Proud and Mighty?

We are the proud and mighty Warriors
We are the team that fights to win.
We will go onward seeking victory
With the spirit from within
We have the will to stand behind them
As we go on to victory!
Stand tall Warriors
Hail our proud team
Onward blue, gold, green!

To the best of my recollection, that is how the Aloha High School fight song went. 

I could have looked it up, but I want to make the point that after graduating in 1990 I can still sing it. I managed sports teams for eight seasons, so I was at a lot of games. I think it is fair to say that I was as devoted as anyone to the team.

How does that relate to dominator culture? The are talking about changing the school mascot.

While "warrior" can mean many things, in this case the mascot is a Hawaiian one, clearly based on artwork depicting King Kamehameha. 

Some years ago, the district (it could have been on a statewide level) was looking at changing native mascots. For example, Mountain View Junior High changed from the Braves to the Mountaineers.

It's been a while, but I remember reading an article at the time and them saying they were not sure about Aloha's Warrior, because it was not Native American.

As the discussions go on, the thing that I keep posting -- over and over again -- is that it has been shown time and time again that having Native American mascots is damaging for Native American students. 

I remember initially reading about white students dumping drinks over the heads of Native American students at games. More recently, scholarship seems to focus on how it affects the sense of belonging and self-image of the Native students:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-15304-003

Well, something that encourages students to be more racist is unlikely to be good for the self-image of the targets of that racism.

Certainly there will be some people who will want to protect children no matter what, and some who will say "Toughen up!"

That leads to something else interesting; Native American mascots do increase the sense of belonging for those who are more racist: 

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/when-the-school-mascot-is-native-american-stereotype

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103118304311

That may be relevant to this other example, showing that bias against Native Americans spikes when mascots are removed:

https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/12/16/bias-against-native-americans-spikes-when-mascots-are-removed/

There is a lot to unpack here. 

I don't even care so much about the part about racist mascots making alumni less likely to donate to the school, but I know there will be school administrators who care about that.

I will make two points now, and then there will be other posts.

1. Many former students are not taking this proposed change (they are only talking about talking about it now) very badly. It reminds me of the claims of childhoods being ruined any time a popular franchise gets more diversity in its cast, or a superheroine gets a more practical/less sexy outfit.

2. For the question of whether appropriating Hawaiian imagery is comparable to appropriating images from the Native Americans for the continental United States... I think the fact that the U.S. military overthrew a sovereign kingdom led by the interests of missionaries and businessmen, allowing for the continued commercial and cultural exploitation of the native population, leading many to lose their hereditary land, and where things like the overuse of water by tourism interests resulted in devastating fires that will cause even more natives to lose their land... 

There may be some correlation.

That's not even getting into the boarding schools.

An Introduction to Dominator Culture

A model of society where fear and force maintain rigid understandings of power and superiority within a hierarchical structure.

I first saw the term "dominator culture" in the writing of bell hooks.

She didn't even do much to explain it there, but the phrase just hit me: "That's it!"

I saw many problems that could be traced to racism, but it wasn't always racism. Sometimes it was sexism, or class.

"Patriarchy" sometimes seemed like a better word. It gets used a lot, and it is often accurate.

But then sometimes you notice it isn't a straight top-down model. 

I came across the word "kyriarchy", which can be a set of connecting social systems built on oppression. That came from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in her book But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation.

Honestly, the book doesn't have much on kyriarchy. There is a chart, but it is still pretty vertical.

(The book is more a work of exegesis -- critical interpretation or explanation of a scriptural text -- going over the different versions of the Syrophoenician woman requesting healing for her daughter. As far as that goes it is pretty interesting, but it was not what I had been looking for.)

Even racism seemed pretty clear, but then there is how it gets internalized, and how there is racism plus anti-Blackness, which maybe makes "white supremacy" the overarching concept, but then there is still misogyny and misogynoir.

The common thread was that there were those who had a position above others that allowed them to feel superior. Even when they were not openly abusive they would allow oppression to occur. Maybe they felt vaguely threatened, or doubted that things could be that bad for others if it they were not personally experiencing it.

So for that phrase "dominator culture"... okay, that could be any power system, and it does not get enforced merely by those at the top because having someone below them placates even those who are relatively far down but still not at the bottom.

The term itself comes from systems scientist and author Riane Eisler, popularized in her book The Chalice and the Blade (1987).

I recently saw the movie Origin, based on Elizabeth Wilkerson's book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents (2020) and her writing progress. 

If you have read it (or seen the movie), it may make more sense for you to use the word "caste" instead of "dominator culture", and that's fine.

I stick with "dominator culture" because of that moment when I first encountered it and my feelings about how perfectly it fit. It made a strong impression on me that still reverberates years later.

It is normal that there will be lots of other words that come up as we look at specific interactions, between individuals and within a society. There are lots of examples and we can spend a lot of time on it. All of those other words that may not describe the whole may still be completely accurate for various facets.

There are two things that I want to point out first, and they are part of what makes it so insidious.

First, even if you are more consciously aware of who is above you, that less conscious awareness of those below you is easily threatened. 

Adherence to the status quo is going to benefit the existing power structure. People have a strong discomfort when that status quo is attacked, even mildly. It tends to be emotional rather than intellectual, and it is hard to get people to face it.

Going along with that, we do not think about how much we take it for granted.

I read about The Chalice and the Blade before I read it, and saw that the opposite was "partnership culture". 

That gave me low expectations; is it really so helpful if the people in charge are a married couple instead of just the husband?

It's not about that. It's just people being equal and supported.

Here's another thought for you; what is the opposite of patriarchy? 

We immediately think "matriarchy", with the women in charge, but what if it's not automatically like that?

More equal societies are generally called matriarchal, usually because some things are passed down along matrilineal lines. Maybe another factor is that we associate patriarchy so much with oppression that we think that the only other option is to give the power to the other gender, but still based on gender. 

To be fair, if you are passing down hereditary things from father to son, with paternity being a key issue, it is easy for that to require control of women. Maybe it makes sense that it becomes oppressive, but is it necessary?

What if people just fill different roles based on their skills and their interests and needs?

Can we even picture that?

The difference

I have mentioned previously that I don't enjoy church as much as I used to.

Egotistically (perhaps), I blame that on the other members.

I remember a time when it seemed like talks and lessons were all more spiritual, and the people were just the best. It was a pleasure to learn and socialize with them.

That actually started changing a long time ago, but I have been thinking more about the reasons.

It's been over a decade since I was in a singles ward, but I remember noticing the change there, gradually.

I remember thinking it was because the population had gotten so much younger. 

Now, when I first started going to Canyon Road Ward, I was eighteen, so I may have overestimated the ages of some of the other members. There was a fairly large contingent of dental students, but that would probably still be early 20s.

As I got older and the general population of the ward stayed in their early 20s, I did notice a shallowness, but attributed it to age.

People were not as service-focused, and more self-absorbed, so it made sense that they wouldn't be as spiritual. I guess I thought they needed more time.

You can become more caring of the needs of others as you get older. but it doesn't happen automatically.

You can also put other people's needs too much over your own. There is a balance to be achieved, and it doesn't happen easily, but it seemed to be happening less and less. What was the cause of that?

There could be several reasons that people are generally more selfish and less spiritual; there are many currents in society that could contribute to that. There was one thought that was more disturbing to me, which is probably why I am writing about this now.

I have told this story before, but I don't think it was on this blog.

When I was a child there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes. It must have been the Green River Killer for this particular story, but there have been a few notorious cases.

Someone I knew and loved from church said it looked like someone had decided to do some cleaning up. 

I was disturbed by it, but I was also sure that if she was confronted with a prostitute in need that she would see their humanity and help. She might not sympathize in the abstract, but in the personal, I believed she would.

I still think and hope I was right about that, but I have started to wonder if part of the new hardness of heart is that we are confronted by differences so much. Was it easier for church members of the 70s and 80s to be loving and kind because we were all so homogeneous? And that was not just at church.

I am influenced by growing up in Oregon, which has historically been very white. When I was younger, it was more common for gay people to stay closeted.

I hate philosophy, but I read a fair amount of it because sometimes I believe it's important to understand the influences and the points of view. 

Often, their end goal seems to be to produce stability (at least with political philosophy), but it is amazing how often their answer for that is to make everyone more similar, as if we can't handle getting along with people who are different from us in some way.

This is my long and roundabout way of wondering whether the reason that some church members are such jerks -- especially about gay people or racism or any other bigotry-adjacent subject -- is because they have to admit they exist and previously they didn't need to?

And the corollary to that is that while I have mentioned dominator culture here and there, I want to spend some time being explicit on it.

Being here

There is a parable of laborers in the vineyard where more workers keep joining later, and they get the same pay. The early laborers expected that their pay rate would be raised, compared to the others.

(Matthew 20:1-16)

One thing I have always thought with it is that the earliest workers were blessed for having more time in the vineyard; there is joy and peace in that. 

No, maybe not if it is literal harvesting of grapes or olives. I have harvested grapes and it can be hot and dirty, and come with muscle aches as you keep going.

However, if we are looking at it as having knowledge of the Gospel, having the gift of the Holy Ghost, having faith, hope, and charity... that is a blessing.

I am happier having that.

There are factors that I know may not be universal.

I have a fairly cheerful disposition, and rebound from disappointments pretty quickly, most of the time. That is not true for everyone, and it is probably a factor that makes things easier for me.

At the same time, I feel like my relationship with Heavenly Father and the influence of the Holy Ghost are a part of that resilience. I have times that are tough and hurt a lot. Faith is not an anesthetic, but it does help make things bearable.

My sisters and I are tired all the time. There may be other reasons, but I think part of it is this slow loss of our mother. It wears us down, but we don't despair over it.

That may be a blessing of discipleship.

We have one friend who sees the potential for people to not be interested in church membership because of all of the work, from church attendance to fulfilling callings.

I don't see it that way.

I mean, we have had many Sundays where we did not make it to church on time. Right now, with two of us working on Relief Society activities, nights when there are activities are lost nights. 

So, I do get it, but also I find it rewarding. 

Well, not church -- not as much as I would like it to be (that is a change) -- but visiting teaching and ministering and callings have all been good things for me. I have learned things and developed talents and built friendships, and I think there is a lot to enjoy there.

Of course, a lot of people don't do them, but I think they are missing out.

Now, there is one other area where I think I have it easier, and this is a hotter subject. 

I don't have any immediate relatives who are LGBTQIA+.

I had not thought of it so much until a friend asked me if I had any advice for something related to their child. I felt a little bad that I did not have much to offer, but I realized the potentially good part of that is that I don't have to guard anyone. There might be times when others need to limit their words to protect a child; but not me.

(I have written this before, but I decided a long time ago that while I have no plans to leave, if at some point excommunication comes up and it feels like my integrity dictates that I accept that, I will.)

So I know people for whom it would be much harder to feel comfortable at church, and who have had other members actively work against their comfort. I hate that, but I do not face the same impact. While there are people that I care about a lot, none of them are people that I feel compelled to protect. (Yes, that could change, but it still won't be parental.)

What I am leading toward is that there should be joy in your faith, even with the pain. 

There are things that can make it very hard to feel that joy.

If that is due to other people, it may be hard to fix, but if there is something in you that needs to change, work on that, for your sake and for the sake of the joy.

And if you are not sure, this is an area where you can seek wisdom.

For all of our own imperfections -- individually and collectively -- God is perfect and can make up the difference.