On the dangers of our centrated thinking


One of the most critically satisfying phrases in the modern era was the reductionist phrase “nothing but” as in “that’s nothing but a typical Freudian Electra complex at work” of “that’s nothing but a typical Marxist class struggle” [etc.] (Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian)
“In our world,” said Eustace, “a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.” Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.”
(C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader)

AnkocToday’s post is one of those things I need to write down so I can link to it later, instead of having to give this explanation every time… The Brian McLaren quote above doesn’t only describe the problem I’m talking about quite well, but it also might foreshadow some later thoughts on some of the things that ‘the emerging church’ promised to go beyond without any such thng ever happening. (The problem sometimes is even more perfected in American ‘progressive Christianity’ as far as I can see…)

The term ‘centrated thinking’ in the title is borrowed from Piagets theory of psychological development by lack of a better word to describe it elsewhere, but I will use it in a much broader sense. Let’s first start with the wikipedia definition for those who are uninitiated in the theory or have forgotten it bPiagety now:

In psychology, centration is the tendency to focus on one salient aspect of a situation and neglect other, possibly relevant aspects. Introduced by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget through his cognitive-developmental stage theory, centration is a behaviour often demonstrated in the preoperational stage.

Yes, I do know that Piaget is speaking about small children in the pre-operational phase here as he calls it, but the same thing he described but manifesting in other forms is also happening all the time in adult human thought. We always look at the world through a certain lens. We are not omni-present to look at a situation from every side, cannot calculate all angles in, and would not have the time and energy to do so even if we could.

So very often people tend to frame their thoughts through a very specific lens, finding only one aspect or dimension of reality important or even real, and ignoring or negating all the rest. Often the idea is that whatever lens they have is the most important thing that explains everything, while all the rest is just irrelevant.
This has something to do with out human hunger for a simple explanation for life, the universe and everything. (Well, duh, 42!)
The ancient Greek philosophers for example were busy looking for the archè or principle on which the whole of existence was based. For Thales of Miletus it was water on which everything was based,his pupil Anaximander thought it was the Anaximandermore vague ‘indefinite’ or apeiron, while Anaximenes would say that it’s air. (Yes, all 4 elements have been seen as archè by one Philosopher or another in those days, and they were first combined by Empedocles as the 4 elements we know now, but that’s another story) Pythagoras on the other hand posited that everything was based on math and numbers.

Not much has changed since the centrated woldviews of those ancient bearded guys on their faraway Turkish or Greek coast… Freud said that everything in human behaviour is based in sex, and both communists and ‘capitalsts’ have fallen for the dangerous idea of Marx that reality should first and foremost be framed in terms of economics. And then there are more postmodern theories that have the archè of our humanity based in language, or power dynamics, etc…

Let me repeat that nothing is wrong with looking at the world through a certain lens and thus ignoring other parameters or whole dimensions. It’s unavoidable even, and we need to do this if we want to be able to understand the world around us at all! The more parameter we leave out, the more we can focus on details and really look at what’s going on.

But we should NEVER forget that it only is a lens. Power games are only one of the many things going on in human relationships and certainly not always our main motivator. Economics are one dimension of our reality, but to say it’s more important than other things is not reality but a choice. A very dangerous one. And so on…

If we forget that any of these centrated ways of explaining reality and our human existence are just possible lenses that focus on only certain dimensions of existence, we get in trouble easily. There are always more factors that can be looked at and probably even more that we aren’t even able to see, and reducing any issue to just one angle is always doing violence to the complicated reality we inhabit!

Nuance, and looking to all viewpoints and stories is always needed. And evidently it is always dehumanising to reduce people to just one aspect of their being and then completely fold their identity into that aspect, no matter if it’s sex/gender, race, culture, status in power/privilege, whatever… People are always more than that, and cannot be reduced to any of those. Relationships and human motives always based on more things than we know.

So I have to end with a warning about a certain line of thought that’s pervasive in certain social justice circles nowadays. No matter on what side of the line they are, dehumanising someone as an ‘oppressor’ (a common way to centrate human animalfarmidentity on in certain contemporary circles) and then dismissing them as a human being that has nothing to contribute is as dehumanising as the things the whole attitude wants to erase. Things that should be erased indeed, if we are to treat others like humans, but animal farm revolutions are NOT the way

Humans are always more complicated. Reality is always more complicated. We need centrated theories because that’s how we operate as humans. But we also need to see them for what they are, and to never take any theory at all as comprehensively describing Reality, humans, or God (yes, the same problem is very present in modernist and other theology too, but I don’t have the time here to go into that). We’ll only do violence to whatever we describe if  we think that our centrated theories describe all there is…

Always stay humble, be open to learn, and be open listen to everyone in a certain issue. Open your eyes for nuance, and don’t forget that the world is often not black’n white, nor grey, but it has many colours, some of which we can’t see. (Which doesn’t mean they aren’t important.  Bees can see ultra-violet marks of flowers for example)

What do you think?

Peace

Bram

See also the following posts:

Lust is not about sex but power and control?
The unhelpfulness of words like ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’.
The virus of evil: animal farm revolutions and the cycle of violence…

 

 

6 responses to “On the dangers of our centrated thinking

  1. Pingback: “Welcome to my Book of the Damned!” | Brambonius' blog in english

  2. Can’t believe no one has commented yet. Wonderful post! I really connected with that last bit about life being FULL COLOUR! It was one of the most liberating days of my life when I realised that not only is black and white dualistic thinking a lie, but so is grey – as a middle-ground category. I hate it when the difficult, the uncertain, the confusing, the obscure, the messy and often juicy parts of life are relegated to GREY, especially in Christianese to describe uncertain moral territory. Robs all nuance, colour and wrestle, non? I’d never considered the other infinite, ultra-violet shades that we can’t see because our lenses are limited…touche!!

    Interesting that Jesus never uses colour – maybe colour and sound is infinite…gasp! – to describe eternal realities; rather he uses light and darkness, or hot and cold. Is it because those allow for gradation?…i.e. being able to “see in part”. Seems like any true light exposes what was hidden in the darkness…maybe we confuse the Light with the lit objects – the light is always light, the lit objects absorb light as much light as is allowed in. Maybe there is no ‘partial’ light, because any degree of light casts out the darkness…makes any sense?

    • Hi FlorangeLotus, thanks for your thoughtful comments!
      ‘Can’t believe no one has commented yet.’ Well, it seems like the ‘Emerging Church dialogue’ is a bit dead, especially in the N-American internet which seemed to be its center. What remains has fragmented or else morphed into something that’s much more modernist again when they traded the in-between paradigm and landed somewhere on a new kind of modernism (‘progressive Christianity’ often seems to be not that postmodern at all)
      So these subjects have lost their followers I guess… I do think they’re still really important though…
      “maybe we confuse the Light with the lit objects – the light is always light, the lit objects absorb light as much light as is allowed in. Maybe there is no ‘partial’ light, because any degree of light casts out the darkness…makes any sense?”
      Makes sense. And any colour of light will chase away darkness I’d say…

  3. Loved the McLaren book too! It totally challenged my modern thinking and upbringing more than anything else I’ve ever encountered. Made me realise that experiencing life wheat-and-tares (I think Buddhists and eastern spirituality grasp this better) doesn’t mean ‘relativism’. If anything, it gives the ‘absolute’ (I hesitate to use the word) and the infinite more vivid colour. Reminds me not to trust modernism or postmodernism as ultimate reality…for “he who marries the spirit of the age is sure to be a widow in the next” (favourite quote in the book).
    Thanks Brambo for bringing this to light.
    Hugs from Kenya

    • Interesting that you connect this to Eastern thinking. I do think indeed that both modernism (which has lost me long ago) and completely groundless postmodernism (which is harder to completely get rid of, and most representations of it are caricatures anyway) are to be avoided but I indeed believe in ‘the Absolute’, being Grounded in Love even. I might write in the future about how I’m actually still an oldschool ‘Lewisian’ Christian.
      greatings from Belgium!

  4. “any colour of light” – yikes! Never really thought of light and colour as one! I always assumed that light reveals colour, at least in the physical world, but when I think of refraction in science, where light is dispersed into hues of colour, it seems that Light is not only the revealer but also the SOURCE of colour.

    “the Absolute’, being Grounded in Love”…hmmm… Is that ever potent! Maybe light (and colour and sound and heat) are merely shadows and overtures to the real Thing – LOVE, in all its its shapes and shades and sounds and warmth. I should know that, having been churched and theologified most of my life, but I’ve never quite seen it that way.

    [pardon my rough abstractions. I’m not too well versed in science either – thank you for letting your blog be an incubator for half-baked, confused thoughts like mine]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s