A Tangent on Context

When I created this blog, I decided not to make it too "politics-heavy". I did, however, decide that I would integrate a series of statuses that I posted on my Facebook profile throughout last year. These statuses consist of lessons and/or philosophies I have either learned or developed in the last three years--particularly during 2008, which was indeed a learning experience. But before I start those discussions, I need to vent something that has been on my chest for, well, my entire adult life.

Context. What is context? According to Merriam Webster Online at , the word has two definitions: 1)The parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning, and 2)The interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs. Basically, context is meant to govern our interpretation of a line of discourse, whether verbal or written. The context of a discussion actually affects the discussion itself, simply because it indicates the purpose of that discussion.

For example, the 2008 elections included the controversial Proposition 8 bill. As many people are aware, this California amendment that would ban gay marriage received substantial support from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As a result of this substantial support from LDS church members, the LDS Church has seen its share of persecution. Protests have been staged outside of LDS temple grounds and threatening letters have been sent to leaders and ordinary members, etc.

Well, on Facebook, someone created a group calling for the end of this persecution. The creator of this group didn't agree with the LDS Church's position on gay marriage, so this group was obviously not meant as a political forum for discussion on gay marriage. But that is exactly what it became. People from both sides of the debate joined the group in an effort to vocalize their opinions on the matter. Some of them were polite, others not so polite. Either way, their purpose for joining the forum was irrelevant to the purpose--or context--of the forum itself. Some even assumed the creator of the group was anti-gay marriage simply because she created it!

My question to that is, since when does defending one person or group's civil rights equate with agreeing with the position or actions for which their civil rights are being violated? To me that is no different from persecuting those that contributed to the conviction of Jack Ruby, who shot JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald while Oswald was being transferred from police headquarters to the county jail. Persecuting the LDS Church would be like accusing those people of sympathizing with Oswald just because they didn't let his killer walk. If we were to do that, we would be taking things out of context by forgetting the actual reason for Ruby's arrest--the fact that he broke the law by killing somebody. The creator of the aforementioned Facebook group was not against gay marriage, but she was against persecuting anyone for exercising their rights as a U.S. citizen.

Now I could attribute this lament to my background in English, but in truth, I have been this way for as long as I can remember. I remember taking a Political Science course during my second semester at USU. One day, our professor was discussing Presidential elections through the years and the demographics on who voted for whom. He brought up the interesting fact that even though there are more female voters than male voters, we have yet to elect a female President. "Why?" he asked. Well, my mother didn't raise a fool, so I was perfectly aware that female voters over the age of 50, many of whom were part of the Baby Boom generation and therefore made a vast contribution to the female majority, had grown up in the 19th Amendment's infancy. By infancy, I mean the first 50 years. The way I see it, it takes much longer than that to eradicate a mindset that has characterized both male and female thinking for thousands of years: the idea that men are more capable leaders than women.

Long story short, I raised my hand and offered that explanation. I believe my words were something to the effect of, "Because many women still believe that men are more capable of running the country than women." Everyone in the room gasped as soon as I said that. The guy sitting behind me said, "That was the wrong thing to say." You'd have thought that I had said, "Men are more capable leaders than women." That was not the case at all! For the record, let's use some common sense. Women in the U.S. have only had voting rights since 1920, and while there were a few women here and there who had run for public office before then, most of them were write-in candidates. Since then, only two women have represented the two major parties in the Presidential elections: Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and most recently, Sarah Palin. Both of them were Vice-Presidential candidates, so we have yet to break the Presidential candidate barrier. Can you think of a better explanation for that phenomenon?

Now I don't have an exact figure, so one might say that while there are more female voters than male voters, the Democratic and Republican conventions that nominate their candidates are mostly male, but that just substantiates my point. Why aren't there more female politicians to nominate female candidates? Could it be lack of interest? Maybe, but I believe that a person's lack of interest in something is often fostered by a belief in their ability to succeed at it. I don't like science, partially because I don't think I have a brain for it. I used to hate the game Settlers of Catan until I became good at it. But I digress. My statement was a valid one, as acknowledged by my professor. There may be other explanations that I didn't think of at the time, but the point is that because my statement was taken out of context, I was for a brief moment being labeled as a sexist. I suppose that is why I utterly despise the act of taking things out of context.

As another example, I used to do volunteer tutoring in Roslindale, just a few miles west of downtown Boston. Most of the students are Hatian and therefore black. One time, as my student was wandering off from our table, I said, "Hey Jeff, what are you doing, boy?" I don't know why I added that last word, but he is a boy--a boy of 13, to be exact. However, I don't think I need to tell you the potentially dangerous misunderstanding that could have caused. Fortunately, the students who heard me just laughed, and they laughed at my reaction when I realized what I had just said. Imagine, though, what could have happened if they had decided that my comment was meant as a racial slur.

I hope I don't sound irritable in this post, or worse, arrogant and hypocritical. I am in nowise perfect in this regard, so sometimes I have to back up and consider the discussion taking place and whether my interpretation of the topic is how the instigator intended it. We need to listen to each other more, and not try so much to formulate our arguments in response not to what the other person said, but what we wish they had said. So many people in the aftermath of Prop 8 wanted an excuse to discuss their views, so when they saw that Facebook Group, all they saw in the title was Proposition 8. In a Political Science class, feminism is always a popular topic, so my classmates removed the quotation marks from my statement and simply attributed it to me. It is during these serious and potentially volatile situations that I abhor the idea of taking someone's words or actions out of context to further one's own agenda and completely ignore the context itself, which oftentimes validates those words or actions. When we do this, we are irresponsibly putting someone's reputation at risk.