Ode To Wren

Due to construction on campus, I and many of my colleagues have been working out of a dorm for the summer. As tomorrow is our last day in beautiful Wren Hall, it seemed only fitting that I share a few words of love for this building which has become my work home.

O, Wren Hall –

Shall I compare thee to a dormitory?Thou aren’t more lovely, tho more temperate.
Thy vistic views, trees with vodka bottle perch’d –
Thy distinctive smell and enchanting stains
Will stay fore’er in my heart – ’til I depart.
Colleagues gathered together as friends,
Lounging on couches before the day ends.
Intriguing signs made the grey walls more fun –
I’m in despair that our time here is done!

Thank you for having us, Wren Hall!

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Republican Candidate Who Makes Me Feel Like Less of a Partisan

In many ways, I am a fierce partisan. Loyally Democratic, though the mainstream of the party is too moderate for me.

In a Republican vs. Democrat show down, I want to win.

Quite honestly, I’d probably be willing to over look many of a candidate’s questionable actions if it meant putting a Democrat in office over a Republican. If this was the 7th season of West Wing and Alan Alda’s Republican was running against a terrible, not-Jimmy-Smits Democrat…I’d probably still vote Democrat.

The partisan in me likes to see terrible Republican candidates. I was scared of McCain when he was moderate, but breathed a sigh of relief as he ran to the right.

The partisan in me would like to see Sarah Palin run for president. She still has some appeal, no doubt, but her inability read a newspaper and her tenuous grasp on international relations could only serve to fracture the Republican party more.

There’d be a certain morbid delight in that.

Or at least it seems that way in theory.

What I’ve discovered in this election cycle, though, is that when there’s a big, hulking, troll in the room, sucking up all the air time with his bombastic personality and offensive comments – I genuinely feel bad for the Republican Party.

Last night’s Republican debate – the prime-time one, mind you, not the “happy hour” one – shattered viewership records, averaging 24 million viewers and claiming the spot of most-watched non-sports show ever on cable TV.

And all the news coverage today is about the troll who took center of the stage. Everyone is discussing whether his antics gained him favorability or whether his post-debate move to attack Megyn Kelly will ultimately backfire.

In some ways I should be delighted. I can hardly imagine him winning a general and his efforts to get there – especially if he launches an independent bid – will only hurt the Republican party.

But instead, I’m just tired. I don’t want to hear about him any more. I don’t care what racist or sexist thing he said. I don’t care about his backwards views on the issues.

I don’t want to hear from him any more.

I want to hear from some sane conservatives. I want to hear from people whose ideas and experience differ from my own, but who have come to their conclusions through rational thought.

I want to see two parties who can truly balance each other – who can have spirited disagreements which force both sides to improve.

I want to see Republican candidates I can respect and who I can imagine respecting me.

I want an Alan Alda Republican.

…And then, I want to vote for a Jimmy Smits Democrat.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Transitions

In just fifteen days I will leave my job of seven and half years. In just over a month, I will matriculate as a Ph.D. student at Northeastern.

While I made these plans some time ago – starting the application process last fall and giving my notice in March – it’s just now starting to sink in as a real thing that’s happening.

I’ve made transition plans, I’m wrapping up projects. I’ve registered for courses, I’m looking for some sweet Lisa Franks.

Time is flying by.

It’s been over ten years since I was last a full time student; I hardly know what to expect.

I suspect it will be hard and challenging at times – if not, I’m probably doing it wrong. True learning is a worthy challenge.

I hope I’ll find my age an advantage – I’ve seen enough that I find little to panic about any more.

I think back on what I’d wish I’d known as an undergraduate – how to advocate for myself, how to find my own way, how to navigate the world that is academia. Those are skills I’ve learned since graduating, and they’re skill I’ll need in the coming years.

Most of all, I feel incredibly privileged.

I get to spend the next five (+?) years studying and learning. I get to spend the next five years growing and exploring and challenging myself. I’m sure some of it will be overwhelming and some of it will be mundane, but man, what an amazing opportunity.

When I was deciding whether to even apply to this program I found myself explaining – this is what I’d do if I won the lottery.

This is what I’d do if I won the lottery – and, while I didn’t win the lottery, I get to do it!

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Mad Max

While its been several months since the latest Mad Max movie came out, I was only just recently able to slip in a chance to see before it left the big screen.

I’m generally a fan of action movies, but I was particularly intrigued when early reviews praised Mad Max as a feminist dystopic. That’s not what I expected based on my recollections of post-apocalyptic barbarian men fighting each other from tricked out, dilapidated vehicles from earlier films.

By the time I started seeing reviews that, perhaps, the film wasn’t as feminist as some might hope (or fear), my interest was already too piqued to miss it.

Now, before I get into a feminist critique of the film, let me start with this: I enjoyed it. It was a fun movie. There were lots of explosions, and I like explosions. There were some decent fight sequences with good choreography. Nothing of the caliber of, say, the first Transporter movie or even of the new Daredevil tv series, but it was better than the CGI nonsense some films try to pass off as action these days.

It was as enjoyable as any other action movie I might go see in theaters.

But. Mad Max: Fury Road is not a feminist movie.

Put another way, if Mad Max meets our standards for feminism, our standards are terribly low.

It surely does a better job of representing women than most Hollywood films, but “better than completely sexist” is not my definition of feminism.

The film stars a woman – not the titular character, but arguably the main protagonist nonetheless – who is a tough, competent, fighter. She is even a better shot than the male protagonist; a trait which, I suppose, brought some men close to fainting.

But the idea that a woman can defend herself – and that she might even be tougher than men – should not be radical. We should expect strong women in all our movies.

And the fact that Furiousa is the only truly tough woman in the movie should give us pause.

Similarly, Mad Max passes the famous Bechdel test – indicating that the film includes at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man.

It is great that Mad Max passes this test which is failed by Terminator Genisys, Amazing Spider-Man 2, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, and many other movies.

But, again, women talking to each other is a pretty low bar. I expect more than that.

Perhaps what struck me most about Mad Max was the tenderness of the women. All the female characters – even bad ass Furiousa – had a certain softness to them. A warmth and a love.

The message of the movie seemed to be: the hardness of men destroyed the world; the softness of women can repair it.

There were some excellent scenes emphasizing the injustice of male dominance and boldly advocating for women’s sexual freedom, but the pervasiveness of stereotypes seemed to balance them out.

It wasn’t a terribly sexist movie, but it wasn’t feminist either.

At least no one tried running from dinosaurs in heels.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Compromise and Justice

Compromise is often considered to be a good thing – just as we are taught to share toys as kids, we are also taught to share solutions.

If we can’t both get what we want, then reasonable adults will find a compromise – each getting a little of what they want while ceding some ground.

That might be all well and good if we’re debating something relatively trivial, but what about when it comes to issues of justice?

Then the best course is not so clear – if a full victory is beyond our reach perhaps a step towards justice is better than the status quo. Or, perhaps, a step towards justice will simply mollify the moderates, who will no longer feel the need to fight for more robust reform. On the other hand, refusing to compromise may earn you enemies – alienating moderates who might otherwise be willing to support your cause.

These are complex, strategic questions which every movement and activist must evaluate and consider.

Importantly, a wiliness to compromise for the good of the movement should not be confused with an instinctual response of conflict-avoidance.

Compromise can be good, but it should be a strategic choice – not a convenient dodge.

When debating such matters for myself, I’m reminded of the words of Charles Mackay in his poem No Enemies:

You have no enemies, you say?    
Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;    
He who has mingled in the fray    
Of duty, that the brave endure,    
Must have made foes! If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.    
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,    
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,    
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,    
You’ve been a coward in the fight.

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Bar Fight with Socrates

So, I have a running list of miscellaneous “post ideas.” Topics I’m thinking about but not ready to write on yet or things the come up over the weekend or a vacation.

I consult the list periodically to see if I’m moved to tackle a subject I may have neglected. And when I checked the list earlier this week, I saw I’d previously suggested a rather intriguing topic:

Bar Fight with Socrates, I’d written.

I’m not quite sure what I meant when I wrote that, though I hope someday I’m inspired to write a post far better than this one on the topic.

All I can imagine is that I was thinking – if I had a drink with Socrates, we’d probably get into a fight.

And not a proper dialectic debate with a little heat of intensity. I imagine a full our bar brawl.

Perhaps this image particularly struck me today because I just finished Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations – a work which I would desperately like to see turned into a one act play in which the protagonist gets increasing inebriated during his philosophical soliloquy.

Seriously. Wittgenstein writes like a drunk man talking to himself.  Which I mean, of course, as a complement.

What I want to teach is: to pass from unobvious nonsense to obvious nonsense.

A lot of Wittgenstein sounds like madness, but there’s a certain Zen meaning in his words. It reminds me of that old koan:

Before you study Zen, a mountain is a mountain
When you study Zen, a mountain is no longer a mountain
When you master Zen, a mountain is a mountain again

Wittgenstein is at home in the uncertainty. He tries to reason it all out using thoughtful, well crafted arguments. He tries to get at the root of language and meaning through examples and thought experiments. But even in doing so, he cleverly shows the folly of such an approach:

To say “This combination of words has no sense” excludes it from the sphere of language, and thereby bounds the domain of language. But when one draws a boundary, it may be for various kinds of reason. If I surround an area with a fence or a line or otherwise, the purpose may be to prevent someone from getting in or out; but it may also be part of a game and the players are supposed, say, to jump over the boundary; or it may show where the property of one person ends and that of another begins; and so on. So if I draw a boundary-line, that is not yet to say what I am drawing it for.

Compare all this to rigid Socrates, who always seemed to me to proudly use his skill in dialectic to belittle those around him. I have no doubt I’d lose to him in a debate, but I’m not sure I would consider it a fair fight.

Dialectic is a remarkable skill, no doubt, but is it wisdom?

I prefer the approach of Wittgenstein, who reflects:

But if someone says, “How am I to know what he means – I see only his signs?”, then I say, “How is he to know what he means, he too has only his signs?”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

You Can’t Take the Sky From Me

I don’t know what to write today. I’ve been looking for inspiration. I’ve been hoping for the mundane.

But every time my mind starts to wander, all I can think is: My father would have been 73 today. 73 if it hadn’t been for that cancerous mass in his esophagus that metastasized throughout his throat and lungs before it was even discovered. My father would have been 73.

He passed away over three years ago, and you would think that would make such an ominous anniversary less troublesome. But each year it’s merely – different.

I’ve been writing every day for over two years,  meaning that two of my father’s birthdays and two of his deathdays have passed in that time. And every time such a date rolls around I think to myself: I should write about my father.

And then I think: I’m not ready yet.

Not that I haven’t written about my father at all – he and his sayings have made a few cameos on this blog. But I haven’t paid him homage, as I have for my grandmother or for others whom I’ve lost since I began blogging.

I haven’t praised his strengths or made light of his failings. I haven’t shared his stories or described his many personas. I haven’t found those moments of joy and sorrow which perfectly capture what I want to say. I haven’t written that post, though I want to someday.

But, I think, not today.

These things take time.

People are too complicated, relationships too complex. A series of black and white shapes hardly does a whole person justice. Words hardly seem enough.

I’ll not reduce him to a two-dimensional representation. I’ll not pretend there was nothing but good times. Life is hard and complicated and messy and beautiful, and it seems a disservice to remember any life as less than that.

So I don’t know what to write. No, not today.

Maybe next year.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

The Work

In the wake of the murders in Charleston, in the wake of the constant news of black and brown people dying at that hand of whites, I’ve been surrounded by calls for white people to get engaged in the work.

People of color have been engaged in the work forever. In a fight for their very survival, they have led the work for change and for justice. But its not their job to fix society on their own. White people need to step up and do the work with them.

I was reading one particular essay yesterday, colorfully addressed “To My Fellow Whiteys,” which strongly argued that its long past time for white Americans to get up and get to work. Well, that’s great, except –

I kept scrolling down to figure out what “the work” is. I feel like –

I am ready to get to work, but just what is it I’m supposed to do?

I read lots of lists with titles like “how to be a better ally” or “actions for social justice.” And they almost always leave me feeling flat. I want action, I want change. Advice which basically boils down to “try not to be an a-hole” doesn’t do it for me.

I mean, it’s good advice, but its not enough.

And that, I think, is one of the biggest challenges.

We’ve come to think of social change as something that happens through large movements and policy change.

We know how to get a racist flag taken down.

That is good work, but the work is much more than that. There is so much more work to be done.

Really confronting systemic racism in this country will take more than policy change. There is plenty of policy which could stand to be changed – but that is a symptom, not the disease.

So just what is “the work” that we ought to engage in? Just what is this work that we have to engage in?

It is smaller, it is ordinary. And that’s just what makes it so extraordinary.

The work is about each of us, as individuals. Each trying to be a little better tomorrow than we were today. Each trying to understand each other a little better tomorrow, to appreciate each other a little better tomorrow.

That’s not to say we can simply put large scale change or policy actions aside, but the real work, the hard, gritty, difficult work is improving yourself.

I read an article not long ago where a woman of color reflected on being cut in line by a white woman at an airport baggage check. The woman later apologized, saying “I’m sorry if I cut you earlier. I didn’t see you standing there.”

As author Brit Bennett described, “I spent a four hour flight trying not to wonder about the white woman’s intentions. But why would she think about mine? She didn’t even see me.”

I was struck by that story. That could have been me.

I could have done it thoughtlessly, with no racist intentions or motives. It would have been easy for me. And it would have caused another person anguish.
Regardless of our intentions, that’s not always how our actions are perceived. I imagine that some might argue that the woman who got cut off should simply get over it. That being cut off in an airport is no big deal and you should just forget about it and move on with your life.Well, that’s easy to say when you know the motives weren’t personal.I don’t know what it’s like to be black in America, but I do know what it’s like to not know whether the guy smiling at you is trying to be neighborly or hoping to cop a feel. I know what it’s like to have men talk over you or reject your opinion and not know whether its because you actually weren’t saying anything of value or if its because you’re a woman.It’s exhausting. And for people of color, the microagressions they experience throughout the day can be traumatizing.Getting cut off in an airport once is no big deal. Being discriminated against and oppressed during every hour of every day is.As white people, we have a responsibility, not just to “get to work,” but to understand and appreciate everyone who cohabits this world with us.We have a responsibility to learn, to listen, to do our best to understand another’s experience, to accept their experience as valid even if it conflicts with our own way of experiencing the world. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves and to educate each other. And, above all, at the core of the work – we have a responsibility to be a little better tomorrow than we were today.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Language Games

I’ve been reading Ludwig Wittgenstein, a German philosopher fascinated by a seemingly simple question: What do words mean?

“One thinks that learning language consists in giving a name to objects,” Wittgenstein writes. “To repeat – naming is something like attaching a name tag to a thing.”

Yet, as he points out, language is far more complex than that.

“Our language can be regarded as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old an new houses, of houses with extensions from various periods, and all this surrounded by a multitude of new suburbs with straight and regular streets and uniform houses.”

A word’s meaning is dependent on context – when it’s used, how it’s said. Is it followed by a question mark or an exclamation mark. Does everybody have the same understanding of the word being used?

Through countless language-games (Sprachspiel), Wittgenstein argues that language is always in exact, and that understanding the inexactness is critical to communication.

“Only let’s understand what ‘inexact’ means!” he exclaims, “For it does not mean ‘unusable!'”

Indeed, an inexactness of language does not mean we are unable to communicate. It just means that we are likely to be misunderstood.

And of course language is inexact, he argues. “Thinking is surrounded by a nimbus.”

“What is essential now is to see that the same thing may be in our minds when we hear the word and yet the application still be different. Has it the same meaning both times? I think we would deny that.”

Wittgenstein even demurs from defining the word “game,” though it’s used heavily throughout his work.

“One can say that the concept of a game is a concept with blurred edges. – ‘But is a blurred concept a concept at all?’ – Is a photograph that is not sharp a picture of a person at all? It is always an advantage to replace a picture that is not share by one that is? Isn’t one that isn’t sharp often just what we need?”

All this is important because – we need language to communicate. With out it, we are alone.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Take a Walk on the Wild Side

There’s a certain way one ought to live one’s life. Or at least that’s what many of us are taught to believe.

Finish high school, go to college. Get a job, find a career. Perhaps also get married, buy a house, and have children. If you’re into that kind of thing.

Social expectations are, perhaps, the biggest driver for following this standard path. But there are other incentives, too.

After all, the journey of life doesn’t end there and the other side of the spectrum demands attention as well: save for retirement, pay off the mortgage, care for your parents, put your kids through school –

Even if you’re not looking for a mansion in the Hollywood hills, the stability of a middle class lifestyle requires a commitment to middle class norms. Deviating from the path – intentionally taking a step backwards or even laterally can be scary.

That’s not the way the story is supposed to go, and it opens a risk for future financial instability.

The great irony here is that by and large, folks in the middle class enjoy great privilege – they have flexibility and a power over their lives that working class and poor folks can only dream of.

And yet the structures of middle class life can feel confining, as though once you’ve started on a path you must remain committed to it.

The days of a lifetime at one company are long gone, with job-hopping the new norm.

But there’s an even newer trend, I think, slowly emerging among my age cohort: career-hopping.

Because the truth is, you’re not locked into a job or even into a career: pick up and move to Europe if you want to.

There’s no path you have to follow; you make the rules.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail