Share This Link

"Share" and "Like" this link and you will be put into a draw and possibly win something... Really???

I see this all the time. And what I think when I see it is that someone has been bought and then sold all of their friends for the possibility of winning some bauble...

Oh, I am sure that some people genuinely like whatever it is they have forced onto my newsfeed, and some people genuinely liked it but only came out of the closet with the possibility of a treat. Some people only care about the prize, and some people like me, will refuse to like whatever it is as soon as you start treating me and my relationships as commodities that can be bought and sold for advertising, regardless of whether we like it or not.

This of course puts me in conundrum, because I am working on starting a business in videography... And as such I am forced to wrestle into practicality the ethics of advertising and marketing and sales in general. The problem is basically that I loathe these fields from the very centre of my being and would literally be more comfortable being a criminal defence lawyer than working in advertising. So perhaps I will begin studying for the LSAT...

I know that to level a critique against advertising is easy and demands something more... I also know that many small local companies are doing good work and working hard within the system we have inherited. I just happen to hate the system and I know this means I need to not merely be critical but propose an alternative style or approach. I think what I want is a more genuine approach that doesn't appeal to people's self interest and rest its presuppositions of utilitarian moral theory. Part of the reason advertising particularly relational advertising works is because people trust their friends - they want to trust their friends... and it is actually relationally damaging to take the perspective I have because in my cynicism I run the risk of interpreting peoples actions very negatively, which may or may not be fair. This ironically betrays that my position also hold utilitarian moral theory as a presupposition and therefore finds it difficult to believe that people "liking" links or pages for prizes has anything other than self interest in mind and therefore find it offensive.

This then is what I am trying to escape: utilitarian moral theory. I want to move toward gift language, gift economics... I think that Radiohead moves in the right direction with the "gift" of their album "In Rainbows" inaugurating "pay what you want." I think this moves humanity in a good direction which expects and values trust and relationship over greed and self interest. Radiohead and others have proven this model is not insane or entirely untenable.

I have a friend who asked me what I thought about trying to apply this model to a manufacturing situation. I said I thought it would be difficult... North Americans don't like flexible pricing or haggling over products. Furthermore, we have been trained to think in utilitarian terms and so to do things differently one must simultaneously risk losses and present "pay what you want" in terms that push people out their utilitarian thinking patterns...  For independently wealthy and famous creators of digital media with online channels of distribution these are of course not really risks or challenges at all. For anyone operating in material production and on a smaller scale the risks, of course, increase exponentially. I am sorry that I discouraged my friend rather than trying to imagine with him how to not just pitch his product but a different way of thinking about and doing business.

We write on this blog as a gift. We have created art and video as gift. How do we re-imagine our lives and jobs and businesses genuinely as gift? How do we recenter our live around trust rather than fear?

Gift Economics. Give.

Means Vs. Ends

I am sure that everyone has now seen this:

It has been all over Facebook for the past day.

What are your thoughts? Is it a bandwagon worth jumping aboard? How are we (as Christians) supposed to interact with movements like this? Specifically, those of us who profess to be "pacifist" and see nonviolence as a large portion of the Christian call. What are your thoughts on supporting military missions such as this?

Personally, I continue to be torn. Invisible Children is an organization I have supported in the past. I think their goals are noble and worth supporting, but the means they sometimes use to reach their goals I question. So I pose the question (feel free to challenge the binary I set up): what is worse? To use means I do not fully support to accomplish a good goal OR to sit and do nothing (because I am currently not doing anything or coming up with any "third way" options).

I encourage you to watch the video, if you have not done so already. As for me, I am going to write a few e-mails tonight, and pray that they do a little bit of good.

CYOA: 1 Samuel 15:2-3 – Missing the Point

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Genocide again. I feel like this is a topic we have batted this way and that. To be honest I am feeling apathetic toward these verses today. I am not passionate about defending God’s action, as articulated through Samuel. Nor am I gobsmacked that the charge is to kill the Amalekites. Today I read it as a historical account. It happened…and the answer to “why” is even given in this passage. This is a simple account to tit-for-tat. The Amalekites waylaid Israel when they were coming out of Egypt; therefore, revenge is appropriate. Simple as that. As I read this, I see the eye for an eye ethic being played out. I would no longer condone this kind of action given my understanding of ethics as progressing, but in a time of tribalism, nationalism, and conquest, this seems to fit. The god of one nation is claiming to be with that nation as they go out to destroy another nation, as well as the other nation’s god, which is implied.

What is really grinding my gears is that these two verses are a distraction from the large story. To be honest, I don’t think focussing on such a small section of the Bible is the best. Although I think exegesis is great, looking at the intricacies is important, but for the majority of people this is not the best way to go about reading the Bible. I would propose that theme is better for the general populace. This is because theme is much more difficult to manipulate. Exegesis when done by those who are incompetent of such tough work, leads to a biblical understanding based on proof texting and isolated band-aid answers/understandings.

So genocide aside, I think the purpose of these two verses is to move the plot of the book along. They are plot more than they are meant to tell of theocratic genocide. To miss this and focus in on the genocide demeans the great tale of the book. 1 Samuel tells of a rise and fall of a leader. A great and timeless classic. Beginning with a gift of life and ending with Saul taking his life, the tale tells of the character changes of a leader, eventually cumulating in his downfall. I find the book to be chiastic in structure (although less compellingly chiastic than 2 Samuel). Chapters 15 and 16 are the rough center of the chiasm. The character of Saul has changed from humility and meekness to pride, this lead to the climax of God stating “I am grieved that I have made Saul King” v.10. I cannot help but thinking this is more important, more central, and more relevant to our lives than some theocratic genocide of ancient history. I also wonder whether the grieving of God is more than the personal character of Saul, but also his actions and direction of the nation. If so, this grieving might also include the leading of the nation into a frenzy of revenge that led God to condone and even commission genocide. By situating these verses in this tale, we find that Saul had become so corrupt he could not even do genocide right (if you can say that anyone can do genocide right).

In summary, I hope that our dwelling on the tough parts of the Bible, such as verses intending to move plot forward, do not distract from bigger discussions of theme. If we dwell on the minute, we necessarily need to put the pieces back into a bigger picture or be at risk of missing the point.