On Indefensible Boundaries
I don't think most people are aware of this, but the idea of boundary is inextricably linked to the idea of identity. Well, maybe people are aware of it, in the form of the cliche phrase "personal space", but in general, I think most people are not conscious about the nature of their personal boundaries.
Some people are nothing but a tent in the middle of an open plain. "Come on over! Nothing to steal here, nothing to fear either. Let's just hang out. Or not-- it's all cool." Others are like Fort Knox: "What do you want? Why should I let you in? There is much of value in here, and I'd rather be alone, than risk losing control over it."
We think of the first President Bush, blowing hard about the great transgression of Saddam Hussein, in overrunning little Kuwait, a "sovereign nation", back in 1990. Well, there's "sovereign" and then there's "sovereign". Some nations are more "sovereign" than others, methinks. All those Arab nations, including Iraq, were "created" by the "great powers", without regard to language, culture, religious sect, etc., after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. So we have Saddam Hussein, ruthlessly killing and torturing "his own people"-- Kurds and Shiites, and invading a piddly little sheikhdom sitting on land that he thought should rightly have been part of Iraq to begin with. The second President Bush, not to be outdone by his father's pragmatic war waged to return the board back to its previous state, rushed in there and removed Saddam, filled with a delusion that there was a "nation" called "Iraq" to be "liberated" and "democratized", as opposed to a motley group that had barely been held together by the most brutal of policies.
Ok-- that was a little bit tangential, but my point is that boundaries are drawn by people who have power to draw boundaries, but oftentimes (maybe even always?) it becomes clear soon enough that the boundaries make no "sense". They are not sustainable. Or, they are only sustainable by the steady application of force, which may be a different way of saying they are unsustainable.
In the last few weeks I have stumbled across my own blindness and hypocrisy, regarding my understanding of sovereignty and justice and virtue, in the context of my marriage. I don't see much value in going into the detailed situations that led me to this awareness; suffice it to say that I have had to let go of some deeply cherished beliefs about how marriage "should be", and how I "should be". In one particular area of domestic life I have decided on a "tactical withdrawal" or "pull-back". I can say this much, about the situation: I have a new appreciation for the fact that even though a man and woman become, in some mysterious way, "one flesh" when they get married, they also remain two completely distinct and sovereign individuals.
I am learning how to be "selfish", in a targeted, strategic way. There *is* a boundary, inside of which is "Joel", outside of which is "not-Joel". There *are* protocols, by means of which I engage in transactions with other sovereign entities, one of which is my wife. Now it's just a matter of improving those protocols, clarifying them, making them more robust and resilient. And although I am conscious that my boundary *exists*, it remains to be made somewhat clearer and better mapped out.
Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally, and has been criticized for it. I think it was a no-brainer, however. It was bleeding itself, by maintaining a military presence beyond the "1948 borders", to defend tiny little islands of wild-eyed religious pioneer communities surrounded by a sea of angry and impoverished Arab Muslims. Sharon and his people realized that it was unsustainable, that that territory was never going to be "Israel", no matter how fervently the settlers felt to the contrary.
Sometimes you have to retreat to defensible boundaries.
Some people are nothing but a tent in the middle of an open plain. "Come on over! Nothing to steal here, nothing to fear either. Let's just hang out. Or not-- it's all cool." Others are like Fort Knox: "What do you want? Why should I let you in? There is much of value in here, and I'd rather be alone, than risk losing control over it."
We think of the first President Bush, blowing hard about the great transgression of Saddam Hussein, in overrunning little Kuwait, a "sovereign nation", back in 1990. Well, there's "sovereign" and then there's "sovereign". Some nations are more "sovereign" than others, methinks. All those Arab nations, including Iraq, were "created" by the "great powers", without regard to language, culture, religious sect, etc., after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. So we have Saddam Hussein, ruthlessly killing and torturing "his own people"-- Kurds and Shiites, and invading a piddly little sheikhdom sitting on land that he thought should rightly have been part of Iraq to begin with. The second President Bush, not to be outdone by his father's pragmatic war waged to return the board back to its previous state, rushed in there and removed Saddam, filled with a delusion that there was a "nation" called "Iraq" to be "liberated" and "democratized", as opposed to a motley group that had barely been held together by the most brutal of policies.
Ok-- that was a little bit tangential, but my point is that boundaries are drawn by people who have power to draw boundaries, but oftentimes (maybe even always?) it becomes clear soon enough that the boundaries make no "sense". They are not sustainable. Or, they are only sustainable by the steady application of force, which may be a different way of saying they are unsustainable.
In the last few weeks I have stumbled across my own blindness and hypocrisy, regarding my understanding of sovereignty and justice and virtue, in the context of my marriage. I don't see much value in going into the detailed situations that led me to this awareness; suffice it to say that I have had to let go of some deeply cherished beliefs about how marriage "should be", and how I "should be". In one particular area of domestic life I have decided on a "tactical withdrawal" or "pull-back". I can say this much, about the situation: I have a new appreciation for the fact that even though a man and woman become, in some mysterious way, "one flesh" when they get married, they also remain two completely distinct and sovereign individuals.
I am learning how to be "selfish", in a targeted, strategic way. There *is* a boundary, inside of which is "Joel", outside of which is "not-Joel". There *are* protocols, by means of which I engage in transactions with other sovereign entities, one of which is my wife. Now it's just a matter of improving those protocols, clarifying them, making them more robust and resilient. And although I am conscious that my boundary *exists*, it remains to be made somewhat clearer and better mapped out.
Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally, and has been criticized for it. I think it was a no-brainer, however. It was bleeding itself, by maintaining a military presence beyond the "1948 borders", to defend tiny little islands of wild-eyed religious pioneer communities surrounded by a sea of angry and impoverished Arab Muslims. Sharon and his people realized that it was unsustainable, that that territory was never going to be "Israel", no matter how fervently the settlers felt to the contrary.
Sometimes you have to retreat to defensible boundaries.
posted by Joel GL at 1:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home