In the narrative of the Gospels Jesus’ activities
transpire in social space. The use of proxemics[1]
by Jesus in his social and cultural interactions deviates from the cultural
norms of his time. According to Edward T. Hall, Anthropologist and
Cross-cultural researcher, there are four areas of space and culture. His
conclusion is that within these four spaces human beings create personalities,
communications and culture. The four spaces Hall references are: public,
social, personal, and intimate.[2]
In first century Palestine there were culturally sanctioned norms amid the
pluralistic society. Gary Ferraro, Professor of Anthropology, asserts, “Every
society has defined what it considers to be normal, proper, or expected ways of
behaving. These expectations serve as behavioral guidelines that help society
work smoothly.”[3]
Through the exercise of the social norms via relational interactions a person’s
social importance is established. Concerning “social space” Morse concludes
that within social interactions social control is developed. She writes,
“Therefore, interactions in social spaces define who is seen and heard and
valued, and who is not, who has power and who does not. Power is not brought
into social space as an abstract concept.”[4]
In other words a person’s social clout is established through the use of social
space and proxemics. In this portion of the study the question is asked, did
Jesus deviate from socially normative behavior in order to engage marginalized
people?
It is necessary here to briefly address the issue of
collectivist and individualist cultures. The general audience reading this
study is oriented toward Western culture with its predisposition toward
individualism.[5]
There is a significant difference between collectivist and individualist
cultures. David Myers gives a description of the individualist culture as
centered upon the individual’s rights, values and pursuits apart from the
general or greater culture. He writes, “. . . this peculiarly American idea
(individualism) does find support in recent studies of optimism, achievement
motivation, internal ‘locus of control,’ and self-efficacy.”[6]
He also notes the relationship of individualism with democracy, “Individualism
supports democracy by stimulating initiative, creativity, and equal rights for
all individuals.”[7] An
example of the individualism is the rampant materialism and consumerism
existing in western culture. Western civilization has the individual as the
apex of cultural values not the collective society. Myers writes, “Western
cultures nurture individualism.”[8]
This is the native perception of the western cultural reader. Collectivist
cultural values are distinctive from individualist cultural values and present
a conflict in perspective.
Collectivist
cultures, according to Myers, value the greater good of the community over the
individual. The collectivist motto, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs
of the few,”[9]
gives a clear perspective of collectivist ideology. Myers writes, “Collectivist
cultures give priority to the goals and welfare of their groups – their family,
their clan, and their work group.”[10]
In collectivist cultures the value of solidarity, loyalty and harmony flow as a
deep current in the culture. An example of the collectivism in action is the
sustained generational family that lives together for the benefit of all the
members: as compared to the individualist culture that espouses the highest
value is loyalty to oneself. Myers goes onto describe collectivist cultures,
“Collectivist also do favors for one another and, remembering who has done
favors for them, make reciprocation an art. In their cultures, no one is an
island. The self is not independent but interdependent.”[11]
Collectivist cultures seek to operate in a holistic cultural environment and
not an individualist environment.
When
addressing the issue of Jesus’ interactions in social spaces, it must be remembered
that the Judaic culture is based in collectivism and not individualism. The
activities of Jesus in the narrative of the Gospels flow from this cultural
nuance of collectivism. In each of the previous scenes the prevailing cultural
pressure is to maintain the status quo of the community. The issue for Jesus is
the cultural status quo in the communal collectivism of Judaism that has been
rendered compassionless, self-centered and self-promoting. His earlier
declaration in Luke 4, Jesus is proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor. The
Gospel, the good news, is for those who are marginalized and outcast from the
community. Jesus’ practices and strategies challenge the cultural status quo to
transform and adapt to the presence of the Kingdom of God in the midst of
Israel.
Cultural change is difficult and complex mainly due
to human perception[12]
because culture surrounds all human society. People are immersed in their
culture as a swimmer is immersed in water or like a person riding a bike
functions as one with it. The flow of culture upon those who are within it goes
almost unnoticed by the occupants. Jesus enters his culture and has an
intuitive awareness of his deviance to the social construct as he challenges
the status quo to change and engage the Kingdom of God from a new perspective
and way.Jesus intentionally deviated from the cultural norms of shunning the unclean and marginalized amid Judaic culture. His deviance was a direct response in correcting unequal social relationships and injustices experienced by the marginalized who suffer at the hands of the status quo. Morse asserts, “Jesus’ use of power drew into visibility, into the eyesight of the crowd, the stewardship of honour to the marginalized.”[13] Her study goes on to examine the struggle within social space for power. She draws out the prevailing social issue of using social power for self promotion or social clout, where as the Jesus’ practices and strategies deviate by not seeking self promotion, but the restoration of others through the use of social clout. Morse writes, “Jesus used these social events to redistribute power and to challenge traditional views of value and honour.”[14] Jesus’ practices and strategies, particularly in the use of social space, are counterintuitive in the cultural setting. The characters in the events find themselves in different social positions due to the reality of Jesus redistributing the social clout.
The writer of Luke narrates what could be considered a shocking event in Luke 7:36-50. Morse uses this specific event to emphasis the Jesus model of using social space as redemptive space. In this event the appropriate welcoming rituals were not extended to Jesus. Simon, who understands the laws and codes, appears too purposefully omit the ritual in order to set up a challenge of Jesus’ honor. The woman appears in the story and observes that the proper ritual has not been extended to Jesus. She acts to make up for what Simon neglected to perform by supplying tears for water to wash Jesus’ feet, dries his feet with her hair, kisses and anoints his feet. In response Jesus compared the hospitality of the woman with Simons. Morse asserts,
Jesus’ uses of her public
actions also suggested that she became the righteous one, rather than Simon, as
she was the one bestowing the hospitality. Simon, the righteous Pharisee,
became the sinner, who acted to preserve his own status at the expense of Jesus
and the women. Simon lost status. Jesus exercised his power and lost nothing.[15]
Morse’ observation that the reversal of positions of
‘sinner’ and ‘righteous’ between Simon and the woman was due to Jesus’ use of
his proxemics. The examples presented in this study, and there are many more
that could addressed, of the gospel writers presents the perspective that Jesus
deviated from the Judaic cultural norms and conventional wisdom. His practices
and strategies were in the form of the Positive Deviance Approach, in order to
challenge and bring awareness of the inequities and injustices marginalized
people and groups experienced at the hands of the mainline culture or the
status quo. Morse concludes, “Wherever Jesus traveled, he used his power to
catalyze a re-formation of thinking about hospitality, outsiders,
interpretation of the law, economic systems, and the practice of the religious
system.”[16]
The marginalized are valued in the perspective of Jesus and are the focus of
God’s favor.
[1] “Proxemics,” a
term coined by Hall meaning “hidden dimension” is the study of how humans use
space (Edward Hall, The Hidden Dimension, New York: Random House,
1969/1990). In 1968, Forston and Larson described proxemics as “the distance
that man consciously or unconsciously maintains between himself and another
person while relating physically to others with whom he is interacting.” Robert
Forston and Charles Larson, “The Dynamics of Space: An Experimental Study in
Proxemic Behavior Among Latin Americans and North Americans,” The Journal of
Communication 18, (June 1968): 109-116. The study of proxemics has
evolved into more sophisticated designations. See Stephen W. Littlejohn and
Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication (Boston, MA: Thomson
Wadsworth Communication, 2005), 107–108; Setha M. Low and Denise
Lawrence-Zúñiga, The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture (Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing, 2003).
[2] Edward
Twitchell Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Peter Smith Pub, 1992), 117–124.
[3] Gary
P. Ferraro, Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective (Thomson
Wadsworth, 2006), 305.
[4]
Morse, “Jesus’
Use of Social Power in Honour-Shame Conflicts - Crucible 1-2 October 2008.pdf,”
1.
[5] Myers,
The American Paradox, 162.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 163.
[9]
The collectivist saying appears to have its roots from Caiaphas, the high
priest. In John 11:49-50, “Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to
them, ‘You know nothing at all! You do
not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people
than to have the whole nation destroyed.’”
[10] Myers, 164.
[11] Myers,
The American Paradox, 169.
[12] Ferraro, Cultural
Anthropology, 405- 429.
[13]
Morse, 9.
[14] “Jesus’
Use of Social Power in Honour-Shame Conflicts - Crucible 1-2 October 2008.pdf,”
6.
[15] Ibid., 8.
[16] Ibid., 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment