Blog Post 1

Writing 150. Wait wait wait HONORS Writing 150 as taken at BYU. They're telling me that part of our grade is doing 5 blog posts on something I'm not too sure about. It says to relate issues and ideas that would lead to greater knowledge from different sources. So today I'm going to relate an experience then connect it to an idea that has been mulling around my mind for a little while. About three or four years ago I met my best friend Alisha Crump. Some people think Alisha is a little strange, and they're probably a little right. The thing they don't know is that Alisha's mom is deaf and so by association she knows sign language and how to communicate by more than just words. At first when I went to her house I was a little take aback at how her mom acted. She didn't even know me and she would hit me, laugh hysterically with me, and even hug me like I was her own child. My first year here at BYU I decided to take an American Sign Language 101 class. Not only do they teach us the language they also teach us the culture. The idea I talked about earlier is that someones language has a direct effect on how people within a society interact. In sign language you leave out "to be" verbs such as are and is. You simply specify who you're talking about and then begin signing about them. This may be one of the causes of the deaf culture being so barrier free. Now that I think of it, another factor could be the very nature of being deaf. In a hearing conversation you can hear tonality and outside stimuli, such as noises from other rooms or areas around you. In a deaf setting you are reliant on the person signing and their facial expression to lead and guide the conversation. As another example of this unmerited intimacy within their community I will offer the following differences. In a hearing conversation it is perfectly alright to excuse yourself and not have to answer to why or where you're going. In a deaf conversation more times than not they will ask you were you are headed.

Marxism and the Vulgarization of Luxuries

Marxism, as it has evolved, has come to be defined roughly as the theory that what society does, it does to preserve its own sense of ideology. This I learned in Fundamental Literary Interpretation, where we read Louis Althusser's essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" as a basis for understanding a passage from Terry Eagleton's book Literary Theory: An Introduction, entitled "The Rise of English."

Althusser writes, in his essay, "All ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation." Eagleton argues that English was introduced as an academic subject in schools (ideological state apparatuses) the Victorian period, when religion began to lose its widespread appeal. They did this because it seemed that literature could do many of the same things as religion in terms of stabilizing a "socially turbulent class-society." In other words, the ruling class made the decision to introduce the study of literature into public schools in order to keep the classes beneath them in line.

Certainly, we as a church understand that Marxism and Communism as a whole are Satanic counterfeits to sacred truths; furthermore, these theories, true as they may be, are made on the assumption that the reproduction of social ideology is a bad thing. In effect, Althusser and Eagleton may be perfectly right, as far as their facts go, even if what the spirit of what they say is mistaken.

In any case, the reading I did made me think about Marxism, and how the conditions under which we live may be designed quite simply to make us suitable for and satisfied with our social and economic position. Interestingly enough, I found some evidence to support this claim.

There are many things that were once luxuries only the rich enjoyed, which are now commonplace in the middle-class, if not the lower-income social strata. Take, for example, deodorant. Smelling nice was once the privilege of those who did not have to work, but now he who does not wear deodorant can say goodbye to being accepted into many social circles, the use is so widespread. Another example lies in the personal automobile. In the earlier part of the century, cars were most certainly a luxury for the rich. The common folk took the train. Now, what suburban family is there that doesn't use a car (or two or three)?

With these things and others like them, there are still upper-class versions (more expensive), but that is not the point. In some form or other, many upper-class luxuries are available to the middle and lower classes--not only available, but considered necessary. It has to do with them feeling satisfied with their economic position. No system is perfect, but this one seems to work pretty well. In theory, this is how it could have happened. The upper classes have some luxury. They see that there is some dissatisfaction among the classes beneath them. The upper classes own the means of production, so what do they do? They figure out a way to vulgarize their luxury and grant it to the lower classes. This keeps them happy until the next thing, when the cycle repeats itself. I'm no Marxist scholar--just a student who read a couple papers--but if Eagleton's analysis of education is true, perhaps a similar formula works in the way I have suggested.

Setting Personal Expectations

I’ve always realized that the area of the world I grew up in, the place that has thoroughly shaped who I am, is merely a small, sheltered rural town. I realize my education has been a step down from the majority of high schools around the globe, that I haven’t been pushed in a competitive environment, and that I have a habit of doing minimal work. I also have a habit of not looking around me, of where I’m going and where I’ve been. I get lost in places I’ve been around my whole life! I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise to realize how incomplete my view of the world as a whole has been. I have considered the places and people of the world so little in my life, up until now.

Over the past couple weeks, I’ve unexpectedly found that although I thought the classes I had registered for were aimless and unrelated, there is no denying I feel like I’m in one big class, a lecture and awakening on connections between people, place, and time, and I’ve learned so much. It has really made me wonder why I chose to learn the way I did in high school; I really do enjoy studying geography and cultures, and although my high school experience may have been limited, I certainly could have grasped hold of much more knowledge.

People will rise to the level of expectation put upon them; much more is expected of me here at BYU than in any educational setting I’ve ever experienced! But one thing I have decided is that any level of expectation shouldn’t determine the ceiling of my performance. Provo is a lot bigger than Oakley, Idaho. But the world is a lot bigger than Provo, Utah. Expectations will keep rising, and the smart thing for me to do is to always strive to exceed them.

A Dim Sense of Ingenium

The student, in all his meager eighteen years of experience, has yet to find it possible to isolate a single idea. One of his earlier inklings of this concept—that all things are connected by underlying cosmic, eternal, and natural laws—took place when his high school physics teacher read his favorite translation of Newton’s First Law of Motion:

“Every body persists in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”

The teacher went on to explain that the words “every body” (rather than “every object”) make the idea more applicable: a “body” could refer to a person, an inanimate object, or even an opinion; and a “force” could be any push or pull: the force of gravity, an electric charge, or a persuasive speech. This simple choice of words placed the written law closer to the Eternal Law that Newton may have been trying to describe.

Now, in the world of college-level classes, that same concept has flowered in the author’s mind, especially in relation to the theme of this semester’s writing and rhetoric class (transnationalism and globalization) and the humanities. In both cases, the student is encouraged to make connections between nations, use successful rhetoric to critique the arts, and find purpose and meaning in seemingly unrelated things. The very atmosphere of Brigham Young University seems to breath it: the gospel permeates every field of study, and every class begins with prayer.

The links are everywhere. No person—or idea—is an island.

Posted by S. Benjamin Puente

The Restoration: Process vs. Event

I've often referred to the restoration of Christ's church as a sequence of events beginning in the sacred grove, culminating in the Kirtland temple. The restoration, I thought, was all God did in order for us to have everything we need for exaltation, including and especially the restoration of priesthood keys and authority. Though accurate, my understanding was incomplete.

The 9th Article of Faith states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (emphasis added)

The principle of a continuing restoration was taught explicitly in my Preparation for Marriage class, and implicitly in my two religion classes--reinforced by their referencing of non-LDS sources. God reveals to us, collectively and individually, the truths that we need for exaltation line upon line and precept upon precept. If the restoration of Christ's church was an event, why would we need continuing revelation?

Viewing the restoration of the gospel as a process explains more accurately how the church, an organization headed by a perfect being, can iterate (e.g., go from missionary discussions to Preach My Gospel) and how semantic errors are acknowledged and corrected over time (e.g., "free agency" abandoned in favor of "moral agency.") Also, if we believe that all essential truths were restored in an event, we're less open to ideas that had their advent outside of that event (e.g., ideas with secular "origins.")

The distinctions between a process and an event are subtle, but significant. They're also, to me, epiphanic, so some pondering is required.

Hope for the Future

There are certain things that connect our world with the past and the world of our ancestors. Something that we use that helps us relate to the world they left behind to come here to America. I never understood why I was so different from other kids at school, not in the way that I looked, but a difference in how I acted and in what I believed. So what made me... me?

I sat at the front of my Tongan language class and listened as we had a lesson on Tongan culture. Being part Tongan I knew and understood what the teacher was talking about with a familiar feeling. As he talked my mind went back to when I was still in grade school and laughed to myself as I thought about my culture and everything that came with it. If you have ever watched My Big Fat Greek Wedding, you have a sense of what I am talking about. As the teacher went on, I found myself realize that it's my culture that defines so much about me. The Tongan instructor finished his lecture with this, "You, class, are here to learn the language of your ancestors. You are the bridge between the gap of their world and America and the hope of preserving our culture within this language." Then it hit me that I had just been learning about all of this in Writing150. We were taking part in globalization by bringing our American culture and combining it with our Tongan culture.

This became even more significant to me as I processed it and came to a conclusion. We can all take part in globalization by sharing our cultures with other people. In the past countries have made the mistake of forcing their culture on the countries they conquered and wiping out the native cultures of those people. Instead we can learn from this and take what's good from both cultures and combine them, preserving the old culture and what makes us... us.

Truth and Tolerance

I attended the CES fireside last night where Dallin H. Oaks spoke about truth and tolerance. One of his main points was that while the world moves increasingly towards moral relativism and away from truth, the need for tolerance in our lives also increases. He quoted Joseph Fielding Smith who said,
"We believe in all truth no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth from whatever source it may come, for truth will stand, truth will endure".
I am currently enrolled in a Survey of World Religions class and this principle, that truth exists in all religions, is a major theme of that class. One of my favorite quotes from my professor there is, "Nobody believes anything that is stupid". I think that this principle applies not only in religious beliefs, but in cultural practices as well. In this "Flat" World that we live in, we are constantly going to come in contact with cultures and beliefs that are foreign to us where we need to exercise tolerance and understanding, as Dallin H. Oaks emphasized. As one who grew up overseas, in Tokyo, Japan, I have had a lot of experience with other cultures. I have not only had to show an understanding for other's beliefs, but I have also been at the receiving end of tolerance and seen how beneficial that kind of accepting attitude can be for a community and for relationships.
In my Introduction to Social Work class we often talk about how the focus of social work is not always to conform the client to the community, but sometimes it is to conform the society to fit the needs of the client, or many clients who are in the same situation, such as homeless people. Similarly, in my Introduction to International Development class we know that the best way to help developing countries progress is not to force modernization ideas on them that force them to conform to our lifestyle. Instead the best way to approach development is through appreciating their culture and working with them to reach a solution that best serves them, and not the other way around. We need to tolerate their unique ideas and understand that what works best for us, is not necessarily what will work best for everyone else.
As this world gets flatter and truly becomes "A Small World After All", having an appreciation for all cultures and beliefs is getting ever so important, as I have learned from an Apostle of the Lord, my own experiences, and at least four professors here at BYU.