Hypergraffiti

Where I spray-paint my thoughts…

NOT for Drinking!!

14 Comments

At one point a couple of years ago, in our communal kitchen at work, we had a sign on the wall that said, “MILK IS NOT FOR DRINKING.” The sign went on to explain that while it was OK to use milk in your coffee or on your cereal, you should not drink glasses of milk.

There was a reason for this, of course. The adult-education centre I teach at provides free breakfast food to any participants who want/need it. This is funded by a grant from the Kids Eat Smart foundation. While we’re all in favour of people getting calcium in their diets, we found we simply couldn’t afford to keep up with the demand for milk.  So, to reduce the milk burden, we tried to encourage people to use it only for cereal and coffee.

This wasn’t explained on the sign. It didn’t need to be, because most people understood the context, and those who didn’t, could simply ask one of the staff about the reason for the milk ban (or ignore the sign, as people generally do with signs in communal kitchens).

Now, we live in a ridiculously literate society, in which people are able to write and record the minutiae of their lives in excruciating detail — unlike most people in history, who left very few written traces behind.  But let’s just imagine that some computer holocaust in the future wipes out all records of our websites, blogs and Facebook pages, and after the collapse of fossil fuels society breaks down and people have to burn all the billions of books in the world to keep themselves warm. So most written records of our society get destroyed, placing us in the same bracket as people in antiquity.

Now let’s assume that two thousand years later, society has rebuilt itself and historians of the future are digging through the debris for clues to early 21st century culture.  Among the traces found by archeologists is a sign, bizarrely preserved in the ruins of what was once The Murphy Centre in St. John’s, Newfoundland, that says: “MILK IS NOT FOR DRINKING.”

Interesting. Maybe it ends up in a museum display along with various other fragments salvaged from the period.  Scholars puzzle over the meaning of these fragments, write papers, analyze them in light of what they know about our time and culture.

BUT … let’s also imagine that when humans rebuilt earth society after its great collapse, there was much debate and controversy over some of the practices we used to take for granted.  Like raising dairy cattle for their milk.  People in the year 4000 are wondering if they should do that again. Is it ethically justifiable to do this to cows, or is it a relic of barbarism? Is it even healthy for humans to ingest the milk of other animals? Some say yes, some say no.  In short, milk consumption is a hot,  hot topic in this future society.

Suddenly, the little piece of printer paper with the message “MILK IS NOT FOR DRINKING” becomes important. It becomes a flashpoint in this argument, as the anti-dairy lobby points to it and says, “Look! Here’s clear evidence that even back in the early 21st century, people recognized that mlik was NOT for drinking! Could you ask for a more clear and straightforward statement? Archeological evidence suggests that the building where this was found was some kind of educational institution, which means that educators of the year 2009 felt it was important to warn their students against the evils of dairy consumption!!”

The pro-dairy lobby would, of course, have evidence of their own to call upon.  They might scrounge up surviving contemporary references to milk-drinking — maybe a “Got Milk?” poster that survived (the meaning of this piece of advertising would be hotly debated), an ancient photograph showing schoolchildren drinking milk, someone’s diary entry describing the nice glass of milk they had before bed.  “You’re wrong!” they would tell the anti-dairy crowd.  “Milk-drinking was alive and well, even encouraged, in the early twenty-first century — especially in schools.”

But none of that would matter to the anti-dairists.  The phrase “Milk is not for drinking!” would become repeated like a talisman. It might even start to appear on T-shirts and bumper stickers. When the pro-dairists tried to talk to them about context they would say, “You’re just muddying the issue to support your own milkist prejudices. The fragment states clearly that milk is not for drinking — how much more obvious can it get? It’s a perfectly clear statement!”

I think my blog-readers are generally a pretty smart bunch so I won’t belabour the point, but: this post is not about milk. (And I know, it’s also not a perfect analogy).

It’s about context, and the difficulty of understanding ancient texts in context when we’re so far removed from time and place. Without context, isolated lines and phrases (like, oh, I don’t know, “Let the women keep silence,” or “I do not suffer a woman to teach or have authority”) can be bandied about as slogans, even when confronted with textual evidence suggesting that the same person who wrote those words also worked and taught alongside women and counted women preachers, teachers and ministers as his valued co-workers.

Context. It’s more complicated than shouting slogans at each other, though maybe not as fun. Have a nice glass of milk while you think about it.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “NOT for Drinking!!

  1. How to keep milk from going sour – keep it in the cow.

    -~Enjoyed your blog~~Mike

  2. Trudy, Excellent analogy that really does make the point. “Context” or “prejudice” is the basis for interpretation and they both find it hard to live in the same room.

    After the apocalypse, I wonder if we will be thought of “antilactosearian”.

    Really nice blog!

  3. I love this post, Trudy. I especially like the way you can enclose the whole argument in a single sentence, which is utterly convincing because you’ve prepared the way for it so perfectly with your analogy.

  4. Great post! One of the reasons I keep coming back…

    Let’s not forget that audience is an important part of context, especially when isolating quotes, scriptural or otherwise.

  5. well said! i think a healthy, “gosh, i don’t know” is far safer than a “i am right.” when it comes to the bible, we know far less than we like to think.

  6. When I was at Andrews there was a picture book floating around the English department of a “future society’s view” of how a 20th century hotel room was used. What I remember most clearly was a priest who had a toilet seat ring around his shoulders with the lid giving a halo effect to the back of his head. And the “Sanitized for your protection” tape wrapped around his head. It has made me think everytime I hear someone expound on exactly how it was during times which they did not witness.
    I wish I could remember the title of that book!!

  7. Ha! I found it…Motel of Mysteries.

  8. That sounds awesome, Sharon, I have to check that book out. Because that’s exactly the point I’m making — how hard it is to appreciate context, and thus how easy it is to take things out of context, when you’re looking back at history. Maybe I think about it more because I write historical fiction so I’m always trying to imagine if people in the past would read a text the same way we would, putting the same meanings on it.

    One of the big advantages of linking to my blog on Facebook is that more people come from there to look at it — the big disadvantage is that people sometimes comment over there instead of here, so that comments that I think are interesting and add to the discussion, are over on Facebook separate from the blog post. Thanks for the comments both here and there, everyone, and I’ll echo something I said on Facebook: the danger, for me, in thinking about context is that I’ll think the Biblical texts I disagree with or find challenging need to be read with careful attention to context, while those I agree with can be taken at face value and used as my own “slogans.” When really, the same critical standard has to be applied to both.

  9. Nice post.

  10. Excellent post.

    So how is it going with the battle at the moment?

  11. My sister was attending AGTS (Assemblies of God Theological Seminary) when I went out to visit her a couple years ago. She had a professor named Dr. Deborah Gill that I had the privilege to sit in on. Anyhow, she has a book that you may be interested in. I’ve never read it, but the one class of hers I sat in on, I’m sure it’s an interesting read. It’s called “Gods Women: Then and Now”

    http://www.gospelpublishing.com/store/startitem.cfm?item=035491

  12. Our pastor preached about this topic just two weeks including and included “Let the women keep silent.” It was a fascinating sermon, rather courageous and provoked much thought.

  13. I notice WordPress’s “Possibly Related Posts” does not appreciate the subtlety of my analogy …

  14. My aunt called me to tell me how much she appreciated this post. She got it.

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