tuesday reflection for week 3

Ryan helped me better define and characterize two things I have struggled with for the past four years have. First, I have always struggled with the balance between focus on community and focus on individualism. Modernity and the Enlightenment gave us this individualistic focus that we all fall prey to. Postmodernity stresses the social aspect or communal aspect, almost to a fault. We are not soley made up of our communities or social interactions, but they tremendously shape who we are.

When looking at a community it is not simply a group of people, it is a group of individuals with their own idiosyncrasies that make each of them unique and should not be lost. Where is the balance? Ryan's practice theory provides this balance. This theory says that as individuals we have power, but this power is always in a context. Thus, the individual is important with his or her uniqueness, but this uniqueness comes fully alive within the communal aspect. Great!

Secondly, I have struggled with the idea of having a criteria for what areas or activities of culture are beyond redemption. We say that activity "y" is redeemable, but activity "z" is not. What is our criteria? I have never had a good criteria, I still don't, but Ryan gave a good postfoundational solution for this struggle. He said that as certain practices become more dominating and more oppressive in culture, then the practices become more irredeemable. This is great because it does not give concrete criteria to mark off to ensure that we are able to redeem a part of culture. Instead, it gives us a starting place with no defined boundaries, and we can work from this. Mystery is maintained in this model. I love it.