There is a letter to the editor in UU World which begins,
“Why do I feel so disconnected from the UUA as represented in UU World? I read our national magazine with increasing alienation, despite my deep identification as a UU and my vital connection with my own congregation.” -Ellen Lawrence Skagerberg
The rest of the letter argues that the UUA should follow the directions of its members, rather than “herding” everyone into the directions it feels it should go. I disagree with her assertion that multiculturalism is an unworthy pursuit, due to its lack of success, (EDIT: Ellen corrects me in the comments; I misinterpreted her note.) and I think that following a majority-rules model would further cement the WASPness that I, personally, already find so alienating. I related to those opening lines, though the rest of the letter did not really speak to me. I spent some time trying to figure out what it is about UU World which contributes to the sense of alienation?
Perhaps one reason that UU World can feel alienating is that it is the affirmative voice in an otherwise critical religion. Granted, there is much of us which is noteworthy in a positive sense; we do a lot of things well. The publication thus serves a needed niche: there is no shortage of other forums through which to air discomfort, disagreement, or dislike of something Unitarian Universalist. I cannot think of a personal blog that writes about Unitarian Universalism which has abstained from critical discussion. Some sites have so many complaints and so little satisfaction expressed that I wonder why the writer even is UU. So UU World ends up being a bit contrary to the rest of the conversations.
For me, I am going to blame the white glossy pages, the clean and small Times New Roman typeface (EDIT: see comments below. It’s not Times New Roman), the unoffensive pictures, the abstract art I cannot relate to, and the demure style of writing. Yes, that is located within a certain (upper) class sense of norms and proper presentation that the UUA is deeply embedded in. What am trying to say is that it seems weird that the publication is so polished and unoffensive though the faith is so inherently messy. We do not have anything in our theology which is clean cut. We struggle to keep our members. Our publication suggests a broader cultural relevance that we are simply too small to have. Now, I am not advocating for copy-editing problems, ill-placed pictures, or a goofy font. I am saying that UU World‘s relationship to UUism is akin to the relationship of women’s magazine cover photos to real women. Obviously, it is not as severe: articles in UU World reflect real congregations, people, and stories, whereas cover photos of women’s magazines are photoshopped pieces of fiction. It is similar as both offer an idealized image. It often seem like it is the portrait of how we hope to be more so than how we are.
With that said, I do not know that I would change it.
“Alienating” is not mutually exclusive with “thought-provoking”, “interesting”, or “informative”. UU World does those things well. I do like reading about when a congregation is building a new church. Thandeka wrote an interesting article about how Obama’s encounters with UUism parallel our youth’s experiences. The write-up about the UUA and GA were worth reading too. UU World does help create a sense of what is going on in other UU’s churches and heads. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am very grateful for the couple of mentions that this blog has received in the paper copy (and the many mentions on the Interdependent Web) which has helped me receive traffic. Like Matt Kinsi has also said, I felt like I had made it the first time I saw I was linked there. This is an argument about comprehensiveness, not a comment on the quality of the articles which are in it. UU World may not always feel real, instead coming off like it is leaving something out, but it is not a bad or unworthy publication.
What do you think? Is this sense of alienation exclusive to Ms. Skagerberg and me?
Something of a nitpik: in the letter printed in “UU World” referenced in the blog, I described myself as a 30-year UU, not a 30-year-old UU!
Also, I don’t believe that multiculturalism is not a worthy goal; I was criticizing the UUA’s heavy-handed, top-down forcing of that failed mission over the past 20 years, instead of providing leadership toward what the membership wants. In a section they edited out (which I don’t fault, because I know they have length restrictions), I talked about the impact on our Sunday services and our theology when multiculturalism itself becomes the primary goal, and churches are expected to become more theistic, or more gospel, or sing hymns in Spanish, in order to target a more desirable demographic.
Hi Ellen, thanks for dropping by! I appreciate the clarification about your letter, and that you corrected my misunderstanding. I (obviously) misinterpreted your letter and did not get it was more about the effects of the top down approach the UUA has taken than multiculturalism itself. I would be interested to read the full letter, if you still have it.
And yeah, there is an difference between a 30-year UU and a 30 year old UU. Not a nitpick to me! I would certainly feel misrepresented if the typo was that I was a 26-year UU instead of a 26 year old UU (the latter being the true one!).
I see a tension between the messy, chaotic aspects of living our liberal faith and competing expectations we have for the institution of the UUA and its public face.
I see the UUWorld as UUs presenting ourselves and telling our stories in a way that is not intimate or risk-taking. This is appropriate for a wider audience that includes strangers as well as those we are close to: We are presenting our “living room” selves.
The real messiness can only happen in our “kitchen” relationships, in the congregation (or other UU communities), among people who have created shared understandings and made covenantal commitments to each other and to their congregation’s purpose. In these relationships we can risk being misunderstood, because we can trust that we will have the opportunity to work through it as part of our covenant.
I don’t think a publication like the UUWorld would be able (or should be expected) to take these same risks because it doesn’t operate in a context based on trusting relationships.
Hello Rev. Ruchotze! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate the metaphor of living room and kitchen relationships because it is an elegant way to get your ideas across. With that said, I think holding broadcast mediums to standards of interpersonal relationships is inappropriate.
Unitarian Universalism is almost entirely unknown. I am going to hazard to guess that UU World is even more obscure than Unitarian Universalism. I only learned the magazine existed when I joined my first congregation. Therefore, presuming that we need to protect our image from strangers might be a little presumptuous.
As far as I am aware, UU World is the only publication that covers national issues. If it is only putting on a fresh, presentation ready face, we are missing out on a resource for good. I suspect that many UU churches struggle with similar issues, and I suspect that many of us struggle with aspects of being a liberal faithful person in similar ways. If our national publication does not tackle the messiness, how do we talk to each other?
I often read Evangelical Christian publications because they are willing to discuss the messy parts of their lives and churches, whereas we are not. And it is dissatisfying, because while I get a great deal of insight into some element of human struggle, their foundation is different. I wish we were braver. I wish we, as a community, did not require agreement to feel accepted. I often wonder if we are writing ourselves into irrelevance by not having thicker skin.
Yeah, I find UU world sometimes alienating.
I say this even though I have great respect for Chris Walton and the staff writers, all of whom are good writers, good reporters (the two aren’t necessarily synonymous), and really care about what they’re writing about — they’re all smart, witty people who are fun to hang around with. Hey, I myself have written for both the print magazine and the Web site; I can’t criticize it too much.
I do think the glossy paper and the design have something to do with it. I’m old enough to remember the old UU World newspaper, edited by Doris Pullen, which projected a scrappier image that seemed to be more supportive of multiple points of view — although I don’t think it actually was. So a lot of it may be image.
It’s interesting to compare UU World with the freshness and vitality of online UU writing. I just love love love reading blogs and Twitter feeds and Google+ and even Facebook. I like that Chris has been integrating bloggers into his stable of writers — he’s really trying to bridge the gap between those of us who live online, and those of us who love print on paper (and some of us, like me, love them both). In part, I think UU World is facing the problem faced by every print on paper publication these days.
And ultimately, it may be that UU World is an accurate reflection of much of Unitarian Universalism. Maybe we are that boring and alienating in reality….
(((By the way, and not that it affects your argument, my partner (who’s a freelance writer and designer) says UU World does not use Times New Roman. Not sure what it is, but it’s definitely some other serif type.)))
Hi Dan! Thanks for dropping by! I read your comment to my husband, who then informed me that he has a program to scan UU World and figure it out which font it uses. In fact, I think he stopped making himself breakfast, sensing this was a new
I appreciate your thoughts. I share your respect for the writers and editor. Chris Walton actually tweeted this post (and I’m told also posted this on his facebook). I did not know that UU World used to be a newspaper-style. In imagining the aesthetic differences, I think you may be on to something. Is it more an issue that that the cover does impact the book? Maybe. I am going to think more about that.
And I share your love of the UU blogosphere, twitter, and yes, facebook too. I am grateful for the ideas I have gleaned from there. Maybe it is because I run into some folks in similar phases of life and so they write about things I am living. Our faith does elevate individuals more than most, so it is pretty cool to be UU in the age of the Internet.
Chris Walton (via twitter) sent me an article describing the typeface. It’s Bembo. (Learn something new everyday, eh?)
Check it out: http://www.uuworld.org/2002/05/editor.html
Pingback: Syncretism, spiritual community, finding the right words, and more « uuworld.org : The Interdependent Web
I really wanted to jot down a simple word to say thanks to you for
all of the magnificent pointers you are giving out on this site.
My particularly long internet investigation has at the
end been recognized with reliable knowledge to exchange with my family and friends.
I ‘d point out that we website visitors actually are extremely fortunate to dwell in a great place with so many marvellous people with interesting basics. I feel pretty privileged to have encountered your entire web site and look forward to plenty of more entertaining moments reading here. Thank you again for all the details.