Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/can-we-have-stability-with-growth-home-with-adventure

Comment #1086

2009-06-11T18:30:11Z

Time to wrap this up; I said I'd post them here if there were any interesting responses at the FPR. I'm not sure how interesting they are, but they at least tell me that I'll have to look elsewhere for the balance I'm seeking.

From the author: No, we can’t have it both ways. And it’s my part today to make the case for the poor stepsister who stays home and sweeps the hearth.

MMH, a commenter: *Linda Wightman asks an interesting question: How does the philosophy I see here at the FPR allow for such enrichment, such growth, such joys [the enrichment, etc., that result from her many moves]? I, too, come from a peripatetic, international background and would probably have to agree that one cannot have it all. There is great advantage to exposure to other cultures, not least the permanent sense of being an outsider, which, while sometimes painful, offers the opportunity to see that one’s own culture and beliefs do not encompass reality, that every point of view is by definition limited, and so to be open to others unlike oneself–though I hasten to add that one needn’t share my background to see this. Because in my childhood my family had no geographical roots (my father had left the South as a young adult even before being sent overseas), my parents considered it essential that we have roots within the family. It was imperative that we eat meals together, worship together, and generally spend time together. For that I am most grateful. That may be the best that peripatetics can hope for. *

The author: To MMH and Mrs. Wightman: Thank you for your comments. All I can say is your life is your life, and a wise person makes the best of it, and (so very fortunate as most of us are) is grateful for it. I will argue for the benefits of rootedness, which I believe are greater benefits than those of wandering, while every major media outlet will argue in favor of wandering; and so I will argue hard. Is there room on this site for openness to other states, countries and cultures? Of course. But that doesn’t mean I long to move somewhere else, or think I should long, to fulfill myself. Your own view, and your own experience, may well be somewhat different.

MMH: Katherine, yes, you’re certainly right: the thing to do is be grateful for what we’ve been given and make the most of it. On the whole I think the benefits of rootedness more profound than those of wandering, but rootedness can be in a culture and in a family; it isn’t necessarily always in a place. Am I extending the sense? Not too much, I think, because even geographical rootedness has to have familial and cultural rootedness to be of value. It’s the permanence and long association that are important.

I thought there was an earlier comment by the author that didn't make sense to me, and I was going to include it here for other people's thoughts...but I can't find it now. Perhaps she decided it didn't make sense to her, either, and took it off. The Wayback Machine doesn't have archives that recent for me to check.

In any case, she has interpreted my description of the richness of the places our family has lived as my own personal travels, but that's beside the point. I'll concede that maybe one cannot have it all, but will continue to seek for ways to have both a strong rootedness in family and community and at the same time an appreciation for other places and cultures that's at least partially from the inside.

More than once, Janet was told she needed to concentrate on one instrument rather than indulge in her desire to play them all. Had she been aiming at certain careers at the top of a narrow field, that might have been good advice. But for everything else, no.

Bilingual parents were once pressured by their pediatricians and other well-meaning folks to speak only one language in the presence of their children, on the theory that hearing two languages would delay speech. Now we know that learning multiple languages actually enhances brain growth and language ability.

What's the point? I still want it all. :)

Comment #1085

2009-05-29T18:14:34Z

Sorry, Jon. By "the rules" you're either from Pekin, Illinois, or somewhere in what became Germany. :)

Unfortunately, the family dysfunctions I reported from the West Virginia branch are all too true. As my research contact for this part of the family said, "Illegitimate children have always been a problem to determine the parentage of; most mothers just gave such children their new husbands' names, real biological fathers' names seldom reported. I have countless children 'by unk relationship(s).'" It's not a problem limited to West Virginia, but that particular part of the country at that particular time was good to leave behind.

I know the FPR people will agree with you on the "better students went elsewhere" idea, but I'm not so sure. These students didn't move of their own volition, but were dragged along with families. Maybe you could say that they were the brighter students because their (brighter) parents "went elsewhere" from where they had been, but many if not most moved there for the same reason we did, that it was better to move than not to have a job. By "brightest" I also did not mean simply IQ—it was more an attitude, an openness to learning and new ideas, a realization that there are other customs out there, some better, some worse. As someone once put it, "He who knows only one culture knows no culture."

Comment #1084

2009-05-29T15:51:12Z

Oh, I forgot to comment on a couple specifics:

West Virginia is the "state next door" for Pittsburgh, and so is the butt of all the jokes (which I hadn't realized this phenomenon growing up, I just thought Massachusetts was a lousy place to live), but it is humorous to see the "father unknown" mention show up from a genealogist, so the jokes must have some basis in fact...
I don't know about the statistics from my high school, but I suspect they are quite different from your high school, since the number of students who came from somewhere else is quite small, so probably couldn't provide any valid data statistically speaking. But, a possible corollary to the "students from elsewhere make for better students" is that "the better students went elsewhere", which I think is the case for most of the "good students" from my high school class. And of course, we (at least some of us) were the ones who were perfectly happy in Hillsboro, and thought the folks who were itching to get out of "this stinkin' town" were strange. And of course, most of those people who swore graduation day would be the last day they were in Hillsboro, are still there (though remarkably happier than I thought they'd be at not leaving).

And lastly, I find it very amusing when people refer to Pittsburgh as a small town where you can't do anything, in the same language and tone of voice that people scorn Hillsboro. I am not quite sure what people are looking for -- perhaps it is like the joke (that I can't find a reference for at the moment) where a guy is thinking about moving into a town asks a gas station attendant if it is a nice place to live, and he asks if he likes his old place. He doesn't like his old place, and gives a couple reasons. The attendant says that he'll find this place just as bad, if not worse. A second guy comes along and asks the same question, but he says that he liked his old place, just had to move for job reasons or whatever, and the attendant says that he's sure he'll get along just fine.

Comment #1083

2009-05-29T15:41:22Z

I figure I'll always count myself a NH-ite; we'll see if I ever fit into Pittsburgh or Pennsylvania, other than for its cost of living.

As far as "richness" in a family, I guess I don't value diversity all that much, at least not as much as a community (as opposed to a "network" - terms used in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, at least at Carnegie Mellon to try to distinguish between closer, more interconnected, personal, relationships and a Rolodex of business contacts) where people actually know each other, where I guess "know" has to be defined, and I mean where someone knows what you would say before you say it, knows what things you likely prayed about that day. One friend hypothesized that unity (at least for a particular issue) is when one could trust another person enough to say, "He speaks for me on that issue". You can't have that unity without knowing people. And while my friend was referencing an online mailing list where that statement is occasionally made, I think it is best (most easily?) made in the context of local relationships.

Some churches refer to themselves as a "local church", to which I often think, how can a specific church not be local (not counting the various online "churches" that exist only on the internet), but what they are trying to get at is a high value on local community and interaction with each other.