The lonely lies of social media

Brazil is the second country on the list of countries with most use of social media, only behind the USA. Alone it is responsible for 10% of the time spent on social media worldwide, and the average Brazilian uses the internet for at least 5 hours. However, Brazilians also spend approximately 4,5 hours per day watching television. Which combined with the time on the internet, consists of 9,5 hours per day spent with information being poured into our brains.

Recently, I also did a research and found in a ISAPS international survey that Brazil and USA are also countries that dispute the top of rankings regarding the biggest percentage in number of aesthetic/cosmetic surgery. Both are also top ranking countries regarding percentage of population diagnosed with depression, Brazil holding 7th (14% of total population, 66% of which are women) and USA holding first (with 17% of population). Though these are complex social issues which I could not dream of knowing for sure - and thus all I rant about from here on, is mere speculation - I find it hard to believe that these issues are non-related.

Although social media has it's importance as a means of communication and for news to be shared - since I do not watch television, it's how I keep up with news about the world and scientific field news - priorities in social media are pretty messed up. When considering the aspect of people posting about their own news, the internet is merciless. If someone posts something about how they actually feel, naïvely answering facebook's question "How are you feeling today?" or "What's on your mind?", brace yourself, because if you are not praising your own life, showing how awesome you and your events are, or exhibiting your looks, skills or intelligence, brace yourself. If you are feeling discouraged, weak and present an honest description, people tell you to talk to a psychologist instead of facebook. This is the internet. There is no room for the weak, for the ordinary, for the unhandsome.

Studies have been made that show that it is easier to be honest (and, often, hurtful) through technology because it depersonifies people. It is easier to show hate through a computer screen than it is to a human made of flesh and bone. It is easier to shame, curse and threaten a thumbnail picture and name than it is to someone standing in front of you. It makes it harder to develop empathy when there is no emotional feedback when interacting through indirect means of communication.

What this means, is that involuntarily we begin to build an internet alias, the person we want to come across as being. An alias?, one may ask. But that is my name, and those are things happening in my life, I am not lying! Yes, but there is plenty of omission.  The pictures posted only consist of the best angles, the best pictures. The stories posted are only the praiseworthy. The thoughts posted are only the popular ones among followers, seeking interest and likes. Humans are social beings, and we crave acceptance and attention.

Scrolling down your timeline suddenly becomes a depressing activity: reading about everyone's awesome lives, how happy they are, how much they have achieved, how good looking they are, you start to wonder: what is wrong with me? Why do I not feel happy like that all the time? Am I doing something wrong? So you start to try to fit in by, rather than presenting who you are, the image that you want to portray.

The alias constructed may have many forms. It may showcase your beauty - through plenty of selfies, or it can show how cultured you are by the quotes posted. It can show your awesome life through pictures of trips, holidays, parties and events. Look at how popular, smart and beautiful I am. Look at all the friends I have. We behave mostly like children craving, instead of little stars of praise, we crave thumbs up and likes. We begin to believe that our value is in what we post.

What this means is that all people have this unspoken agreement to only post things that exalt themselves, pats their pride and satisfies - even if merely by illusion - the inherent human need to be loved.

Truthfuly, this is purely symptomatic of our context. After our minds being numbed down for 39.58% of our day, through advertisements in television and on the internet, we take up marketing too in our social interactions and try to pour into other people's minds the need of interest in you, and reasons why you are important, influential, successful, happy. We advertise ourselves as though we were a product to be consumed. But that is the very issue. We are no longer people. We are products. 

This permeates not only social media and internet interaction, but it spreads into our other interactions too. We may try to fit the image as much as possible - and in come fake fabricated events, shallow relationships that never reach the real people, plastic surgery, make up and clothing to portray that image we want to get across. Our life becomes a constant show and spectacle because we fear how people would react if we were to show our real selves. 

Eventually, the show can't go on. Either we break under the pressure - causing all sorts of psychological issues and, many times, suicide - or the image cannot be fabricated. Perhaps we age and our intelligence is not as it was, our looks age and we are no longer young and beautiful, we lose money and become uninteresting, obsolete.When people realise we are not actually what we pretended to be - that we are humans made of flesh and blood, that have emotions, hurt, a complex history, we are treated like a product that did not fit the advertised qualities. The logic of purchasing and using a product for self benefit ('the costumer is always right') is transported from the marketplace into the way we interact with each other. 

The same way we were taught that others are perfect products, and were merciless in our judgement, this comes back to us. Ultimately, like the product we made ourselves to be, we are used, consumed and discarded. And so a cycle of hatred, lack of love and empathy and, in the end, loneliness begins to take its toll; although humanity never has been so connected as it is through so many means of communication, none of our 800 friends are anywhere within sight - except that handful that know you are more than a source of news, status, or looks. Those that know you are human. 

How can we break the cycle? How can we break social media addiction? The addiction to the illusion of acceptance? How can we stop drowning our minds in produced information and concepts that murder our relationships and humanity? 

 The internet ends up making us exalt ourselves, and the qualities exalted are generally individualistic and self beneficial: beauty, wealth, intelligence, status, etc. However, by changing our basis of values in our mind, instead of aesthetic surgery, we end up doing mind and soul surgery - we change the things that are important. By regarding virtues such as faithfulness, gentleness, patience, love, as higher, and by seeking such virtues, the focus changes entirely from one's self to the other. What happens is not that all the other qualities cease to exist; they may still exist, but they are not important for someone to have value. And too, if they do exist in a person that has other virtues as priorities, they are not used for self benefit: the intelligence and wealth can be used in favor of others, for example. Beauty ceases to be a competition, and can just be something pleasant to be appreciated - but definitely does not change or define the value of a person. And in a society that every advertisement highlights how important you are and how this product will benefit you, and make you be loved and appreciated, changing the way we interact with each other by seeing the other as the focus, the one to be exalted, is a rebellion in itself. And, perhaps, all that needs to happen to begin a revolution. 

The Mission

I remember when I was young, listening to some missionary stories in sunday school that sounded very much like horror stories. I came back home upset multiple times when videos were shown of cannibal tribes still existent in Brazil, and them talking about how we were all missionaries: "You are a missionary too, even though you're a child. You don't have to go to somewhere like this, you can talk about Jesus in your school, with your friends, everywhere you go." It was upsetting and it made me scared - do I really want to be a missionary if that is what it ultimately ends with? Becoming someone's meal?
On the other hand, I loved listening to the stories grannie told me, of her and grandpa leaving Ireland to come to the back of beyond in Brazil, with no electricity, in all sorts of rural regions where christianity had not yet reached. Grandpa would leave on his horse with nothing but his toothbrush and Bible for weeks - and grannie would stay at home, waiting, with 4 kids, getting on with her work, and with the feeling of a hole in her stomach that was only filled when grandpa came back, as she herself describes it. They worked together, they cared for a home, for seminaries, they talked about Jesus' love. The funny thing is, I never heard even one sermon, and yet they have always been examples I have wanted to follow - because their lives spoke so much louder than any words could have.
It was with disbelief that I realised that they, like the videos I saw in sunday school, were missionaries. That their stories, were missionary stories. But... I enjoyed them. They were different. I wanted to listen to these. My definition and view of 'mission' begun, then, a process of divine reformulation.
Reading a book by Eugene Peterson on pastors, he highlights a strange and, to me at the time, revolutionary concept that no profession as a Christian is any easier, and each one has their own struggles. Being a loving, self-sacrificing, ethical, just, faithful and righteous person is just as difficult in the church as it is in an office, lab or mission field. There are different benefits or responsibilities. but none is easier.
Jesus' great commission is not something which can be chosen if we take it on - being his disciple, believing and trusting in Jesus as our Saviour, has this as a necessary implication. One cannot be a disciple and not do as he instructed:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
(Matt. 28.18-20)

Being a missionary is not a choice that a christian may take on or not, but it is a natural consequence of full comprehension of God's love throughout history and the meaning of his sacrifice. If a hungry beggar finds bread in an endless source of bread, and knows that there is no less food if more people come, it is natural that he would tell all people he sees hungry where to get bread. As it is put by Brennan Manning in "Ragamuffin Gospel", the sharing the gospel is no more than a beggar showing the other where there is bread. And if the people that are told 'love your neighbour as yourself' are unable to share such joy, there is something very wrong.
But sometimes I would still wonder: But what about these people that are 'called' to go to different countries, different cultures? Isn't it easier for God to just get people that already live there to talk about his love? Afteral, they understand the culture FAR better than anyone from another place, wouldn't they be able to dialogue better with locals?
I spent some time in thought and here are a few things I have concluded on why being a missionary overseas has it's importance for those working in the mission field:

(1) Depending on God - Leaving your home, country and family is a tough job, regardless of the reason. It is an experience in which during multiple moments one might question if they did the right thing, because it can be very lonely feeling; you don't really understand the culture and language surrounding you, and it takes a while to build meaningful friendships which will be able to strengthen you in your new country. However, this is an amazing opportunity to deepen the trust and relationship with God. It is a moment you realise how easily and quickly you can lose all the people, things, places, that you love most and just how very alone and meaningless (when considering mundane aspects) you are to this world, and how fragile the construct of 'happiness' and 'fulfilment' are when based upon what our culture establishes. You find your meaning is not here on earth, and you seek all you have: your Faith.

(2) Depending on generosity - Most missionaries receive their support from people who freely give money to them, to help their work. Part of mission is learning to depend on one another, and giving feedback on your work - it is also an important aspect of those who stay behind and support the missionary, be it financially, be it in prayer. In an age of 'independence' it is revolutionary to be entirely dependent of your brothers and sisters, and it is a revolution to be a faithful - and joyful - giver that does not expect a benefit for themselves from it.

(3) Greater empathy - Having gone through the great struggle of beginning mission work in a foreign culture, you are more empathetic and understanding with other people in transition phases; it is a chance to be more loving unto people leaving their homes, without a family, etc. You understand the importance of hospitality, and of that honest and loving conversation. Also, the deepening of dependence in God brings a further understanding of his love - which you really, really want to be able to show appreciation for by sharing it.

(4) Understanding diversity - Suddenly, the way you think, many things you were taught during your life, are tossed in the bin. The meaning of words, expressions and actions; what is normal, what is beautiful all have new meanings to the people you are in contact with. The feeling of "homelessness" when seeing such a relativisation taking over so many things makes you understand how diverse the world is, and allows you to see how Christianity stands in relation to other cultures. You learn to see other cultures under a different light, and to see the people beyond the culture.

(5) Understanding the meaning of Jesus leaving his 'home' - You miss lots of people and lots of things. Some days are worse than others, but as you come to think of it realise that this is just a faded image of what Christ did for us:

"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me" 

- John 6.38

"He made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!" 

- Philippians 2.7-8

Leaving the side of the Father, taking on a very nature that was not his own, and dying. It is the origin and the very reason why we are called to mission, and many even to martyrdom. Teaching us to understand and value that which has already been done.


The truth is, I do not know what it is like to be a missionary in the full meaning of the term - all I speak is from observation of the many missionaries surrounding me, and from my own attempt to live mission in my daily life, but these were the things that helped me understand a bit better why it's so important and why so often it has this not particularly logical format that causes people to relocate their entire lives to other cities, countries or continents to share Christ.
Maybe, on the long run, when done correctly and fully all these things happen: when we realise that even our 'homes' are not home, and our 'cultures' are not ours in light of the Kingdom that is yet to come.

Caution: Mixed Gender lab. Beware of crying or falling in love.

Recently I was asked to do a writeup on what it's like to be a woman in science for a project called "Projeto Redomas". It is a project organised mostly by girls who take part in the Brazilian Christian Union, and was made to give attention to stories of women who, at some point in life, in some christian environments, were exposed, treated as objects, classified and shut down. The idea is to bring out interesting, respectful and constructive discussions; for a sense of empathy and love to prevail above that which is determined by society. If you're a portuguese speaker, I recommend having a look at the project. 
In any case, this is the original text which was later translated for the project, hope you enjoy! 

Source: Pipet monkey blog

Luke was born a very large baby. He grew strong and tall, and everyone was sure that Luke would be an amazing basketball player – after all, he was so tall. He was told his whole life about how he would be a legend on the basketball courts. Luke grew up, played basketball but always felt a mediocre player. He hated it. His actual dream was to become a chef. But how to tell all the people that had told him he must be a great basketball player that he, in fact, had no motor coordination for the sport?

Luke knew that chefs that were as tall as him earned less – in some places in the UK, tall people earned R$ 29.354,00 less; in other restaurants, the difference went up to staggering R$ 123.286,78 . He also knew that there were only 30% of the people working with cooking that were as tall as he was. Many of his exceptionally tall friends also had had trouble with painfully average sized chefs stealing their recipes to publish. He found himself presented with both options: either to give in to the expectations so many people had of him – even if he were mediocre, at least it would be easier…  -- or to face the barriers in cooking to his heart’s content.

Luke isn’t real, and no, the cooking industry has nothing to do with one’s height. But the statistics presented in this story are very real. This is just a metaphor for women, and the kitchen is actually a lab. This is what being a woman going into science looks like. This is the real daily struggle every woman knows they will have to live with if they decide to go against the ‘more feminine’ professions.

For a group of people who claim to regard the truth highly and who attempt to be unbiased  in assumptions until an analysis of the data is made, the scientific community assumes many things of minorities within its community.

Society thrusts upon us the responsibility of living up to the expectations of the stereotypes we may seem fit for, when, in reality our individual personal experience has lead us to be very different from the stereotype attributed to us. Unfortunately, women still struggle under many stereotypes in the workplace, and science is no different.

Very often women are regarded as being unfit for the scientific work due to differences between stereotypical female and male ways of thinking. Yes, men and women do have different brains – it isn’t news that during development we have different neurological formation and neurone distribution, but the thought of one type of brain being better than another is, at best, a naïve assumption – at worst, plainly foolish.

“Women are too emotional. They cannot be unbiased for producing and evaluating scientific data.”

Yes, us women have to struggle with peaks of hormones once a month much larger than the fluctuation in hormones a man suffers during his entire life. However, having emotions does not overrule every other functioning part of our brain. If hormones are an actual issue, one could say men are unfit for working as researchers because of how much more testosterone they have, which increases their tendency of getting angry and thus their evaluation of data would be clouded by it if they thought a certain result might be different from what was expected. Men and women have different struggles, this does not mean one is more or less suited for such a career.

“Men focus on one task and become experts in it – women think of too many things at once to be as good as a man.”

Focusing on one task/skill very much is regarded as a male characteristic and, almost by default, is considered better. But my question is: why is it considered better in the first place?

First of all, not all people fit the stereotypes presented for genders. And, even if we do consider stereotypes exist for a reason, this still does not affect my main argument. In the book “What’s wrong with the world”, author G.K.Chesterton has an exceedingly chauvinistic claim that a woman’s skills in domestic work are far more impressive than that of the man. While the man has to focus only on his one selected career, a woman has to be a cook, a cleaner, a philosopher and theologian to children’s questions, and care for a child all simultaneously. But my question is: who decided the ability to multitask and link multiple fields ought to be restricted to the household? Many skills and tendencies in the way a woman works can be exceedingly helpful when balancing lecturing, researching and publishing.

One of my favourite examples of how a multidisciplinary brain linking different fields can have impressive results is Marie Curie. She still is the only person to be awarded with Nobel prizes in two different fields, Chemistry and Physics.

“Women will try to use their looks or emotional blackmailing in their favor.”

In an interview, Nobel prize laureate, scientist and lecturer Tim Hunt from University College London claimed he did not like having women in his lab – “They fall in love with you, you fall in love with them, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

I cannot lie – I have seen girls who would attempt to get higher grades and pass subjects by wearing short skirts, cleavage and emotional black mailing or whining. I also saw male lecturers give in. On the other hand, I have also seen male students attempt to compliment lecturers to pass a subject, and the lecturer being unyielding.

The whole issue in this matter is not a question of gender, but of ethics – and using the poor examples of women who can attempt to make use of female stereotypes in their favor, is because they are giving in to a notion they at some point began to believe: that it is better to achieve a certain goal in any other way than doing your job properly and efficiently. The issue is both in those who accept this (and reinforce the conditioning that appealing sexually or emotionally is good) and in those who resort to such unethical tactics. Not on the gender.

“Science and motherhood don’t go together.”

I know a researcher who was pregnant when defending her Doctoral thesis and suffered from hearing in a sarcastic tone – both from men and other women – that she was ‘clever’ for defending her thesis pregnant, to get people to feel sorry for her and ‘take it easy’. This same woman, when in a meeting, had to leave earlier than expected due to her child taking ill and – in the same context that a few weeks ago the people saw a father leave to pick up his children was seen as a “loving and caring father” - she was treated badly and people pointed out how bad it was to have mothers working outside the household.

Being a mother and researcher and lecturer certainly isn’t a walk in the park, but if being a father, researcher and lecturer is, then there is definitely something wrong.

“Women are more suited for jobs which involve empathy and emotional attachment such as nursing and teaching, and not for logical thinking or power positions.”

Last time I checked, all human beings have feelings and, again, perhaps for women they may be heightened at certain times of the month. However, if our feelings cloud our logical thinking or our decisions made due to power, there is definitely something wrong – and it is not if it’s a woman or a man deciding, but that someone is making themselves (and all who work under them) susceptible to something as volatile as feelings. More than a diagnostics on gender issues, it is so of social issues which classify feelings as being something bad – to be ignored – or something good – to be listened to all the time. The thing is, feelings exist and must be acknowledged and dealt with: but what is right or wrong is what we do with them.

“A man’s work is more trustworthy.”

A lecturer and researcher said this, in a classroom. Though it is not something often spoken, the fact that much work researched by women and many discoveries made by women in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, physics and biology has only seen the light of day and been considered relevant when published by men who stole and published their work and ideas. Much of the credit still is not attributed correctly to the female researchers.

I could talk more of experiences I have seen and experienced of what it means to be a woman in science. The truth is, if there are women in science, it is because we are standing on shoulders of giants – of women who have fought through social expectation and convention to prove that women, too, can pursue truth and want to take part in the pursuit for the truth about the universe and the laws that govern it. But there is still much to be done for the generations to come, so that this dialogue is no longer necessary.

Something, though, both society and the scientific community still struggle with is something I have repeated multiple times along this text: men and women have different struggles and benefits from the way their minds and bodies function. However, this does not mean they are better or worse in a certain task, career. Stereotypical female or male characteristics are not better or worse in their essence, despite what we are told. In the end, we are just different, and differences can only enrich and aid the field.

Perhaps, next time, before looking down a microscope at the smallest of fungi, or looking up through a telescope at the celestial bodies, we could take some time to appreciate and understand the complexity of the beautiful human being standing beside us in a lab coat that is not defined by labels and stereotypes - and see that, like us, they too are human. Maybe learning to see each other accurately, together we can work better to understand this amazingly beautiful and complex cosmos we are in.

Love is inconveniant

I haven't been on this planet for too long, but I have been on it long enough to be sick of seeing the same old story of young women who wait, and wait for love, impersonated byprince charming - aka, handsome, brave, determined, leading, kind, protector, loving, a savior of all their emotional and past issues who will redeem them from every other poor choice, and add to this list any particular adjective according to personal preference - and, upon the disilusion of discovering such a man does not exist, deciding to marry the first guy willing to marry. All because "they want to be married".

People advertise this strange idea that marriage is the end of our problems, because once you're married, that's it; afterall, in all the stories, that was all that the "Happy ever after" is, right? Suddenly, vows made, you will have a natural inclination to love, because your spouse also went through the magical transformation of "I do" and all became easy and wonderful. But...upon the sudden realisation this is not the case, after arguments and tears, fights and dishes broken, they go their seperate ways to 'seek love and happiness'.

Where I believe it all went wrong, is when the dreamers failed to foresee that love is no easy task, and involves a great deal of pain (unlike what the world sells). Now, many may object to this statement. Multiple people I know who have divorced stated that "they were no longer happy" and so decided to see if they would be happier separate than together, and so they consider that the way to allow the other person to be happy is by letting them do what they want*.

However, though happiness is a wonderful thing, our society pizes happiness above all else, whilst I believe, though a wonderful thing, there are many things far greater than happiness in the realistic scheme of things.

And example:  Current parenting believes a parent must make their child happy at whatever cost, and must yield to the child's every want. If they want the dad or uncle to dress up as a pricess, they should. If the child wants a gift, they should get it. The only thing this produces is not a happy child, but a spoilt brat. Or, in a worse case, it can produce physical or psychological harm to the child if what they want is something harmful. In this case, making the child happy (giving them what they want) is not to be regarded as highly as the child's safety. The objective of this metaphor is not to say that in any romantic relationship one has the role of a parent, for instance. In love, a discipline which many times limits happiness (and may even cause pain) is to be applied to ourselves, rather than attempt to apply it to anyone else. Perhaps having an affair with a younger woman would please a man and make him happy - however due to love and respect for his wife, he know he oughtn't pursue such a fantasy. Perhaps you would like to go to a game or had plans that would make you happy, but out of love it is many times necessary to leave this aside to spend time with a loved one.

What this means is that, appart from happiness not being the most highly regarded and protected thing, it is most certainly not your happiness that is the priority in a relationship. When I hear a number of lovesongs singing "I need you to make me happy", that, apart from not being love, is the thing most unlike love - that is pride; that is believing the other person's sole objective ought to be to make you happy. And pride and love cannot coexist by their very nature. Pride states that ones self is the most important thing in the world, which prevents all of the exercises of love - service, forgiveness, understanding, repentance - from taking place. After all, why should one who believes to be perfect and sovereign go out of their way to look at the point of view of anyone other than themselves, or be concerned with the well being of another?

The beauty of a relationship where there is no pride and of perfect love on both sides is that one serves the other, and one must never seek out their own happiness or well being - for they can trust that the other will be concerned with that.

Now, when one feels love for another, the work in this task many Joules easier. However, loving someone does not mean neither that there is the feeling of love present, or that one even likes the other person all the time - after all, it is almost impossible to like anyone (even ones self) all of the time. I dare say, love proves itself most in the moments where the feeling is entirely absent, and still is acted upon as though it were present. More than a noun, a place to be 'in' or something to be felt, love is a verb: not to be spoken of in far off theories, but in actions of self sacrifice.

This does not mean any bloke who shows up at a lass' door ought to be the one to marry because "love isn't easy" afterall, but the evaluation to be made is if this is the promise one wishes to make to a potential spouse - to live in self sacrifice constantly, to be willing to bend and serve and be faced every day with your natural tendency to be self centred (and being constantly reminded by this other person that you shouldn't). The Bible never ordered anyone to marry; it is a gift and a metaphor for a love far greater. Still, aside from what is sold to us, singlehood is, yes, an option to be contemplated - however it is valid to keep in mind that  marriage is only a very intensive school of a love which we are told to live by in all circles - friends, family and acquaintences.

Upon thinking of all of this, I am always brought back to think of the one who came to show us what true love is. God, himself, who made himself vulnerable to the point of being a helpless child in the hands of an inexperient mother, and gave his life for those who could never repay his love. If Christ taught us anything, he taught us that the one who loves is the one who suffers and cries. He taught us that the one who loves is the one who give everything, expecting nothing in return. The one who loves is the one who, in this world, is spat on, beaten, cursed, damned. The one who loves is the one who dies at the hands of the ones who don't.

So, to all the lass's and pet's around the world, wishing to find the perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, or even walk the aisle, I leave a small reminder. I'd say that from Christ's example, it's safe to paraphrase The Princess Bride:

"Love is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." 

Note: I am not married, though in a relationship. Therefore, much of what is mentioned here comes from books such as The meaning of marriage (Tim & Kathy Keller), Mere Christianity (C.S.Lewis), The Single Issue (Alber Y. Hsu); other things come from observations of both multiple broken marriages close to me and healthy marriages; so, when treating about marriage, I'm definitely not an expert on hands on experience, and there's still much to be learnt in non-romantic relationships. So, sorry if it's too theoretical/idealistic and little practical!

* I of course understand there are multiple cases in which divorce is necessary, and I do not believe relationships in which there is infidelity or are abusive (emotionally or physically) ought to be tolerated. When I describe love as being "pain", is that there is a great deal of sacrifice that goes on, however, though Christ gave us his all, but because God loves us and has established what is a good relationship in hiw word (Mt 5.32; Col 3.19; Eph 5.25; 1 Peter 3.7; Eph 5.28). We are all humans made in the likeness of God, and as such the abuse or destruction of dignity of his likeness is an offence to God himself.

Third (fourth, fifth...) culture kids

"Brazilian? But how come you don't look brazilian?" they ask me, shocked and frustrated after realising any attempt to guess where I'm from is wrong. "And your english is very good! You don't talk like the other brazilians I know!". I nod and smile and briefly explain my family and how we function. Depending on the person's interest, I can go more to depth in explaining or not. 

To many people, it is strange the idea that people can not have one standard and stereotypical cultural origin. People who genuinely understand generally are those who have either spent a considerable time abroad, or people who have in fact been raised between two or more cultures. 

There is a particular name for people raised between cultures, Third Culture Kids. It's a term used to describe children whose families are from a first culture, but they live in a second culture - therefore, the child has a third culture, which involves both of the ones they have contact with. In 2013, 220 million third culture kids were estimated in the world. 

I wouldn't call myself a standard third culture kid because of being of the second generation on both sides of the family. Both grandparents on my mother's side are Northern Irish, whereas my grandfather on my father's side was swiss, and his wife was brazilian with portuguese and/or spanish roots somewhere far off. What this means is that my european cultures were slightly more diluted. This still didn't make growing up much easier. 

Firstly, though Brazil has many races, my very pale skin, blonde hair and green eyes still aren't treated as standard. But more than that, I always felt like this outsider trying to decode my friends and acquaintances, trying to live as though I were as normal as possible. Faking an accent in English, not talking about how my home was different, hardly ever having friends over. 

Our british side always regarded honesty very highly, and I was always told I shouldn't lie - but my blunt honesty from a very young age has over the years certainly hurt people I met. When I was told to be honest, I foolishly understood I ought to say what I was thinking.  What to me was 'being honest', to the brazilian culture was being rude. Instead of saying "We should go out some time to catch up and have some coffee" (aka, I do not have the intention to go out and meet you, but I don't want to be rude), I would say... I didn't think it would work out. I thought I was avoiding being deceitful, they thought I was being rude. No one was wrong or right, we wanted to communicate the same idea - we just said it in very different ways and thus couldn't understand each other.

Growing up, much energy had to be put into consciously trying to read expressions and micro expressions, body language and speech nuances to try to see when people understood in a different way than I meant something, and thus begun trying to shape the way I spoke to be understood. 

What I didn't know was that at that time I was trying to understand the cultural iceberg: 

Although inserted in the Brazilian culture lots of the time, I really only knew better the Brazilian surface culture (behaviour, language, some customs and traditions), while at home I was taught mostly the british and some of the swiss deep culture. I felt like a fake, because my surface and deep cultures, in many senses, were clashing cultures.

Brazil vs. Britain

Writing in this, I am going to describe my experience in my family that is a traditional christian Northern Irish family, so much here will not be according to other people's impressions of the current UK culture. Also, I love both cultures in different ways and am continually learning with them; I also understand that many people do not fit into the general stereotypes I will probably exaggerate here: my objective is to explain the different basis of each culture, rather than particular actions - and, obviously, people are people and the basis expresses itself uniquely in each household and human being. I hope I don't hurt any feelings, and if you disagree in any way, please give your point of view in the comments! I'll be delighted to hear more.

All the feels British and brazilians regard feelings in very, very different ways. Brazilians, like most latin cultures, regard feelings very highly and many of their decisions are many times governed by their feelings. If a brazilian is happy, they will laugh, if a brazilian is sad, they will cry, if a brazilian is angry they will argue. Music, soap operas, stories, all have fantastic examples of how important their feelings are, and showing them is definitely not an issue.
British are most definitely not like that. David Gilmour put it very eloquently in one of Pink Floyd's songs, Time: "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the english way". Well, that was how I was taught to live. If something hurts, you ignore it. If you want to cry, you just stop talking (and if you cry, do it behind closed doors without anyone EVER seeing you). If you are happy, don't go over the top. You have feelings. People don't have to know about them.

The british blues Maybe it's the grey skies, the rain, maybe british are just very good at hiding their feelings, but they seem to have this need to be slightly on the down side, it's like the mood baseline. On the other hand, brazilians are generally happy people, and I really admire that. They may not have food to eat, the government may be complete and absolute and utter - pardon my language, but I need this to get the point across - crap, but they are still happy people. Give them a pair of havaianas to be the 'goal posts', a ball (many times made of old socks), and they're happy. They smile a lot, and party even more - I still don't know why they party so much, but apparently, it's a big thing. There's always a reason for a big party, celebration, gathering and food (mostly deep fried, or packed with sugar, or better still, both). Let them watch a soccergame, and they're happy (as long as their team wins).

Tea or coffee? British tea and brazilian coffee are just the beginning of the differences in food between both countries. Brazilians cook with lots of oil and really (really) like their red meat - by the way, brazilian churrascos are fantastic. They also have lots of rice and beans - practically every meal. In britain, potatoes are the big deal in every shape and form. British food tends to be much more bland and to have less seasoning, brazilians like their peppers and seasoning.

Relationships The fact that Brazilians are very governed by their feelings means that this will affect their relationships a lot in good and in bad ways; they tend to be very warm and very touchy-feely - girls kiss cheeks of both guys and girls they meet, guys tend to shake hands or hug other guys (if they know each other very well). Sharing, being together and hugs are important. Couples have no issue with being exceedingly affectionate in public, to the point it gets awkward. Bus stops, subway stations, shopping centres, restaurants. You name it. Much french kissing goes on anywhere and everywhere. Even in restaurants, couples rather than sit in front of each other to look at each other as they talk, they tend to sit side by side to be closer physically.
This physical touch thing seems very alien to my home, by which I was surprised one day my granny just came and gave me a hug for no reason whatsoever. Also, Brazilian relationships tend to be very intense (varying swiftly between extreme love and extreme hatred), and even unfaithfulness is a big thing in relationships (I wonder how much this comes from the soap operas that often portray cheating on a spouse as a good thing, or how much the soap operas reflect the already existing culture); an example is the fact that the adultery website that was hacked had the highest concentration of people in a city signed up on it was in São Paulo. This shoots up divorce rates to 69%, whereas britain has a 47% divorce rate.

Say what you want to say Communication is very different in both cultures, as I described earlier. Brazilians seldom say what they mean, and will very rarely answer "No" to a question they have no intention ever saying "Yes" to. Also, honesty is not valued as highly as being "clever", "not hurting someone" or "being friendly". Meanwhile, the british culture is not necessarily concerned about being friendly to everyone, and are much clearer in saying this (as long as they do not relate to feelings). This can be hurtful to other cultures and perceived as rude.

Punctuality I was always taught to be punctual and was told making someone wait is disregarding their time and assuming your time is more important than theirs. Brazilians are almost always late, though its not done to offend anyone. If a party is scheduled to start at, say, seven o'clock, if you arrive at 8 you will be one of the first to arrive - most people will arrive an hour and a half to two hours late. People already assume it, and time is not a concern.

Proudly third cultured

I could list many other differences, but I think you get the point of what I'm saying - I was raised between two very different cultures and have had to learn a great deal. I wouldn't say it is better to not be a third culture child, in spite of the fact that there were some challenges I only came to recognise many years later. They are different ways of growing up and have their own benefits!
But the truth is that the benefits from being raised between multiple cultures are much greater than the issues coming from it. From very early on third culture children learn that there are multiple ways of seeing the world and interacting with it, and learn to try to read and respond adequately to people. Many times, we have to change the way we speak, but we (many times awkwardly) always try to be understood. We learn that the world is a vast place with many cultures.
Perhaps that is why it is so much easier to be friends with and have lasting relationships with people who also understand this and also are third culture kids - even if the first and second cultures are entirely different between the people. You don't really know what fitting in entirely is like, and thus know what it's like to not really have roots anywhere. It is like this secret world that both of you know, and can both explore together. It's the sudden realization of "You've been through that too??".

Therefore, the next time you ask "where someone is from", if they hesitate, know they aren't being cocky - it's just hard to explain a culture that is different from all others. We don't think we're better than anyone, it's just hard to be a citizen of a world only you and maybe half a dozen other people know. But I still think it's totally worth it!

Lost at sea

When I had a piece going to an exhibition one person asked what I was thinking of doing, and so I explained briefly the symbols I attributed meaning to and which I wanted to put in my work; another person listening in then said "No! You can't plan it out, you have to let it flow and put your feelings out in your art!". My response in disbelief was "Sorry, that's not how I work."
Don't get me wrong - I like art. I like music, drawing, painting. My great difficulty is this generalized feeling that anything and everything is art, much which came from the dada artistic movement and has survived many decades.
Over the past century, artists have been putting a lot of effort into removing the need of a reference in art - paintings no longer had to look realistic, or based on the physical reality; music no longer has to be bound by the rules of what constructs harmonious sounds; poetry does not have to have structure, rhythm or even relevant content; contemporary dancing is a general mixture of feelings and concepts. The efforts put in by artists certainly have been paying off, art is no longer bound by rules, structure or even thought.
However the great issue in this that I see is: I wonder if old forms of art are still considered art at all. In an attempt to relativise and remove rules, that which is according to rules by many is no longer considered art. The effort of the 'brain' is not as valued as the effort 'of the heart'.
 I strongly believe that art is merely an accurate reflection of a struggle that our society is in. Currently all things are tolerable, to the extent that the only thing intolerable is intolerance. In an insane attempt to make all things right, the definition of 'right' has been lost. There is so much 'freedom' to think, that, unless you 'freely' think with opinions that also relativise concepts, you are no longer free to think such things.
My line of thought may have become confusing, thus I will explain with the first example I presented, the one about my painting. We have been investing so much on labeling all things, even without structure and merely feeling art, that when there is structure and no feeling, it is no longer considered art. In a second example, we have put so much effort into being able to think anything (or nothing) that often I wonder if we have been thinking at all
The feeling I have is that absolutes and rules are an island that bound us for very long, and we were always told we oughtn't travel out of the land because it was too dangerous, and it was 'the wrong' thing to do. Because we knew what wrong was, we had no issue with that and the majority of the people lived their quiet lives on the land, never knowing what lay beyond the shores. A few thinkers, philosophers, adventuorous people over the years did explore the shores, and did so progressively more. Over the 1960s, crowds of people invaded the sea. They decided they were no longer going to be bound by the island and wanted the freedom of exploring the sea.
Now, I have no issue with thinking outside what we are told. Questioning, wondering, even seeing other islands to decide what we see as right, wrong, good or bad in accordance with our beliefs. However, what seems to have happened is that we have gotten lost at sea. In leaving the island, we have gotten lost in the vast nothingness surrounding us. And, not only that, we also shoot down anyone trying to swim to any island. We believe so much that the sea is the ultimate freedom, that in order to 'protect freedom', we prevent people from seeking land.
Having any belief - any island you call 'home' and believing that is the best land to be in, is seen as foolish. And so those who live in the sea believe themselves to be the 'wisest' and the 'thinkers', when what actually happens is that they believe nothing, defend nothing, and have no home. Someone may live on an island - having a religion, defend a political, moral or ethical view - and know just as much (if not more) than anyone of those lost at sea. The great difference is that a decision has been made as to what they choose to live by.
Of course, not all people at sea are like that, and sometimes they just respect that others have their islands. As well as there are extremists on their islands that profoundly hate people on other islands or at sea. But that isn't the point I want to discuss here.
The main point I want to reach in this metaphor is the fact that recently more and more people are lost at sea, driven by the tides in their lives and susceptible to the waves of feelings. We were told to swim, to explore the world, we were told to follow our feelings and marry whoever we 'felt love' for, to work in 'whatever makes us happy', and to 'follow our hearts'. Of course, keeping in check things we like and people we have affection for - investigating islands and being able to choose which one we like most - does not seem a bad idea at all, much better than being assigned an island. However, we did not count on how much the sea can change. We sought places where we had both the safety of an island, and where we could follow the current of the sea (only to find that in the sea, the waves go up and down). And so, in despair, continue in the sea looking for that wave that will keep us up continually without ever breaking; wondering, where it was that we went wrong because everyone seems to be on the top of the wave.
Our music is now a mess of layers of instruments with no sense or coherence. Our art, is a mess of colors with no sense and which each person sees one thing. Our poetry is lost in small concepts of feelings, of emotions vulnerable and restricted to the microuniverse of relationships - nothing more is written about the islands. We are lost. We are at sea. We are roaming aimlessly, and we don't even know why we left the island in the first place.
The thing is, if you stay in the water, floating in the sea long enough, sensory deprivation starts to kick in. And all the feelings there were - they begin to get lost. We grow weaker, and stop swimming and merely float. We dived in to our feelings, and with time we begin to realise we don't actually feel anything at all.
Many of our generation depend on our parents to be our islands, to provide and to keep us going. We depend on others to make the decisions that will keep our society - the relationship between islands -running. Because we are spoilt children who ran away from home, got lost at sea and refuse to grow roots on any island at all. All because we are free, and wise, and thinkers. But who will be left to care for the islands? To make sure that there is communication between the islands, if we shoot down every ship sailing?
We have no anchors and we have no hope. We want so much freedom, we don't care if that means taking away someone else's freedom. We are decaying islands - we believe they are only illusions in our minds to make us feel safe.
We have failed to understand that, yes, we must have freedom to think, but that that doesn't mean we do not have an opinion. As Aristotle put it in one of my favorite quotes:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Or, if transporting this to the metaphor regarding wandering between islands:

"Not all those who wander are lost."

But all we are is shipwrecked at sea, following what the tide brings, vulnerable and fragile, basing decisions on the waves. Entertaining thoughts to the extent that we accept none, wandering and being lost.

Still we wonder why so many of us our drowning.

And yet, we believe that being lost is the price of freedom.

Wherever you are, be there.

Coming back, I was already making myself ready to be busy at a thousand miles per hour. I was  hoping to work, study, learn, go back to ballet, and be as busy a bee as my name has described me to be. However, I was surprised and taken aback by how quickly all that changed - I suddenly realised my plans wouldn't come through as I had expected.
Confused, I began to pray and wonder what in the world God was doing - after all, I had been praying about being 'useful' to him while back at home for however much time he wanted me here, and being useful (in my mind) meant being everywhere at once. I wanted the freedom I had while away - being able to walk, be independent and go everywhere and anywhere; then my health just halted me, and though all is well, I can't do as much as I thought I would do due to waiting for a minor surgery to be done.
I felt in a cage. I felt my freedom stolen. I felt my offer to 'be useful' had been dismissed unceremoniously.
As I was reminded what it feels like to stop, I began slowly to take less interest in offence with the events and rants about it, and took more interest in stopping to listen. The more I read the Bible and prayed, I was reminded that all the things we do are to be done for the Kingdom of God - not only work, studies and ABU (or Christian Union). But also the simple daily living on a slow pace.

"So here’s what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life—your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life—and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Don’t become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You’ll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you."
- Romans 12.1-2 (MSG)

Staying at home can be as much of a gift to God - pottering around, doing dishes, cooking, baking, cleaning, organising and even doing things I like such as painting, reading, drawing I could do this as a gift - as those big things done all over the place. 

On Sunday, I was reading for the second time in two days a parable Jesus tells about the Kingdom of God in Luke 13:21-22 (NIV) which again brought me back to this same concept:

Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? 21 It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

As I read it, I had a moment of epiphany: how extraordinary it was that in that social context - in which a woman had little rights and were in the margin of society - that Jesus would choose to talk about the Kingdom growing in the hands of a woman, in a wee kitchen in the back of beyond, making bread. In such an unlikely and unexpected scenario, something so small made the bread grow and bless many people that could be fed! (I was even more surprised to find that who was talking about the text exactly focused on these aspects of the parable as well!)
So my mind began to function in tune with this - that in the most ordinary, unexpected things I could be just as useful to Him as i was at a thousand mph. I focused on the notion that, yes, this is where He wants me for the moment and thus I ought to make the best of it! Wherever I am, there I should be with all my heart, and mind and soul.
Today as I sit and think of my last couple of days - an afternoon spent yesterday listening to Grannie's stories about her childhood in Ireland, listening to my uncle's stories about trips in Africa, South America, and all kinds of countries, conversations I have had through skype with friends, being able to pray with my family and talk a wee bit about things I have been thinking about and learning... I am finding what a blessing it is to listen and to learn. I am finding that my want to be on the go could have stolen me of the incredible opportunity to be still.
I am currently thinking thankfully that I was put into a non-optional hold, and how it has been a blessing.
One of my favorite verses comes to mind: "Be still and know that I am God". The word "still" comes from a hebrew word, raphah, which does not mean 'to cease moving or working', as we could understand, but to 'let go' and 'let yourself become weak', in the notion that it is not us that have control, but God. It is not for us to stop doing every work, but to stop doing work we are weak and unfit for (like trying to determine every moment of our lives). And I like that - although find it very hard to live by.
In a sense, God has literally made me be still for some time, but for me to learn to be raphah (which is all the harder and more important to learn). But I am  glad. It has taught me, yet again, to quiet down my heart, my thoughts and my will to trust him to do that which I am weak for - and to just quietly continue with the small works, simple maybe as mixing bread, and letting him use it as he will. Being wherever he put me with all my heart, focusing on the tasks at hand and giving up on losing my mind over concerns I can do nothing about.
In a little metaphor, it's like I was rushing on the highway trying to 'be useful to him' and unexpectedly He pulled the breaks of my car  - and now I'm getting to appreciate the birds, butterflies and bees, the landscape and the flowers he put for me on the highway to just appreciate and learn a wee bit more about Him.