![]() ![]() Their original habits were the genuine article - donations provided for an all-male production of The Sound of Music by actual Catholic nuns who got the joke. ![]() The Sisters are a group of drag queens who dress as nuns. ![]() When one sphere drops the ball, refusing or failing to meet its responsibilities, the others are forced to step up to do more.įor a real-world example of what that looks like, consider the civic association that is the subject of Brooks’ column and of his scorn: The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The greatest danger to neighborliness and to justice is not the usurpation Brooks fears - “when one sphere tries to take over another sphere.” The threat to justice, to neighborliness, and to every mutually bound “sphere” of society, rather, is the problem of abdication. Subsidiarity and/or “sphere sovereignty” are descriptions of and guides to neighborliness, not ground rules for a game of musical chairs. This is not what “sphere sovereignty” means. Brooks enlists this language forgetting that Kuyper’s spheres are distinct, but still “caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” Brooks seems to think of these spheres as existing in conflict, competition, or tension - as though civic groups, families, and churches were engaged in a tense standoff like the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. “Sphere sovereignty” was Kuyper’s Protestant/democratic revision of subsidiarity - an attempt to preserve its insights without the hierarchical Great Chain of Being baggage in the original. It wasn’t hard to tell which students had read the book and which ones were just riffing based on a loose grasp of the class discussion. When I was a seminary TA, I had to grade papers on Jim Skillen’s book about the Reformed political theology of Abraham Kuyper. It is an attempted “Kuyperian” attack against “little platoons.” It’s a criticism of “the politics of spectacle” that is, itself, an example of “the politics of spectacle.” And, above all, it’s a vivid demonstration of one representative Old White Guy’s bewildered failure to understand that 2023 is not 1983, and thus comes across like a boilerplate “shut up and dribble” rant of the sort that Brooks’ predecessors cranked out about Branch Rickey in 1947. Why waste any more time on this habitually disingenuous hack - this second-generation Reader’s Forum shopper and lifelong capicola-eater? Because Brooks’ column is, I think, confused in some helpfully clarifying ways. Unfortunately, the rest of it is even worse - more pretentious, more confused, and less sincere. It emphasizes the resistance and challenge one faces when trying to break free from deeply ingrained habits.Fortunately, most of Brooks’ column isn’t about baseball. In summary, 'old habits die hard' is a phrase used to convey the idea that it is difficult to change or abandon long-established behaviors or routines. 'Old habits die hard' would apply here as well, indicating that changing this deeply rooted behavior will be a challenge. Even if they recognize the negative consequences of their behavior and genuinely want to be more productive, they may find it hard to overcome their habit of delaying tasks. ![]() In this case, 'old habits die hard' implies that the person will struggle to break free from their long-standing smoking habit.Īnother example could be someone who has a tendency to procrastinate. Despite knowing the health risks and wanting to change, they may find it extremely difficult to give up smoking because it has become a deeply ingrained habit. This phrase suggests that it is challenging to break away from familiar patterns, even if they are no longer beneficial or desirable.įor example, imagine someone who has been smoking for many years and wants to quit. 'Old habits die hard' is an English (US) phrase that means it is difficult to change or get rid of long-standing behaviors or routines, especially ones that have been ingrained over a long period of time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |