Patriotism verses Politics

Is patriotism inevitably political?  As I’ve learned what Provo has in store this year for its annual Freedom Festival I’ve been surprised at how political it all seems.  Though I initially wished the city had gone in a more ideologically neutral direction, I’ve also been wondering lately if such a direction even exists.   

 

This year’s Freedom Festival includes a few things that strike me as overtly political.  For example, when I received the free Freedom Festival Magazine in the mail I was surprised to see the words “Family, Freedom, God, Country” printed just below the title.  In retrospect I probably shouldn’t have been surprised.  Provo, Utah, is supposedly one of the most conservative places in the nation, and I know there is a whole segment of the population that has no problem whatsoever with intertwining ideas about God, family, and country.  Moreover, while some people might make the argument that these words aren’t in themselves all that political, I would disagree.  They are keystones of the conservative lexicon and thusly connote the ideology that lexicon is commonly used to propagate.  If nothing else there are also many people who would feel that “God” shouldn’t be construed with “country” (atheists are only one, obvious example), and I think the recent controversy over Proposition 8 has revealed the political weight of a word like “family.”

 

If the language used to describe Provo’s Freedom Festival left a faintly sour taste in my mouth, the performer list for the Stadium of Fire (which is a concert, firework show, and big part of the Freedom Festival held in BYU’s football stadium) left me in stunned silence.  Of course the event includes the usual list of generic pop stars (this year it’s the Jonas Brothers), but in this case it also includes Glenn Beck.  When I discovered this fact I realized I had apparently been under the wrong impression all these years; I thought the Stadium of Fire was supposed to be wholesome family fun.  Bringing in Glenn Beck (a kind of poor-man’s Rush Limbaugh who, like Rush, peddles in the basest kind of demagoguery) clearly politicizes the event.  I don’t care what he says during his performance, as a political figure he inevitably brings all the baggage of his public persona.  In that light, I would never bring my family to listen to someone like Beck and its no wonder that this year’s event still isn’t sold out. 

 

Despite my personal frustration, the point here isn’t really to single out Provo’s Freedom Festival but to use it as an illustration: one person or group’s idea of a  (non-political) celebration can also be another’s definition of an offensively partisan activity.  In this light it’d be easy to see other, less overtly political, performers at the Freedom Festival as expressions of one ideology or another.  Someone like Miley Cyrus (who came in 2008) may seem fairly benign, but she does represent certain values and those values would be both painfully apparent and offensive to people who don’t agree with them. 

 

So is it possible to celebrate patriotism without politics?  More specifically, is it possible to find activities that accurately represent all, or at least most, members of a given community?  I don’t know, but as I perused the list of performers from previous Stadium of Fire celebrations the answer seems to be a qualified no.  In each case I can easily imagine people whose values would not be represented by the performers.  (In fact in almost every case I can think of specific people in my actual community who would object to the guests and what they represent.)  Because every statement, public figure, or event brings with it an ideological baggage, and because no community is ideologically homogenous, celebrations that purport to represent “our values” or “our community” end up being political statements that alienate people as well.  In the end then, patriotism and politics may not be the same thing, but if recent events in Provo are any indication, they are inextricably intertwined.

Living With Family

Ever since the financial meltdown last year I’ve seen a lot of down-on-their-luck stories on various news websites.  Not surprisingly, one of the stories that keeps coming up describes people who have lost their homes and are forced to move in with family members.  While I don’t doubt the difficulty of this situation or the heartbreak of losing a home, I’ve also begun to wonder if concentrating a large, extended family in one location is such a bad thing after all. 

 

Most people I know in the U.S. eventually strike out on their own.  For example, I left home when I was eighteen and though I didn’t become financially independent for a number of years, I also never moved back.  In fact the idea of moving back home and living with my parents is a little bit disturbing to me.  This pattern and mentality seem fairly typical.  Not only that, they seem to represent the desirable norm; its not hard to think of people (fictional or not) who live with their parents and are thusly looked down on.

 

Even if this is the standard pattern in the U.S. today, it isn’t as common in other parts of the world or in the past.  My first hand experiences in Brazil and Great Briton, as well as my understanding of history, lead me to believe that a more common worldwide (and historical) pattern is for people to live with or near their parents for generation after generation.  If that fact doesn’t necessarily change what we contemporary Americans want to do, it at least indicates that people can lead happy, fulfilling lives whether they strike out on their own or live close to home.

 

The question as I see it then, is if adults are better off living in larger family units or only with their partners (and children).  In my case, after having been conditioned all my life to look down on living with my family, I imagine it would be difficult to ever return home.  However, if we as a society began to look more critically at this idea and see its possible advantages I think we might  find that those advantages may outweigh any sacrifices.  Obviously living in larger numbers means less privacy, personal freedom, and personal space.  On the other hand it may also mean less loneliness, greater division of labor, and a stronger family culture.  It may just be possible that the pros of living with family outweigh the cons. 

 

Ultimately Americans seem to conceive of themselves in highly individualistic terms.  As long as we continue to think that way, any loss of individuality will seem like a disaster.  Having to give up the freedom of financial prosperity (and the homes that prosperity provides) will be a dehumanizing experience that robs people of their identity and makes them a burden on those around them.  (It’s no surprise, then, that many of the stories about the economic crisis have focused on the disruption that adult offspring cause in the lives of their parents, as well as the tendency to revert back to adolescent behavior once at home.)

 

However, I think that it’s possible to see ourselves not as detached individuals but as members of larger communities and/or families.  This probably won’t make losing a job or a home less painful, but it may mitigate the impact on people’s self-perception and the difficulty of living with family.  In other words, if we conceive of ourselves as members of a family or community first, and homeowners or professionals second, our identity will no longer be based on the caprice of the capitalist economy.  What’s more, if we start to think of ourselves in this way living with our families starts to seem like less of a set back and more of a return to our homelands and our heritage.   

Boy Scouts of Where?

The Daily Universe (my college newspaper) recently published a front-page article discussing the relevancy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).  As an Eagle Scout myself, the article got me thinking about my own involvement with BSA, as well as some of the things that I’ve subsequently come to see as objectionable about the organization.   

One of the most common criticisms leveled at the Boy Scouts is that the organization is outdated.  This seems painfully obvious to me.  Of course ideas like honesty or hard work that scouting tries to instill may always be relevant.   However, scouting’s method for teaching these ideas is simply absurd.  Things like merit badges and the recitation of pledges, oaths, and slogans are completely foreign to most people’s experience.  I’d also argue that they’re useless.  One of the people the Daily Universe quoted made a good point: why do we need an orienteering merit badge if we all have access to a GPS?  Taking this argument one step further, even if our iPhones are missing or out of battery power, are we really going to pull out a compass and map?  For that matter, how many times will we find ourselves lost in a place that has no people, signs, or even roads?  I don’t think I’ve ever been in that situation, and I can’t imagine why I would be. 

Other aspects of scouting seem even more ridiculous.  For example, the uniforms.  I genuinely have no idea why BSA has stuck to what looks like something little boys would use to play army in the 19^th century, unless it’s to humiliate the scouts.  Seriously, what’s with the neckerchief?  And (short) shorts with tall green and red socks?  Is this really the best they can do? 

Of course, while there are a bunch of silly outdated aspects of scouting, the real problem is much more insidious.  At best, BSA sees a very narrow, homogenous version of the United States.  That vision doesn’t include, for example, atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.  At worst, however, BSA combines this flagrant discrimination with hyper-conservative jingoism that uses faux-military structures to indoctrinate young children.  Pledges and oaths aren’t just outdated in a pedagogical sense, but actually require children to submit unthinkingly to powers they likely don’t understand.  When these activities are combined with religion (as is the case in the LDS church, among others), the results amount to coerced spirituality.

 

While I’m obviously no fan of the Boy Scouts of America, I am also in the paradoxical position of having to admit that sometimes I also had a lot of fun as a scout.  Going to scout camps I had the chance to canoe, shoot rifles and bows and arrows, go climbing, and visit a number of places I wouldn’t otherwise have seen.  When I was a teenager my parents sent me to the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which was fun and educational (during that trip we also visited Washington D.C. and other nearby cities).  Our weekly activities were also memorable.  For example, one time we went to the hospital, where our leader let us touch a human brain. 

The question, then, is if the many negative aspects are enough to outweigh the positive opportunities that the program affords.  This is a hard question to answer.  If I could go back I would not participate in what I see as an offensive institution.  Yet, I’d also be loath to surrender some of the experiences I had.  I also think that some of the activites we did actually accomplished good things.  My Eagle Scout project, for example, probably did benefit someone (even if I did it for all the wrong reasons).  I certainly wouldn’t want to undo that. 

The answer, I think, is that BSA is obsolete, but some of the activities it provides aren’t.  Consequently, those organizations that are currently affiliated with BSA should sever that affiliation and fill the resulting void with other youth programs.  In the LDS church participation in scouting is more or less obligatory, as I assume it is in other organizations.  All that energy that LDS members put into scouting could very easily be diverted into more productive and relevant activities.  If this doesn’t happen organizations like churches run the risk of having their policies and beliefs defined by outside parties.  For example, I’d hate to think that I’m required to believe in the BSA’s particular brand of intolerance, yet if I am all but forced to participate (as LDS young men are) that’s essentially what happens. 

 

Ultimately, I don’t think that scouting provides any opportunities that can’t be had from church and community involvement instead.  Things like the Eagle Scout award didn’t end up giving me great employment and educational opportunities (as I was led to believe), because most people in the U.S. seem to have written scouting off as an outdated eccentricity.  As I’ve moved beyond my teen years and experienced more of the world, I’ve realized that the narrow vision scouting projects isn’t very realistic or desirable.  Instead, the Boy Scouts don’t represent America, but rather a desperate clinging to objectionable parts of American’s history.