The Award Saga Continues...
Well, today the Eisegesis came out (the unofficial, student newspaper here at my seminary), with my little tongue-in-cheek article about how I didn't really appreciate how the recipients and of each scholarship, and the scholarship type/amount, were publicly named and pictured in our seminary's newsletter--mostly it's about how I didn't like how this affected the community. This is on the heels of the petition that I passed around about not announcing the awards, out loud, during the graduation ceremony. So this whole awards thing is one of the conversation topics around the campus.
Here are a few things I've realized, as a result of doing this whole thing:
1) One of the most unhappy results of putting myself out there in this way has been that my stance has been misinterpreted/misunderstood. I think that must be something people who publish their ideas regularly struggle with all the time. People hear about the issue, or read something, and then filter it through their own lens, and then decide what they think I'm saying and why I'm saying it. This is a really hard thing for me, and I have to fight the urge to post a public statement refuting the most common misconceptions about my position. There are 2 main misconceptions.
A-That I'm against honoring people in general, because I think if you honor someone this necessarily means someone else is diminished. and
B-That I'm doing this for the sake of people who don't win awards, so their self-esteem won't be damaged.
These are both very very false (though A is more false than B). I am doing this because I don't think competition is the way we should interact with our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. I ABSOLUTELY believe people should be honored. I think we should be affirming, honoring, and exhorting each other all the time! But the point is, it should not be set up as a competition. And it is not just for people who don't win awards--having a community that is mutually affirming and non-competitive is for the good of EVERYONE, not just people who lose.
2) When you put something in writing, you risk having a typo that kind of messes up what you were trying to say. (The whole last paragraph of my article is supposed to have some key phrases of a Bible verse struck-through and replaced with other phrases next to them, but there is no strike-through...so the paragraph is really awkward and kind of lame...)
3) Even with 1 and 2, I am still really glad this is being talked about. Whether or not it actually happens, I at least feel positively about the fact that the conversation is happening, and people are thinking about it.
4) I really, emphatically believe that Christian community and competition don't mix. In fact, I've decided to do a thorough study of Philippians over the course of the semester, and to delve into Paul's theology of rivalry, competition, and the Christian life. I think I will write something academic on it, just for fun.
5) It has gotten easier for me to take the risk of being in the spotlight when I feel it's necessary, even though I still don't enjoy it. But I'm getting better at accepting the fact that some people will want to tear down anyone who's in the spotlight...and that shouldn't keep me from stepping out when I feel that I need to. Damn though, it sure is stressful.
Here are a few things I've realized, as a result of doing this whole thing:
1) One of the most unhappy results of putting myself out there in this way has been that my stance has been misinterpreted/misunderstood. I think that must be something people who publish their ideas regularly struggle with all the time. People hear about the issue, or read something, and then filter it through their own lens, and then decide what they think I'm saying and why I'm saying it. This is a really hard thing for me, and I have to fight the urge to post a public statement refuting the most common misconceptions about my position. There are 2 main misconceptions.
A-That I'm against honoring people in general, because I think if you honor someone this necessarily means someone else is diminished. and
B-That I'm doing this for the sake of people who don't win awards, so their self-esteem won't be damaged.
These are both very very false (though A is more false than B). I am doing this because I don't think competition is the way we should interact with our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ. I ABSOLUTELY believe people should be honored. I think we should be affirming, honoring, and exhorting each other all the time! But the point is, it should not be set up as a competition. And it is not just for people who don't win awards--having a community that is mutually affirming and non-competitive is for the good of EVERYONE, not just people who lose.
2) When you put something in writing, you risk having a typo that kind of messes up what you were trying to say. (The whole last paragraph of my article is supposed to have some key phrases of a Bible verse struck-through and replaced with other phrases next to them, but there is no strike-through...so the paragraph is really awkward and kind of lame...)
3) Even with 1 and 2, I am still really glad this is being talked about. Whether or not it actually happens, I at least feel positively about the fact that the conversation is happening, and people are thinking about it.
4) I really, emphatically believe that Christian community and competition don't mix. In fact, I've decided to do a thorough study of Philippians over the course of the semester, and to delve into Paul's theology of rivalry, competition, and the Christian life. I think I will write something academic on it, just for fun.
5) It has gotten easier for me to take the risk of being in the spotlight when I feel it's necessary, even though I still don't enjoy it. But I'm getting better at accepting the fact that some people will want to tear down anyone who's in the spotlight...and that shouldn't keep me from stepping out when I feel that I need to. Damn though, it sure is stressful.
posted by bethany at 8:17 PM
2 Comments:
Maybe it would help me to understand your position if you gave an example of what you want the awarding of prizes to look like. I am having a very hard time picturing the non-competitive, affirming of every member of the community method of determining who gets what prizes and scholarships.
I don't know how one sets up a system, other than completely random choice, to decide who gets an award and who doesn't that wouldn't almost immediately become a competition.
I also guess that I am still not part of this community because I had absolutely no idea that the announcing of the scholarships had any affect on the community at all.
in response to megan's comment: it seems like what bethany was saying was that its ok for people to be honored/praised/encouraged, but that this shouldn't take a form that is competitive. but honoring and giving awards/prizes/scholarship isn't the same thing. so, she needn't come up with "non-competitive prizes", but rather non-competitive (and perhaps non prize-like) forms of honoring.
at the same time, perhaps megan is on to something deeper here. first, we do give different treatment to people all the time based on merit. an easy example of this is grades. and it may be that any such merit-based evaluation will involve a kind of comparison and a kind of ranking. after all, the merit-based evaluation is a judgment made relative to typical standards of human capabilities. for example, what counts as an 'a' paper is, in part, a feature of the kinds of papers that humans are typically capable of writing, and hence the kind of papers people can be expected to write. so, if we want to do away with all comparitive type judgments, it may be that we have to do away with all merit-based judgments. this, i think, might be much harder to do than we think, and it might mean giving up things we don't want to to give up.
second, there are cases of limited resources, in which one's merit forms the basis of getting access to resources that others don't have -e.g. merit-based scholarships. there are, of course, also need-based reasons for giving people a special share of resources (we can think here of Rawls' principle of helping the most disadvantaged, or, in a different vein, of Jesus' preference for the poor). in cases of such limited resources, the of merit seems especially tied to ranking/hierarchy, because the point is explicitly to determine the relative merit of the group of people who are eligible.
i wonder if it wouldn't help to keep separate several issues: 1) hierarchy/ranking, 2) competition, 3) value/worth 4)acceptance you might think that hierarchy is ok, but just not competition. you might also think that competition is ok, just so long as it isn't a commentary on one's value/worth. similarly, you might think competition is ok, so long as it doesn't affect the degree to which people are accepted as full memebers of the community. on the other hand, you might think that competition always gets something wrong about worth, or always has the effect of excluding some.
this is, i think, a very interesting issue. and i do hope, bethany, that you will work on the study in paul you have envisioned. i would be eager to read whatever you come up with.
Post a Comment
<< Home