m not at all clear on the answers to:
Is it necessary to seriously restrain economic growth for the sake of the environment (and ultimately ourselves) or can growth continue pretty much at present rates but in “sustainable” ways (with the help of technological breakthroughs, e.g.)?
If present rates of growth do need to be curtailed, can this be done in a way that doesn’t drastically and disproportionately impact the very poorest people in the world, whose well-being would appear to be most directly tied to continued economic growth?
If it’s necessary to do so, is it possible to transition to a more sustainable model of development without dramatic net increases in state power and intrusiveness?
I think the semi-official answer to these questions would be that we must continue to grow economically and to expand trade globally, and that any environmental consequences will have to be dealt with by means of regulation, conservation and new technologies.
The dissenting view (or cluster of views) would be that industrial capitalism has to be re-thought at a fairly fundamental level, and that we should re-tool the economy primarily for local production and consumption (with protectionist measures if necessary). This would include poor people in the Third World who should be producing for local markets rather than commodity export.
These aren’t the only two possible views, but the first seems to represent, more or less, the elite consensus, while the second is more in line with the thinking of the anti-globalization movement. They also cut across the left/right division in that you have people on the “right” and “left” wings of both camps. There are liberal globalists and conservative anti-globalists, and vice versa.
Like I said, I don’t have firm answers on any of this stuff. For one thing, I don’t really feel well-informed enough to have an solid view. And, of course, the environmental dimension insn’t the only significant one. But it does seem to be particularly pressing in that everything else depends on the continued health and wholeness of the biosphere.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
October reading notes
A smattering of theology, philosophy, and even some fiction this month:
The Environment and Christian Ethics by Michael Northcott. This is part of Cambridge University Press’s “New Studies in Christian Ethics” series. Northcott is (at least at the time of this book’s publication) a lecturer in theology at the University of Edinburgh. This text is a nice overview of environmental problems, a survey of the common philosophical and theological approaches to environmental ethics, and a defense of the notion that a traditional Christian outlook can ground concern for, and fairly radical positions on, the environment (as opposed to approaches of a lot of eco-theology which are fairly revisionist). Northcott also argues that social justice for human beings is not in opposition to care for the earth, but an essential component of it.
Small Is Still Beautiful, Joseph Pearce. Reviewed here.
Animals and Their Moral Standing, Stephen R. L. Clark. A collection of papers dealing with various aspects of the moral problems associated with non-human animals. Hits most of the uniquely Clarkean themes: a traditionalist philosophical and theological orientation combined with radicial views on animal welfare. (A nice companion to Northcott’s book come to think of it.)
A Case of Conscience by James Blish. I mentioned this book here. I’ve also just started The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, who seems, to say the least, to have borrowed some ideas from Blish as both books revolve around Jesuit priests who have disastrous encounters with alien civilizations. Russell’s book is contemporary, while Blish wrote his in the 50s. It’ll be interesting to compare the two.
Early this mont the Templeton Foundation Press reissued Keith Ward’s Divine Action, which had been out of print virtually from the time of its original publication due to a publishing acquisition. This is his account of how modern science and philosophy allow us to give a coherent account of how God can act in the world. While taking some ideas from process thought, Ward goes beyond the view of many process theologians that God acts sheerly “persuasively” on the world. Ward argues that modern physics has given us a picture of the physical world that is much “looser” than that of classical Newtonian physics, and that, in principle, God can act in the world in ways that would make a real difference, but be undetectable by the methods of science. He also offers persuasive and insightful accounts of miracles, the Incarnation, and the relation of Christianity to other religions under the rubric of ways that God acts in the world.
Also currently working on Wandering Home by Bill McKibben, which narrates his hike from the Champlain river valley in Vermont into the Adiorondacks in New York. Along the way McKibben encounters various friends and acquaintances trying to find new ways of living sustainably, from localist vinters making wine for the region to an Earth First!-er living in an electricity- and plumbing-free shack in the woods. All of this provides much fodder for McKibben’s ruminations on possibilities of treading more lightly on the earth.
On deck is James Alison’s The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes. I blogged about Alison’s Raising Abel a bit here. Although impressed by the way Alison’s Girard-inspired exegesis sheds new light on the biblical texts, I expressed some skepticism about aspects of his project. But, inspired in part by this review of Alison’s work from Charles Hefling that Christopher tipped me off to, I decided it was worth delving in more deeply.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
A church wrestles with capital punishment
You might recall the recent case of the woman and her two daughters in Connecticut who were brutally murdered by intruders in their home this summer (the husband survived). This article in the NY Times looks at some of the tensions in the family’s United Methodist congregation, which has a history of outspoken opposition to the death penalty. The church’s response to the possibility of the first capital case in Connecticut in a long time, which would likely otherwise be strong and vocal opposition, has been muted largely out of respect for the husband who hasn’t made his views publicly known. It’s a sad story and an interesting look at how you deal with your convictions when the situation becomes personal.
(The story mentions that the father of the woman who was murdered was himself a Methodist pastor. As it happens, he pastored a UMC church in my hometown in Western Pennsylvania.)
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Immigration, wildlife and the wall
This article at Grist examines the reasons that environmental groups have been slow to criticize the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, which will likely have extremely destructive consequences for the wildlife in the area. The reason, writes Glenn Hurowitz, is that they don’t want to invite the kind of bitter controversy over immigration that embroiled the Sierra Club a few years back. The piece also points out, however, that many immigration restrictionists are skeptical that a wall will actually make a significant difference compared to other measures like sanctioning employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
ABC on abortion
Also via Thinking Anglicans, Rowan Williams writes about abortion in Britain and the “slippage” from a presumption of extending protection of fetal life with exceptions for extraordinary circumstances, to a presumption of liberty of choice with respect to abortion. It seems to me that the U.S. is, if anything, more locked into the language of competing rights that Williams cautions us about here.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Abortion on film
Interesting review of the new abortion documentary Lake of Fire in this article (scroll down). I can’t say that it exactly makes me want to see the movie, but the idea of attempting to make a movie on abortion that treats both sides fairly is certainly a laudable one (link via Ross Douthat).
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Christopher Hitchens: bridge-builder
Unfortunately the bridge he wants to build is one between militant atheists and rabid right-wing warmongers. From the sounds of this report from a recent atheist/agnostic/freethinker conference, most of them ain’t buyin’ what he’s sellin’, to their credit.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Out in Africa
Philip Jenkins, who arguably knows as much about Christianity in the global south as any “Northerner,” has an article on the African churches’ controversies over homosexuality at the New Republic (may require subscription to read).
Jenkins argues that it’s misleading to see the intensity of the conflict over this as merely an extension of debates that have taken place in the West. Traditional denominations in Africa living in a context of competition with upstart Pentecostalism and with Islam have a strong incentive to toe a morally conservative line. Jenkins recounts a story from the late 19th century where Christian courtiers rejected the pederastic advances of the king of Buganda, who had come under the influence of Arab slave-trades, and were martyred for it:
That foundation story remains well-known in the region, and it intertwines Christianity with resistance to tyranny and Muslim imperialism–both symbolized by sexual deviance. Reinforcing such memories are more recent experiences with Muslim tyrants, such as Idi Amin, whose victims included the head of his country’s Anglican Church. For many Africans, then, sexual unorthodoxy has implications that are at once un-Christian, anti-national, and oppressive.
The conservative stance can also be a way of burnishing African Christians’ anti-Western and anti-colonialist credentials, “making clear to their own members and their Muslim neighbors that they are not puppets of the West. Moral conservatism thus serves to assert cultural independence–a link that requires sexual immorality to be portrayed as a Euro-American import.”
Of course, that doesn’t make it the right position, and Jenkins is quick to point out that there are more liberal elements on the continent, particularly in South Africa, where the ANC is not likely to be seen as toadying to the West. There is a plurality of voices there, not to mention in the rest of the Global South, and it is by no means confined to places like South Africa (“arguably one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world.”):
But South Africa is not the only place where gay-rights movements have gained a foothold. An Anglican group called Changing Attitude claims supporters in both Nigeria and Uganda, and the director of its Nigerian chapter, Davis Mac-Iyalla, has earned some notoriety as a liberal foil to Akinola. Some years ago, when Namibia’s then- president declared homosexuality a “behavioral disorder which is alien to African culture,” activists responded by creating a fairly overt gay-rights movement, the Rainbow Project.
Jenkins’ conclusion is that Westerners should resist the temptation of seeing the African churches’ positions through the lens of our own controversies. Just as liberals have sometimes been prone to romanticize the “Third World,” conservatives have of late tended to see Africa as a bastion of “traditional values” holding out against the decadent West. But Jenkins advises caution: “gays in Africa face very real barriers to acceptance. And we do them no favors by viewing Africa’s culture war over homosexuality as a mere extension of the battle we are witnessing here in the United States, rather than as a fight which raises questions unique to African history and politics.”
One might criticize Jenkins here for lapsing into a kind of moral relativism. He does tend to talk as though the churches in many parts Africa simply have no choice but to go along with the anti-gay line. This would presumably be of small comfort to gay people on the receiving end of some of the more punitive policies supported by some African churchmen. Still, I think it’s helpful to see both the plurality and the particularity of the situation, rather than as another manifestation of some kind of global “culture war.”
UPDATE: Here’s a transcript (via The Topmost Apple) of a presentation by Jenkins on this topic with questions from a bunch of journalistic big-shots (Ken Woodward, E.J. Dionne, Jon Wilson of Books & Culture, etc.); a lot of fascinating discussion ensues.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Book review: Small Is Still Beautiful
Joseph Pearce is a noted English Catholic writer who has written books on G. K. Chesterton, Oscar Wilde, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis among others. In Small Is Still Beautiful: Economics as if Families Mattered, Pearce seeks to update the wisdom of E. F. Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful for the 21st century.
Small Is Still Beautiful is one among a recent spate of books re-thinking what it means to be conservative in light of the apparent triumph of global capitalism and the preeminence of America as global hegemon. Fans of Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Cons (review here) and Bill Kauffman’s Look Homeward, America (review here) will find much to like here, as Pearce upholds the small, familiar and local against the forces of globalized homogeneity.
Pearce doesn’t break much new ground in terms of fundamental ideas; this book is more of an update of Schumacher’s original. But this actually works well since Schumacher’s ideas seem just as timely now as they did thirty years ago. The issues that this book grapples with – our insatiable appetite for growth, environmental despoilation, and the plight of local communities – have gained a new resonance in recent years.
If you had to boil down Schumacher’s (and Pearce’s) message into a pithy maxim, I think it would be that “Economics was made for man, not man for economics.” Schumacher’s vision was rooted in a view of humankind as having transcendent worth, but also part of an ordered cosmos that has its own beauty and integrity. For Schumacher, much of the problem of conventional economic thinking was that it subordinated the ends of human life to the means of economic production – a complete reversal of the proper order of things.
Pearce sees both cause for worry and celebration in the events that have transpired since Small Is Beautiful was originally published. On the one hand, many of the worrying trends Schumacher identified have only accelerated: neoliberal globalization and its attendant monoculture, skewed theories of development that privilege intensive industrial production and agriculture, and, of course, the worship of centralization and “giantism.” On the other hand, a counter-movement of organic farmers, craft brewers, proponents of local economies, co-ops, and movements for political decentralization have also made a surprising amount of headway.
The underlying premise of Schumacher’s work is that unlimited economic growth in the pursuit of meeting a never-ending stream of consumer demands is “unnatrual” in the deepest possible sense. It goes against the grain of human nature in that it won’t satisfy our deepest longings, and it threatens to destroy the fragile biosphere upon which we and all other life depend. Only a reorientation of our economic and political life toward proper human ends – joy, wisdom, peace – can stave off an ecological disaster.
This view is both radical and conservative in that it requires a massive re-thinking of the political and economic status quo, but does so in the name of a very traditional, even religious, view of human beings and their destiny. Schumacher’s less-known work, A Guide for the Perplexed, actually presents the key to his thought here. His aim in that work was to recover the traditional metaphysical view of humanity and the universe that underlies what Huston Smith calls the “wisdom traditions” of the world. This philosophia perennis stands in stark opposition to the materialism of post-Englightenment modernity.
Pearce, like Schumacher, is a practicing Catholic who combines what we’d call social conservatism with economic positions well to the “left” of most Democrats, much less Republicans. He opposes “free trade” and thinks government policy should favor small businesses and local producers. He takes the issue of climate change and environmental degradation with the utmost seriousness, seeing them as direct consequences of growth-oriented and inequitable economic policy. He excoriates the World Bank and IMF and their regimes of “structural adjustment” programs for developing nations. And he opts for organic farming as the only way to save the land from destruction at the hands of intensive agriculture.
Somewhat confusingly, and despite the subtitle, Pearce says little directly about families. There are a few asides about the ways in which market capitalism breaks up social bonds, leaving atomized individuals in its wake. But very little is said about how families in particular are affected. For instance, it seems to me that Pearce could’ve made a lot of hay out of the way that our current economic practices force parents to work long hours, depriving them of the opportunities to spend time with their children as well as to participate in their communities.
I have to say that this book likely won’t convince anyone who isn’t already at least somewhat familiar with and somewhat sympathetic to Schumacher’s original arguments. But Pearce has done us a service even if the only effect of his book is to send people (particularly the more conservative-leaning people likely to read this) back to Schumacher’s original works. And beyond that, it’s nice to see Schumacherian principles applied to the current scence, giving us a picture of their continuing relevance.
P.S. Dear Publishers: I would be happy to review books like this when they come out instead of waiting till they’re available at the library. Please feel free to send review copies. 😉Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky