(Bloomington, IN) Very early this morning, my Chicago-bound flight rose over the tanks and derricks of East Boston, turned above the thick settlements of Cambridge and Somerville, and then, as the houses dispersed from tight rows into suburban swirls cut out of forest, we passed by the gleaming waters of Fresh Pond, Spy Pond, and finally—if I am not mistaken—Walden Pond.

That’s where Thoreau went in 1845, because “we need the tonic of wilderness.” But even in his day, a view from the clouds would have shown that he was not remote from society. “I was seated by the shore of a small pond,” he recalls, “about a mile and a half south of the village of Concord and somewhat higher than it.” I take “higher” to be literally accurate, a symbol of his spiritual elevation, and practically significant because he could, “by standing on tiptoe …, catch a glimpse … of some portion of the village.” In other words, even though the woods were more extensive than they are now, Thoreau was surrounded by people. A fenced road and the Fitchburg railway line came nearby, the latter even “touch[ing] the pond”; Thoreau would “usually go to the village along its causeway and [was], as it were, related to society by this link.”

Thoreau was contemptuous of the passengers who rattled by inside the train. They thought they are going somewhere interesting, but they would miss reality along the way. They also accounted the costs and benefits wrong. They calculated that they were spending little time in traveling between Fitchburg and Boston, but they forgot the time that they had sacrificed to earn the money for the fare, not to mention the other people’s lifetimes sacrificed to build the rails. “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man. … The swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot.” (Thoreau seems to spare the men who work the freight trains, because they pass slowly and frequently enough that they interact with him.)

If Thoreau condemned passengers who rode in a rickety train through Middlesex County, what would he say of us who zoom overhead in a pressurized cabin? I think I am going to Indiana and back in 48 hours, but many people have spent many days to pay for that journey, and I will see little along the way.

I was far higher this morning than Thoreau’s cabin, afforded a view of much more woods and also vastly more houses. We have sliced the old woods to ribbons to build hundreds of thousands of detached houses so that we don’t have to see much of our neighbors. Thoreau had prophesied the domestication of his little piece of wildness. In the winter of ‘45, standing in the middle of the frozen pond, he detected “a narrow shelf-like path in the steep hillside” nearby, which he suspected was “worn by the feet of aboriginal hunters.” He added: “The ornamented grounds of villas which will one day be built here may still preserve some trace of this.”

I could see the “villas” by their thousand this morning. The trail may be long gone. But I’d like to think that Thoreau would say: You don’t need much space for solitude. An airplane seat will do, if that’s where you happen to be. “Yet we should often look over the tafferel [the decorated stern] of our craft, like curious passengers, and not make the voyage like stupid sailors picking oakum.” And that’s why I looked down at Walden.

(See also “Hamatreya II.”)

The post a mile above Walden appeared first on Peter Levine.

Here is the fifth in an occasional series on jobs in civic education, democratic reform, community organizing, and related fields:

• Executive Vice President, Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate.  The EMK Institute will be housed in a stunning new 68,000 square foot facility — the heart of which is a full reproduction of the Senate Chamber — which is scheduled to open to the public in March 2015 and is located on the University of Massachusetts Boston campus … Up to 100 students will take on the roles of senators as they research issues, debate, negotiate, and vote on current, historic and new legislative proposals. See Position Description.
• Program Officer, Character Virtue Development, The John Templeton Foundation. See www.templetoncareers.org
• Several positions at the Center for Community Change, whose mission is to build the power and capacity of low-income people, especially low-income people of color, to have a significant impact in improving their communities and the policies and institutions that affect their lives. See http://www.communitychange.org/contact/careers/.
• Program Director, FairVote, will supervise the communication, advocacy, research, and legal team.
• President and Chief Executive Officer, Facing History and Ourselves. Facing History’s mission is to shape a humane, well-educated citizenry by helping adolescents build the habits, skills and knowledge to make responsible civic choices, grounded in ethical judgment, for the world in which they live. Position Announcement.
• An open position in the Longhorn Center for Civic Engagement at The University of Texas at Austin.  This position will primarily assist in the development of  student leadership programs rooted in community engagement. Position description.

The post job openings for civic renewal (5) appeared first on Peter Levine.

Congressman Vance McAllister admitted Thursday to voting against legislation in the U.S. House anticipating he would get a political contribution for his vote. A Republican from Swartz [LA], McAllister spoke about the matter as an example of how “money controls Washington” and how work on Capitol Hill is a “steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right.”

Rep. McAllister actually added that someone told him, “Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.” Those specific figures suggest quid pro quo corruption, which is illegal and should be formally investigated. But let’s assume that Mr. McAllister was making that part up for color, and the real story was more typical. No one offered the congressman $1,000 for a vote, but he (or an adviser) calculated that if he voted a certain way, he would be more likely to raise money from a given interest. According to the Supreme Court, that kind of influence is not corrupt, which is why I would denounce the Court’s understanding of fundamental ethics.

Conceptually, it might be helpful to understand our campaign finance system as a gift economy.  The anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss discovered that market exchanges are not the only systems that work at large scale and that permit the circulation of goods. It’s also possible to have a whole system (or a subsystem) built on gifts. People give things to each other, and they may do so for non-altruistic reasons–prestige, favor, or an expectation that they will obtain gifts as a result. But there is no prior agreement to reciprocate a gift with something of equal value. In fact, having a prior agreement makes it not a gift.

For instance (as I blogged years ago), Beowulf depicts a gift economy. The hero learns that Hrothgar, king of the Danes, is suffering from the scourges of a monster, so, unbidden, he sails to Denmark to offer his services. After he has killed Grendel (a whole day after, in fact–see line 1784), Hrothgar allows him to choose treasures from his store; Beowulf is “paid and recompensed completely” (2145). The hero sails home and gives everything he has received to his king, Hygelac (2148). Hygelac responds by giving Beowulf an ancient sword, land, hides, and a hall and throne.

None of this is negotiated in advance. As Hrothgar tells Beowulf (in Seamus Heaney’s translation):

For as long as I rule this far-flung land
treasures will change hands and each side will treat
the other with gifts; across the gannet’s bath,
over the broad sea, whorled prows will bring
presents and tokens. (1859-63)

That is all very appealing and noble, but the worthiness of a gift economy depends on what is given. In Beowulf, wives are gifts (see 2017), which is not so good for them. In our Capitol Hill culture, the money it takes to get elected and the votes cast on public policies are treated as gifts. Only if lobbyists are so gauche as to negotiate them as quid pro quo exchanges may they be banned. It is a medieval system–and not in a good way.

The post campaign finance as a corrupt gift economy appeared first on Peter Levine.

I enjoyed talking for an hour this morning with WPFW’s Josephine Reed. The audio of that show is archived here. (Look for the Thursday, June 12 edition of “On the Margin.”)

At 2 pm Eastern today, I’ll be talking about the book for another hour–almost all Q&A and discussion time–on the NCDD “confab”. [You can check out this page for graphics and text comments from that discussion.]

The post talking about We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For appeared first on Peter Levine.