Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Scarcity Thinking & Domination

(4th in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)

Human relationships are complicated. Each of us is uniquely endowed with particular strengths, weaknesses, desires--and peculiarities. The very nature of being human is that we are created to live not only in relationship with God, but with all those other "peculiar" human beings. That's where things get messy.

For humans to live together peacefully on this planet, we must constantly make adjustments in order to get along with each other and achieve satisfying lives.

No matter what the connection--within families, with coworkers, friends, neighbors or people groups--human relationships are in a constant state of flux. We ebb and flow between conflict and resolution, brokenness and wholeness, anxiety and serenity, dissatisfaction and contentment.

Too often we get so stuck on the negative that we have little time or energy left to enjoy the positive aspects of our relationships.

One negative factor is our tendency toward "scarcity" thinking (your gain is my loss) rather than "abundance" thinking (plenty for everyone). We come by this naturally, entering this world as egocentric infants, assuming that everything revolves around our needs and wants.

We grab all we can for ourselves; we have to be taught to share. Unfortunately, many adults--even nations--never fully outgrow their egocentricity.

Scarcity thinking is hierarchical thinking. It's "who's on top," rooted in lack of trust in oneself, others and God. It's "if you win, I'll look or feel like a loser"; "if I don't control you, you will control me"; "if you get lots of praise and recognition, I'll look or feel stupid and insignificant"; "if I don't dominate or intimidate you, you will take advantage of me."

Domination issues underlie much of human conflict: bullying, gender inequities, racial unrest, economic gaps, abuse, war. To the degree that one party in a relationship is allowed to dominate, the other party is proportionately submissive.

Adult relationships tend to fall within one of four categories, each with predictable results:

1. Dominant party + submissive party, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.

2. Dominant party + submissive party, one party (usually the submissive one) uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.

3. Belief in equal parties, but difficulty working out roles in cultural context, one or both parties uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.

4. Equal parties, successfully working out details of roles, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.

Human relationships in category 1 rarely stay there very long. There is something innately human that resists being dominated by others, whether it's slaves seeking freedom, women seeking equality, or the poor seeking economic parity.

At best, category 1 relationships only maintain the status quo--a very tenuous "peace"--because what appears to be willing submission is often only passivity.

In category 1, relationships may outwardly appear to be peaceful because the submissive party has low self-esteem or is too weak or intimidated by the dominant party to protest the inequity.

Or the submissive party may have been indoctrinated, with not enough education or life experiences to discern unhealthy relationships. I once read of a girl who "accepted" incest throughout her early life because trusted relatives had convinced her that it was just "something girls do with fathers and brothers." She didn't know it was unacceptable until she went away to college.

Sometimes the submissive party in category 1 is unwilling to shake up the only way of life she/he has ever known. At the end of the Civil War, some newly-freed slaves begged their former masters to let them stay on as indentured servants because launching out on their own was too overwhelming.

Females growing up in male-dominated homes often enter into male-dominated relationships when they date or marry. For them, it's a familiar way of life, usually reinforced by patriarchal religious beliefs.

Some females, especially those who marry young, transfer directly from supervision by their fathers to supervision by their husbands. They don't comprehend that only God--not any other human being--is automatically qualified to be anyone's "boss."

Dominance is often characterized as being brutal or overbearing toward others, for whatever reason. But dominance can also be subtle--perhaps just an underlying attitude or assumption of entitlement due to being wealthy, male, Caucasian or American.

I once heard a church member proudly say, "My ancestors were good to their slaves," as if that somehow exonerated his family's slave ownership. "Goodness" is not the issue; domination is about lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.

Conservative groups such as Promise Keepers teach that male domination is inherently God-ordained in church and home. Their premise is that men are to be "in charge" of women (whom God expects to submit graciously), but must treat them "lovingly."

Besides this misapplication of Scripture, the problem is that within human relationships, power and authentic love cannot co-exist. Even a kind, gentle, "loving" ruler still retains power to control the direction of others' lives. Again, the real issues are lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.

Some may ask, "How can the conflictual relationships of categories 2 and 3 be preferable to the peaceful relationships of category 1? Isn't peace, even a tenuous "peace," always better than conflict?"

For one thing, there is a difference between the peace found in category 4 and the "peace" found in category 1. Category 4 relationships are justice-based; category 1 relationships are not. In category 4 both parties--not just the dominant party of category 1--have God-given freedom and opportunity to thrive as individuals.

Conflict—especially sustained conflict--is always difficult, and conflict for its own sake is never justifiable. But conflict can sometimes be valuable. Just ask any civil rights advocate if progress made in race relations has been worth decades of struggle.

When the goal is justice and equality for everyone, rather than dominance by some, then non-violent conflict is good. For those who are willing to struggle through categories 2 and 3 in order to achieve category 4, their reward is a lasting, satisfying, "just" peace.

However, scarcity thinking ("who's on top") can thwart progress toward lasting peace. Conflict is not good if the result is replacement of one dominant party by another dominant party. (Think rival gangs in NYC, ruthless tribes in Africa, corrupt regimes in the Middle East.) The goal of "just" conflict is to establish equality and freedom, not further domination.

No matter with whom we have relationship, we must avoid scarcity thinking, which only feeds our human tendency to dominate others, and prevents us--and them--from experiencing the "abundant life" that Jesus offers (John 10:10).

Jesus deliberately shook up the status quo, but Jesus never tried to dominate others. The more we embrace Jesus' way of thinking and treating others, the better our chances of achieving peaceful, satisfying, "category 4" relationships as we help bring about God's peaceable kingdom on this earth.

Intentional Inclusion: Race & Gender

Recently, at the KBF (Kentucky Baptist Fellowship) Spring Gathering, Robert Parham’s new, award-winning documentary, “Beneath the Skin: Baptists and Racism,“ was shown to participants. While viewing the presentation I felt a sense of despair that despite decades of excruciating effort to rid our society of this blot, racism still plagues us. Like kudzu, we can’t seem to get rid of it, no matter how diligently we prune. Just when we think we’ve dealt with the issue effectively in some areas, killing it off for good, it keeps reappearing in unexpected places, even in our churches. We’ve made progress, of course, but our society still has a long way to go.

One of the areas in which we have made some progress is with racist language. Today’s American society has largely been sensitized to the ill-effects from using racist language when referring to people groups, especially African-Americans. In the last decade or so, America has had growing challenges with use of racist terminology for Hispanics, Muslims, and others, but we’ve been dealing with racist terminology for African-Americans much longer.

Slavery in America has been illegal since the Civil War, but racist language was publicly, openly heard until the late twentieth century, and still persists in too many circles. People of color long ago recognized that they would never achieve equal status with Caucasians as long as common, derogatory terminology about their race remained unchallenged. In the aftermath of the Martin Luther King, Jr. era, anyone using racist language today risks becoming a target of scorn and possible legal action.

The problem with racist language is bigger than derogatory terminology, however. It’s just as devastating to be "invisible": ignored, unseen, not thought of.

Former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, honoring the memory of her childhood friend, Denise McNair, and three other girls killed in the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, AL said in a speech a few years ago, “America finally came to terms with its birth defect, finally came to terms with the contradiction . . . that when the Founding Fathers said, ‘We the people,’ they didn’t mean any of us.” (RNS)

Racist language and sexist language garner the same basic effect: exclusion. The exclusion may or may not be intentional, but the effect is still the same. As with racist language, despite decades of slow progress, gender-exclusive language is still with us, even in churches.

Midway through the 2008 American presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama, in a Democratic primary campaign speech, quoted Abraham Lincoln, proclaiming, “All men are created equal.” I was surprised that Hillary Clinton, his female opponent at the time, didn’t take Obama’s unexamined use of this 19th century quote as a reason for rebuttal on the grounds that in the 21st century the quote is perceived as sexist. [Perhaps she either didn’t notice or didn’t want to risk being labeled as “unpatriotic” for questioning the words of Lincoln, a revered American icon.]

The truth is, Lincoln’s words were exactly what he meant. He was trying to bring the races together, not the sexes. Likely he wasn’t deliberately excluding women; he just hadn’t thought to include them. Women were invisible to him in both grammar and thought when it came to important issues.

That’s the problem with gender-exclusive language in a nutshell. Language shapes thought. Thought precedes action. And our grammar rules and practices keep women linguistically invisible. Our moderate churches say they are including women, but unless church leaders are intentional about including them through deliberate, consistent use of gender-inclusive language, women will remain second-class members in most churches.

It’s not a matter of intentionally excluding women. It’s a matter of intentionally including them. It’s a matter of recognizing that the overwhelming majority of them are already one-down in society and must constantly be intentionally included in order to have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. Otherwise, by default, they will remain invisible and overlooked for church leadership positions and other opportunities traditionally offered to males.

Jesus didn’t just preach equality. He practiced a life of intentional inclusiveness, giving us a perfect example of how to treat each other with love. Jesus reached out a welcoming hand to the woman with the issue of blood, to the Samaritan woman, to the lepers and tax collectors, to the children whom his disciples dismissed, to others whom society marginalized. We can do no less than follow his loving example.