25aug2013 [from sermon] do for others; vs. do WITH others (object or service done unilaterally) engage and relate.
Scripture reading from Luke, tells about Jesus and entourage being hosted at the home of the two sisters, Martha (focused on turning out the food and hospitality) and Mary (sits close to the Master to learn). Modern day story: minister asks campus crowd about ways to be God's hands and feet. They come up with service to give to others (tutor for non-native English speakers; aid to food pantry), but when minister suggests they sit with those alone at the cafeteria to form a momentary or longer growing relationship then the crowd hesitates.
The difference between one-way giving and two-way interchange seems small when the goal is the same; for example, to better a person's material environment or to relieve disease (medical mission), ignorance (educational mission), poverty (gainful employment opportunities). And yet how vast the difference in terms of risk when the other party can talk back or indeed offer to give you advice, material wealth, or labor/assitance in return.
Marcel Mauss was fixated on the implied (social, accumulating) debt and the ritual construction of gift-giving (even when coerced, politically loaded, or tactical as in Potlach event in Native American NW Coast; or the wedding obligatory gift bags & gift seasons in modern Japan), as he documented in the 1910s in his book, The Gift. There are also ritualistic elements in daily social contact (greeting, leave-taking, life events: condolences, birthday or graduation congratulations) and responses to serious health threats or high-stakes decisions/performances/events [lucky charms or magical sorts of routines one does in preparation]. So when both parties stand on equal footing and are prepared to benefit the other, rather than power asymmetry coloring the event, the result is more living, personal and impactful.
Scripture reading from Luke, tells about Jesus and entourage being hosted at the home of the two sisters, Martha (focused on turning out the food and hospitality) and Mary (sits close to the Master to learn). Modern day story: minister asks campus crowd about ways to be God's hands and feet. They come up with service to give to others (tutor for non-native English speakers; aid to food pantry), but when minister suggests they sit with those alone at the cafeteria to form a momentary or longer growing relationship then the crowd hesitates.
The difference between one-way giving and two-way interchange seems small when the goal is the same; for example, to better a person's material environment or to relieve disease (medical mission), ignorance (educational mission), poverty (gainful employment opportunities). And yet how vast the difference in terms of risk when the other party can talk back or indeed offer to give you advice, material wealth, or labor/assitance in return.
Marcel Mauss was fixated on the implied (social, accumulating) debt and the ritual construction of gift-giving (even when coerced, politically loaded, or tactical as in Potlach event in Native American NW Coast; or the wedding obligatory gift bags & gift seasons in modern Japan), as he documented in the 1910s in his book, The Gift. There are also ritualistic elements in daily social contact (greeting, leave-taking, life events: condolences, birthday or graduation congratulations) and responses to serious health threats or high-stakes decisions/performances/events [lucky charms or magical sorts of routines one does in preparation]. So when both parties stand on equal footing and are prepared to benefit the other, rather than power asymmetry coloring the event, the result is more living, personal and impactful.
No comments:
Post a Comment