Tebow or Lin?

It is amazing the reception that Jeremy Lin has gotten. So much so that I think I need another blog about him. That is two in a row on Lin, which is something that I did not do for Tim Tebow. In fact the comparison of Lin to Tebow is quite interesting.
Both Lin and Tebow were almost overnight media sensations. It is probably fair to say that both got more coverage than they deserved. But both are helping a team to win that was not winning before they took over their starting positions. And both are evangelical Christians. These are the similarities between the two athletes.
But there is a critical observable difference. Tebow came with a great deal of controversy. It is fair to say that at times it seems that as many people hated Tebow as loved him. His detractors were legion and it was not just because of his football skills, or lack thereof. Some commentators and football players took shots at his faith as well. There has been some controversy generated by Lin but it has not been widely supported. For example, everybody condemned the controversy over the “Armor” comment featured on ESPN. Nobody defended it and an editor was fired over it. When Saturday Night Live decided to mock Tebow with a skit in which a fake Jesus criticizes him, there was not an equivalent outburst and no one was fired. Furthermore, Tebow has inspired t-shirts and a facebook page dedicated to hating him. There is no doubt that Tebow has produced more antipathy than Lin and it is not even close.
Why this difference? I have a theory. In a divided country we look for clues that indicate whether it is allowable to support a certain person. Tebow, as Lin, is an open evangelical Christian. That signals to religious, and even political, conservatives that Tebow is someone that can be supported. But there is nothing about Tebow for progressives to support unless they are a fan of the Florida Gators or Denver Broncos. So such progressives feel free to hate him.
Lin is also an evangelical. But he is also an Asian-American breaking into a field where Asians and Asian-Americans are relatively rare. This has the imagery of a racial minority conquering new territory and this image is welcoming to political progressives. So in addition to his obvious appeal to Asian-American fans that image also provides a cue for progressives to accept him as well.
I like Lin. I am quite happy for his success. He is fun to watch and I tend to root for him, as long as he is not playing my Spurs. But I have to wonder if he would be getting so much love if he was just another white or black ballplayer. I would wonder if his faith would create the level of controversy that we saw with Tebow. I am not blaming progressives here. I do not think that conservatives would support Tebow and Lin to the extent that they do if they were not evangelical Christians. But we live in a culturally divided society and the different fate of Tebow and Lin illustrates this.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker

Here comes Linsanity

I enjoy NBA basketball. But to be honest I do not really get into it until we get close to playoff time. But about a week ago my facebook account went crazy with talk of some guy name Jeremy Lin. It seemed that all of my Asian friends were posting and chatting about him. So naturally I had to check him out when the Knicks played the Lakers.

Okay in the interest of full disclosure here – I hate Kobe. So I was pulling for the Knicks all the way. But I do not think I had to hate Kobe to appreciate the 38 points Lin put up. The boy has got some game. He also seems to play with a joy that was fun to watch. I cannot pull for him when the Knicks play the Spurs (That is my team), but otherwise I think I am a Lin fan.
In many ways he is going to be as interesting of a story to the American sports world as Tim Tebow. There are so many fascinating dimensions to the Lin story that it is hard to know where to go with this. The Asian-American angle is what first produced interest in the story as Asian-Americans have a role model and hero in the NBA. A Harvard grad in professional sports is another interesting twist. His heartfelt Christian faith is certain to get played up in the coming weeks and months.
But what I find interesting is the fact that all of the teams basically passed on him. Even the Knicks used him as a last resort. No one saw the now obvious talent this young baller has. Why did the NBA teams pass on him? Well when we think of NBA basketball player we do not think of a Harvard-educated Asian-American do we? Lin simply did not fit into our expectations and a lot of teams really missed out on a treasure due to their stereotyping of Lin.
Let me clarify something. This is not a claim of racism. That may have happened, but I am not claiming that. Rather we tend to develop basic stereotypes and operate out of them without even thinking about it. It is in the interest of NBA coaches and general managers to accurately assess basketball talent. Yet Lin slipped through their fingers. I believe it is because Lin is not what they expected in a potential NBA star. The cost of their failure of imagination is that this bright young talent got away. We tend to hold onto stereotypes even when it costs us. That is how powerful our urge to stereotype is.
It is understandable why we stereotype. It is a shortcut. We do not have time to really get to know everyone in our lives. Sometimes we need to put people in a box and if we never have to get to know them well then that is fine. Stereotyping becomes a problem when we refuse to take them out of that box when there is evidence to the contrary. So many coaches and general managers had a box for well-educated Asians who want to play basketball and put Lin in that box. Even when he demonstrated talent they did not take him out of that box. And the Knicks lucked into discovering how inadequate that box was.
When we automatically restrict people because of stereotyping we hurt ourselves. We can rob ourselves of potentially “Lin” level of talent. We do not hire a women clergy because of her gender and can lose out in what she has to offer. We reject an evangelical academic candidate for a position (read my book Compromising Scholarship for evidence of this) and do not get a potentially great teacher/researcher. We refuse to befriend someone who dyed his/her hair pink and miss out on a friend who will be there for us. Stereotyping is not just bad for those stereotyped but it is horrible for those doing the stereotyping. They may never know what they are missing due to their stereotyping. The bottom line is that we must be careful not to keep people in boxes when doing so is not warranted. Or we may have to watch Lin hit a three pointer to beat our team in the last moments of the game.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker

Religious Freedom for Whom?

Remember the controversy about the ground zero mosque? Progressives were talking about keeping the government out of religion. Conservatives were talking about what they said is a larger principle taking a stand against Islamic-based insensitivity. At the time I took the position that I did not agree with the decision to build the Mosque but the Muslims had every right to do so. If we made it harder for them to express their religious perspective, even if it is insensitive to the relatives of 9/11 victims, then we infringe on religious freedom in ways that will be hard to reverse. I stand by that opinion.
Now we have the controversy with the Health and Human Services order to Catholic affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives. Now it is the conservatives who are taking about keeping the government out of religion. Progressives are discussing about what they say is a larger principle of reproductive freedom and women’s rights. Funny how things can switch around like that. If I were cynical I would think that both sides are just using the whole freedom of religion argument to advance their particular political agenda and really do not care about freedom of religion.
Once again I do not agree with this position from the Catholic hierarchy. Both practically and theologically I think they are wrong to put such a focus on birth control issues. But I support their right to have this position. Once again I see the slippery slope of taking away religious freedom is too precious for us to risk it.
I trust that there are others who remain true to their desire for religious freedom in both circumstances. But is it not interesting how the principles of conservatives and progressives change according to who is having their freedom challenged? Whether they choose to support religious freedom seems to depend on whether we are talking about Muslims or Catholics. This means that freedom of religion has no real meaning for them. If you really believe in religious freedom then you defend it regardless of whether the group you are defending is your political ally or enemy. That is what it means to have a principle more important than our petty political concerns.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 4

If we are holistic beings then all parts of who we are must interact together as we strive to understand our world. I am not just a sociologist. I am not just a Christian. I am not just black. I am all of those things. This is not to say that all of those things are equal in their importance to me but all of them, and other identities I have, matter in how I approach my life and understand my world.
You might guess that as an African-American that I would have special concern about the racial issues in the United States. You would be right in that assumption. In fact, for most of my academic career I have published in the area of race and ethnicity. I have done work on topics such as interracial romance, racial identity, residential segregation and racial diversity in religious settings. Like most people of color, I have had to think about racial issue seriously from an early age and so when I gained the methodological tools to understand those issues more deeply I used them to the best of my ability.
With such an effort at understanding the social scientific literature on racial issues you would think that I would have found a lot of fantastic answers to the question of how we overcome the perilous effects of our racialized society. However, I have been dissatisfied with the answers I found in my reading of the current literature. As I have established in previous blogs my sociological training is great for helping me to see what is happening in society, but less useful for helping me to understand the nature of humans. The idea that we are perfectible and that education will eliminate racism is not sufficient. In my last blog I discussed the work of Emerson and Sikkink which strongly suggests that education merely aids us in hiding our racial preference, rather than curing us of that bias.
My faith, and the notion of human depravity connected to that faith, is relevant here. Human depravity explains that humans, both whites and non-whites will manipulate racial situations to their advantage. Whites will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. People of color will come up with solutions to racial problems that better suit what they want. As a result we spend more time arguing with one another than finding solutions that work.
It was this insight, given to me by my faith, which led me eventually to develop a mutual accountability approach to racial issues. That approach is one which seeks commonality rather than contention. To totally flesh out this approach in the small space a blog provides is not feasible. I am fortunate to have published Transcending Racial Barriers (Oxford University Press) which discusses the approach more completely. Basically we argued that to deal with racial issues we need to take proactive steps of recognizing our bias for solutions that help our own group, listen to the perspectives others may have, and then work to find a solution that people of all races can live with.
Simple huh? But surprisingly I have previously found no such approach in the literature of race and ethnicity. It was my faith and understanding of human depravity which allowed me to think through racial issues in a way to develop a balanced approach. Most people do not think about racial alienation as an issue that religion has something to say about. This is especially the case if we are supposed to be scholars who understand society. But my faith has been indispensable in thinking through racial issues.
I have gone this far into racial issues to illustrate a larger point. My sociology or faith does not operate in a vacuum. They reinforce and inform each other. They make each other stronger. I am a Christian and a sociologist. Those are not contradictions in terms. They are only contradictions when we create ridiculous definitions of Christianity and sociology. They are only seen as direct oppositions when vested interest groups among Christians and sociologists decide that it is to their advantage to have a convenient scape goat to blame the world’s problems on. But when applied in the right way my Christianity and sociology can work to solve those problems instead of merely finger point at those we disagree with.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker

Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 3

It may not be a surprise that a social scientist can allow his studies to inform his faith. Science is often seen as "truth" while faith is seen as "opinion." But I do not agree with that viewpoint. I see both science and religion as different, but valid, ways of accumulating knowledge. So if my Christianity can be informed by my sociology then my sociology can be informed by my Christianity.

My sociology often provides me with an understanding of how society, and the individuals in it, works. But my Christianity is helpful about informing me on the nature of humans. It gives me a perspective that I would not necessarily see as a pure social scientist. In fact, I think a lot of social scientists have missed the boat as it comes to understanding the nature of humans. My faith tells me about human depravity. It talks about being born into sin and our innate selfish nature. In contrast to the notion of human depravity is the idea which I see among so many social scientists which is human perfectibility. Many of my colleagues believe that we are not innately depraved and that with enough education and training that we can develop a healthy morality. I guess it makes sense that they would have such a perspective since it allows scholars and educators to gain status as those who will play a key role in perfecting humans and society. But the evidence I see supports the idea that we are born with an innate selfish nature not easily changed through human efforts.
It is rather easy to show that we are born with a selfish or self-centerness in our nature. Ever watch a baby? A baby merely wants more and more. He or she has no concept of giving to others. A baby, as cute as he or she may be, is a great example of human depravity. But can we train that baby and create the perfectible moral being that some desire for our society? We can to some extent. But there are serious limitations to what we can do.
The key way many academics believe we are perfectible is through education. But, two of my friends, Michael Emerson and David Sikkink, made an interesting discovery several years ago. They found out that the more education whites obtained the more likely that they said they supported racial integration in neighborhoods and schools. However, they also found that the more education whites obtained the less likely they were to live in integrated neighborhoods and send their kids to integrated schools. Those educated whites talk a good game about racial integration but their actions work against the very integration they profess to desire. It is as if their education taught them what to say on surveys, but also how to maintain the racial status quo that works to their advantage. Education does not create a better person, but simply teach that person how to do a better job presenting his/herself to society.
Education is unable to "prefect" humans because of our basic nature. This is where human depravity can enlighten us about who we are. My Christianity has informed me that while we can get better that there is an element of depravity that cannot be removed by human efforts. It can, and must, be controlled. Ideally it may be controlled through personal efforts at becoming moral but if necessary we need laws and social sanctions to control that depravity. In my every day experience I consistently find the idea of human depravity to be a better explanation for what I see than the idea that humans are perfectible. I thank my Christianity for this valuable insight. It is one that does not come naturally to social scientists who, after all, have a vested interest in believing that they can “fix” society if individuals will accept the training offered by these scientists.
Does this insight shape how I do my work? Of course it does. It informs my sociology by allowing me to be a holistic person of mind and spirit. In the last entry to this series I will look at a specific way in which my faith informs my sociology even as my sociological training has given me skills to better hone my faith. And we will see this in an area that is not automatically seen as being "religious."

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 2

Okay so can a Christian benefit from sociology? I like to think so. It is my chosen discipline. I do not want to think that what I study has little meaning to my faith.
So how can sociology inform my Christianity? When I first became a Christian I was surrounded by a lot of wonderful people. They were incredibly kind and loving. But they were also very politically conservative and I just did not agree with them on all of those issues. Naturally, I had to wonder if I was wrong and needed to just accept their perspectives.
But then I started studying sociology. I began to see what was happening. My Christian friends tended to have a very individualistic way of looking at the world. I am not saying that the way they look at the world is wrong. I rather say that it is incomplete. My studies as a sociologist showed me the importance of social structures in shaping our social reality. I tend to look to both individual's volition and social structures to understand why things happen in our society. My Christian friends tend to only look at our volition or free will to explain social actions. My differences with them often were shaped around our social and political disagreements.
The best way to illustrate this is with my expertise in race and ethnicity. My Christian friends tend to look at racism as something that individuals perpetuate. I know that racism is something that individuals can possess but that institutional racism is a problem as well. Institutional racism creates problems for people of color even if people themselves are not racist. Institutional racism require institutional solutions such as laws or governmental regulations. Those are the solutions that many of my friends tend to ignore since they only see racism as a problem due to individual sin.
This shows a new perspective my sociology has given me. It has shown me that sin is not just something that individuals engage in. It is also something that societies have as well. There is something known as social justice we should be concerned about. Some well-meaning Christians dismiss the notion of social justice. To be fair I have seen people who are so unbalanced in their promotion of the idea of social justice that they distort individual responsibility. Any good concept can become distorted when it is not balanced by other concerns. But for me being concerned with societal concerns is vital. Sin is not just something individuals can do but it also is something that can be perpetrated by social institutions.
I think of my sociology as something that helps to complete my Christianity. It gives me a more holistic approach to my faith. I am not arrogant enough to state that all Christians need an appreciation of sociology to complete their faith. But I do wish that more Christians would learn more about social structures and the way they impact us. I guess I am enough of a sociologist to believe that we all can benefit from the ideas in sociology, even if we all do not need a doctorate in it.
So my Christian faith is informed and I think made better by my sociology. But the opposite is true as well. My sociology is also informed by my Christianity.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can Christianity and Sociology Mix? - Part 1

In my Twitter account I describe myself as "Just a Christian black sociologist trying to make his way in the world." Well the black part is pretty clear but one might wonder about the Christian sociologist part. I mean can a person be a sociologist and a Christian at the same time? If not then am I just an walking living contradiction. Is my existence just a joke on rationality? Whoa. That is too heavy. Let me just look at the Christian and sociology mixture.
Now on the surface there does not seem to be a contradiction between a religious belief and an occupation. I mean as a Christian can I not be any occupation I want as long as it is legal? (I did try being a Christian drug dealer once but that just did not work out). Of course I can. So there should not be a contradiction between being a Christian who works and a sociology researcher and teacher.
Furthermore, can not a sociology have any religious belief he wants. There is not a religious test for being a sociologist is there. (Well not an official religious test. Read my book "Compromising Scholarship" for unofficial ways there may be a religious test in academia). So if there is no religious expectations upon being a sociology then where is the contradiction?
The contradiction seems to have developed because of the way sociology has historically developed. The institution of sociology developed in concert with what has been called the Enlightenment movement. This movement marshaled a great deal of resistance to the religious institutions of its day. (This is bit of an oversimplification, but hey this is a blog, not a term paper.) The early sociologist understood the social conflict between those claiming science and those claiming religion and understandably they choose to support the forces claiming science.
One has to be naive not to think that such an origin would not effect the way sociology is practiced today. The materialist groundings in much of sociology works in opposition to the otherworldly assumptions of Christianity and other religious ideologies. I felt this many times in graduate school with my fellow graduate student friends. I loved my friends but had to conceptually deal with their ideologies that operated to counter my religious beliefs. Likewise I often had to hear ideas from my Christian friends that did not comport with my understanding of sociological knowledge.
Then a funny thing happened on my way to professorship. I learned how to use my sociology to make my Christianity better and my Christianity to make my sociology better. In doing so I did become what I am today - a Christian sociologist. I do not think that Christianity and sociology are like oil and water. They can mix and even strengthen each other. My sociology can inform my Christianity and my Christianity can inform my sociology. Maybe because I allow them to inform each other is why I have become the trouble-maker that I am today. Anyway in the remaining blogs in this series I will try to illustrate how they can and do inform each other. Until then.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker