There is a memorable but rather unpleasant proverb equating a dog that returns to its vomit to the fool returning to his folly. That I've once again RETURNED to the Eliot Spitzer story is perhaps foolish, but I assure you I am not at all like a dog.
What I want to discuss is the opinions of two psychologists who appeared on the CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360˚. The two analysts were asked why Mr. Spitzer, a very public and seemingly law-abiding figure, should have taken to the rather risky behavior of soliciting prostitutes. My purpose, however, is not to examine Mr. Spitzer. Rather than putting Mr. Spitzer's soul on the Contratimes couch, I want to explore the implications of the two opinions offered. Unlike the rather time-bound fall of Mr. Spitzer, there is something timeless about what we are about to explore.
PSYCHOLOGIST #1
First, let me quote the beginning of Anderson Cooper's interview, where Dr. Gail Saltz makes her case. Here's the transcript (excerpted):
ANDERSON COOPER: ... Joining us is Dr. Gail Saltz, the psychiatrist who is the author of "Anatomy of a Secret Life." Also with us tonight, psychologist David Eigen, who is the author of the book, "Men: The Gods of Love."
Thanks, both, for being with us.
Dr. Saltz, why would a guy who had prosecuted prostitution rings as attorney general do something like this? I mean, it seems so reckless.
DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST: It seems reckless, but, basically, you know, humans have urges. They have wishes. And, sometimes, their desires are basically unacceptable to them, morally unacceptable.
And what they're -- what they do in their mind is basically split off and, if you will, compartmentalize or deny those wishes, and try to make them unconscious, push them down, by being the opposite, by being this moral superstar, by being rigidly, almost inflexibly moral.
COOPER: So, you're saying this is something or a desire that has been around for a while, perhaps, and...
SALTZ: Very likely so. And the need to react to it, called reaction formation, I'm not that guy, I'm not that bad guy who wants to do that. I'm this good guy. I'm such a good guy, I'm going to convict prostitutes, basically.
COOPER: So, that's why -- you're saying, in all these cases where we see a preacher who's preaching, railing against something who then turns out to be doing whatever he's railing against, that's what's at play here?
SALTZ: Often that's at play. And when you ask, why would they do something so reckless, basically, those bad feelings don't go away, right? They feel guilty. They feel shameful. And, so, they often take bigger and bigger risks to get caught, in a sense, because they deserve to be punished. [emphasis mine]
Permit me to summarize what Dr. Saltz is saying. She is saying that buried in Mr. Spitzer's public activism against prostitution is his desire to do the very thing he is damning. In fact, the very thing he's damning is not merely a desire, he is involved in the dirty deed. Furthermore, as he secretly engages in this dirty deed, he takes more daring risks, all, perhaps, to get caught. Ms. Saltz, finally, suggests that getting caught, which is Spitzer's deepest desire, will free him from his guilt.
Now, I won't long explore this weird circle Ms. Saltz is describing; I mean, it seems clear to me that if Mr. Spitzer had not gone down his ruinous path, he would not have felt guilty in the first place, and thus would not have desired to get caught. Ms. Saltz in fact does not really answer the question why Mr. Spitzer BEGAN his journey. Surely it could not have been to liberate him from his guilt, as he was not guilty until after he met with prostitutes.
But what is important to me is that Ms. Saltz and Mr. Cooper are suggesting that those who take a moral stand AGAINST something have something to hide. In fact, there is the quite clear assertion here that those who "rail" against something are actually participating in that thing they decry. Had folks been more astute, or so it is reasoned, they would have noted that Mr. Spitzer's opposition to prostitution was actually a ruse, a disguise. His real self was hidden by his protestation and his litigation.
We have heard this sort of thing before, haven't we? I recall hearing it aimed at those who opposed homosexuality: that those who oppose gay marriage or open acceptance of gays in the military are -- perhaps -- uncomfortable with their own sexuality. In fact, the word homophobia initially meant this very thing, namely that one had a fear of one's own homosexual inklings (and those of one's neighbors). We heard such a thing stated about Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader demoted because he may have had sexual relations with a male consort; we also heard this sort of thing when Republican congressman Larry Craig, who claims to be straight, was busted for allegedly soliciting gay sex in a Minneapolis bathroom. These men, who claimed to hold traditional views on sexual morality, are really, down deep, gay.
I wonder, however, if Ms. Saltz has ever noted the problem with her own analysis. If we just stick with the issue of gay identity politics for a moment, I think the problem will be clear. For if the straight man who rails against homosexuality -- the quintessential homophobe -- is actually gay, then surely that man who rails against homophobia -- the quintessential gay-activist -- is actually straight. Similarly, the man who rails against abortion is really pro-abortion; the man who supports abortion is really against it.
And what if this is the case? What if those who seem most tolerant of gays secretly harbor ill will towards them? What if those who seem intolerant of gays are actually no threat at all?
Of course we can extend Ms. Saltz' analysis even further. Surely those who promote taxing the rich at higher rates are really the most envious, greedy men on the planet. Those who abhor Exxon's profits are really those who are up to their eyeballs in Exxon stock. Those vocal liberals marching on Washington are really dealing with their own repressed conservatism; while their conservative counterparts are really dissociated liberals. I could go on, and I am tempted to. But I am afraid that if I continue railing, making even bolder and bolder comparisons, readers will find me out: I am really a closeted quiet man utterly uninterested in any of the things I write about.
In short, not only does Ms. Saltz not help us understand Eliot Spitzer's behavior, she leaves us nothing to consider but an absurdity.
Some call it insight.
PSYCHOLOGIST #2
I pray you will indulge me once more. I would like now to look, quickly, at the opinion of David Eigen, PhD. Again, we turn to the transcript (excerpted):
COOPER: David, do you think that's at play here?
David, can you hear me?
DAVID EIGEN, AUTHOR, "MEN: THE GODS OF LOVE": Oh, there you go. OK.
COOPER: Yes. Hey.
Do you think that's what's at play here?
EIGEN: I think that the man -- he's a man. And, in this society, men have been told to basically have two emotions, because the rest have to be shut down. They're shameful. And one is anger. And the other is sex, which becomes a replacement, a surrogate emotion.
I think the governor is guilty of having a situation where he's just not been able to express himself and probably doesn't know how. And, you know, there's no question men have a huge sex drive, which really is a replacement for all the other needs they have. And he just found himself in a place where maybe he just needed to go outside of that relationship.
I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying, you know, this is where men have been caught in an actual situation where they're not allowed to have feelings. So, it becomes -- everything becomes about sex.
And that's what the problem is here. Men need to be allowed to have feelings, be allowed to say, hey, you know, I had a bad day at the office and I need a hug. I need to tell you how I feel downtrodden or how it's too much for me.
Men don't do that. They say -- you know, they pretend like they're the provider. The governor, he's all those of things. And he can't say that to his wife, maybe, in his mind, because he feels like he will be judged.
COOPER: Well, I mean, it seems like we're going very far down the road of speculation. We don't really know what their relationship is like or what's going on in his family's life.
EIGEN: Correct. Correct.
[emphasis mine]
According to Mr. Eigen, Eliot Spitzer is "a man," with a huge sex drive, a drive that is really a symptom of all his other needs that are not being met; that, as "a man," Mr. Spitzer has been emotionally muzzled, like all men. Had Mr. Spitzer been given ample room to express his FEELINGS, he'd not have wandered from the governor's mansion, his marriage bed, or his wedding vows.
Question: Is this a boatload of hooey or what?
Forgive me. But seriously. Men are not allowed to "express" their feelings? Really?
What do all of the following things have in common?
The Brandenburg Concertos
The Sistine Chapel
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Christ in the Storm on The Sea of Galilee
The Four Quartets
The Brothers Karamazov
Seinfeld
The Psalms
Christian hymnody (much of it)
Emeril Live!
What each of these has in common is that they are written, painted, composed, produced, drafted, or performed by men. In fact, men have absolutely dominated much of the arts, even the finest arts, and even the most expressive arts. Men express their emotions in all kinds of ways, in all kinds of venues. They have drafted the most glorious phrases; they've crafted the most glorious buildings; they have carved the most enchanting babies cribs; they have sung the world's most popular songs.
Moreover, men express themselves in what they wear, what they drive, what sports they play (or watch). They express themselves in battles, battles on the playing field, in the board room, in the Manhattan restaurant kitchen. They express themselves in what they drink after a fine meal; they express themselves in how they walk. They express themselves in where they go to church or temple; they express themselves in pulpit and pew. They express themselves in what computer they buy and what paper they read.
In other words, men have all kinds of ways of expressing their emotions, and many men take full advantage of the many ways before them.
The problem is, Mr. Eigen cannot mean that men don't express themselves except in anger and sex; or that they are not permitted to express themselves in any other way. What he means, or so I believe, is that men don't express their emotions the way women WANT them to. And what way is that? Simple. The way women express themselves.
Of course, I grant that Mr. Eigen is suggesting that men are encouraged to suppress their emotions. But I don't see it. I really don't. The men I spend time with express their emotions just fine; I see no repression. But I do see men suppress their emotions when women are around, because somehow women have, in many cases, gotten the upper hand: women KNOW how to express emotion. Men, well, they just don't. They are ... MEN!
Call me a cynic, but I don't buy it. And neither should you.
What I DO see, at least where psychoses are involved, is that SOME people, male AND female,
have a difficult time connecting to or expressing their emotions. There is nothing gender specific about this: some people are indeed repressed, paralyzed. But this is hardly endemic to a sex.
Surely Mr. Eigen has seen men laugh, no? Where does laughter fit in with sex and anger?
What does this leave us with? Again, nothing. We draw no closer to understanding Mr. Spitzer's behavior following Mr. Eigen's analysis. For all we know, Mr. Spitzer was sick of expressing his emotions in a way expected of him by the society in which he found himself; perhaps a prostitute actually let him be his truly expressive self. Perhaps his wife could not let him express himself in ways that were not HER ways. Perhaps Mr. Spitzer was with a prostitute because he wanted someone gentle and kind; or maybe he wanted to be able to express an anger that his social milieu would not permit.
Regardless of our speculations, the one thing we know is that our speculations are neither closer to nor farther from the mark. The human mind is a mystery, not because it is too complex for us to navigate through towards understanding. It's mysterious because it is born of the miraculous. And the miracle remains, even after the corruption.
In other words, we take off our shoes when walking so close to the heart of any man.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Pursuit Of Knowing: Thoughts On American "Ignorance" (Part 2)
"Never make promises you have no intention of keeping."
I see the finger wagging in my face. I hear the sternness of the voice. I feel my self-esteem sinking to new lows.
I admit I've not kept my promise to complete in a timely fashion a discussion I began about knowledge and ignorance in the United States. This is more the result of time constraints than it is of neglect, or even avoidance. I've been busy. Not that I offer this as excuse. It's offered as fact. Plain, simple.
In haste, let me complete what I set out to do. In my last essay (see above link) I noted that in an admittedly simplistic study of the opinions of more than a dozen Americans chosen from a variety of intellectual and social classes, I found that the majority opinion was that scholastic achievement was worthwhile for its eventual financial benefit to each student. Learning was preparation for earning.
This, of course, is suggestive that money justifies one's academic achievement: higher pay suggests higher aptitude. Such an idea reduces learning to pragmatics, where one learns in order to practice the art of meriting a high (or higher) financial status.
The bitter pill in all of this, as shown perhaps most clearly in my former students' resistance to learning at all, is that money is the accreditation of a person's role: it is assumed that one's salary like one's diploma is proven by grades, even pay grades. "Low" role, low pay; "high" role, high pay. The bitterness, though, comes not with the realization that this is bunk. It comes when we see those folks deemed apparently intellectually inferior -- think my students' idolized rock stars -- achieve great fiscal prosperity.
(That we also suck the life out of learning for more inspired purposes is part of the double-edged sword here. Many believe their great learning is purely for attaining wealth; when they don't achieve it, they surely do not call themselves stupid. Blame is often cast elsewhere, giving the lie to the "learning equals earning" philosophy. And then those who do achieve great wealth without the suitable intellectual credentials are chided for not earning their wealth for more noble, even cerebral, purposes. They are deemed dumb or called cheaters; their work is dismissed as tawdry or even low-brow.)
Indeed, when "dumb" folks do achieve great financial success, we get commentary like the essay which began our discussion here at Contratimes. For surely that is why country star Kellie Pickler is picked on: She is apparently too stupid to have justifiably earned her great wealth and notoriety. That Ms. Pickler is singled out is curious, especially when "great wealth" is almost ALWAYS a reason the media (yes, even the New York Times) seek the political and cultural opinions and thoughts of various folks. Media do not turn to Madonna or Oprah or Tereza Heinz-Kerry or Donald Trump because they are intellectuals, or even bright. Media turn to them because they are rich, and are thus assumed to be bright.
Unfortunately for those like Ms. Pickler, some in the media miss out on at least some of the grace extended to Madonna. Surely Susan Jacoby and Patricia Cohen have not sought her opinion on the state of education in America or the Bush administration's policies in Israel. Her success is probably in the wrong sort of place to win an interview: she's too countrified for the urbane.
My broader point throughout this whole discussion is that those who condescend to even consider the "stupid Americans" ignore two things. First, that technology, the product of the brightest and best applications of the human mind, has created a paradox: human intelligence creates artificial intelligence, thus permitting humans to become dumber. Memory is now digital memory; computation is done not in the head, but in RAM. Our intelligence has made us stupider, in a sense.
Second, what is ignored is the compartmentalization or specialization of knowledge. Like St. Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, the corporate body of culture and state is made up of various and necessary parts, each doing their various functions. Any state that was all brain, just like a person that was all brain, would not function. A culture that was only arms, or only feet, would end in a quick death. Diversity of knowledge is necessary in the body, as is specificity: Lungs and hearts and pancreas all need to know what is essential for them to function, but they NEED NOT KNOW what the other organs must know.
That is why we all bring our cars to mechanics for repair, and not to Ms. Cohen. We bring our bodies to doctors who are specialists, and we don't care if they know the capital of Turkey. I do not need a lawyer who understands specific gravity; I do not need a hair stylist who can toss out Latin phrases. The man who empties my neighbor's septic tank (mine is always fine) is doing a very necessary job; his work is not one whit enhanced if he knows the difference between a libretto and an aria. In a functioning society, knowledge is distributed according to need.
And that is an interesting point, I think. One can hardly think of a culture surviving or thriving on the strength of the generalist, that person who knows a lot about a lot, but not enough of any one thing to be an expert. Such a well-rounded individual may indeed make a great conversationalist, but beyond that, one can't really find much essential value in the generalist. Imagine a bodily organ that can do a little of everything; imagine a body consisting of only a bunch of generalized organs. Common sense tells us that such a body generally would die quite quickly, and would be a mediocre body at its most vital best. A healthy body NEEDS a diversity and hierarchy of knowledge.
THREATS TO LEARNING
I made mention (here) of the irony that certain liberal thinkers bemoan the demise of academic and intellectual excellence. The irony, of course, is rooted in the liberalism touted by many of America's critics: liberals are devoted to radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. That these two are more often than not in opposition hardly matters. What matters, ultimately, is first that everyone in the classroom (particularly) defines for him or herself what constitutes "achievement," "value," and "purpose;" and second, that everyone ends up at the same level. "Over-achievement" should be a vapid redundancy, but it isn't: over-achievers are indeed often if not always seen as oddities and aberrations to liberal conformity. The goal of education in many liberal minds is the equality of outcomes: every kid on every team gets a trophy.
Learning, then, becomes less about individual greatness and more about bland and comfortable conformity -- where no one gets hurt, where no one stands out. And where no one gets paid too much. No wonder Americans are (allegedly) dumb. They don't want to be envied; and, furthermore, liberal thinkers don't want anyone to envy.
WHY LEARN?
I once talked to a colleague about the reason for learning, and he recalled a teacher of his who inspired his students to learn by appealing to hedonism: You can seduce more women, you can enjoy more of life's Epicurean delights, if you master literature (so you can recite poetry), music (so you may serenade), mathematics and economics (so you can excel in managing large and seductive portfolios), athletics (so you can be heroic and fit), science (so you look progressive), and so on; all for the purposes of securing and maximizing pleasure.
No doubt this appears a better philosophy of learning than mere fiscal ambition or foolish equalizing. But surely it is not the sort of thing one might want to share in public.
This writer, if pressed, would answer that his personal learning is motivated not only by a need for financial security (nor do I believe it off limits to learn in order to get the most out of life), learning is ultimately about overcoming error and deception. It's about seeing what REALLY IS. It's about avoiding the damnation of ignorance, or even revolt. I learn in order to be a more able bodied and able minded person; I learn to improve the lot of others; but I learn mostly because I do not want to fall prey to deception. I learn because I want to be free.
Not that I've achieved clairvoyance. I probably don't see what REALLY IS. But I am trying. At least, I am learning to try.
(I will leave it that this hardly amounts to a philosophy worth sharing.)
Peace to you,
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I see the finger wagging in my face. I hear the sternness of the voice. I feel my self-esteem sinking to new lows.
I admit I've not kept my promise to complete in a timely fashion a discussion I began about knowledge and ignorance in the United States. This is more the result of time constraints than it is of neglect, or even avoidance. I've been busy. Not that I offer this as excuse. It's offered as fact. Plain, simple.
In haste, let me complete what I set out to do. In my last essay (see above link) I noted that in an admittedly simplistic study of the opinions of more than a dozen Americans chosen from a variety of intellectual and social classes, I found that the majority opinion was that scholastic achievement was worthwhile for its eventual financial benefit to each student. Learning was preparation for earning.
This, of course, is suggestive that money justifies one's academic achievement: higher pay suggests higher aptitude. Such an idea reduces learning to pragmatics, where one learns in order to practice the art of meriting a high (or higher) financial status.
The bitter pill in all of this, as shown perhaps most clearly in my former students' resistance to learning at all, is that money is the accreditation of a person's role: it is assumed that one's salary like one's diploma is proven by grades, even pay grades. "Low" role, low pay; "high" role, high pay. The bitterness, though, comes not with the realization that this is bunk. It comes when we see those folks deemed apparently intellectually inferior -- think my students' idolized rock stars -- achieve great fiscal prosperity.
(That we also suck the life out of learning for more inspired purposes is part of the double-edged sword here. Many believe their great learning is purely for attaining wealth; when they don't achieve it, they surely do not call themselves stupid. Blame is often cast elsewhere, giving the lie to the "learning equals earning" philosophy. And then those who do achieve great wealth without the suitable intellectual credentials are chided for not earning their wealth for more noble, even cerebral, purposes. They are deemed dumb or called cheaters; their work is dismissed as tawdry or even low-brow.)
Indeed, when "dumb" folks do achieve great financial success, we get commentary like the essay which began our discussion here at Contratimes. For surely that is why country star Kellie Pickler is picked on: She is apparently too stupid to have justifiably earned her great wealth and notoriety. That Ms. Pickler is singled out is curious, especially when "great wealth" is almost ALWAYS a reason the media (yes, even the New York Times) seek the political and cultural opinions and thoughts of various folks. Media do not turn to Madonna or Oprah or Tereza Heinz-Kerry or Donald Trump because they are intellectuals, or even bright. Media turn to them because they are rich, and are thus assumed to be bright.
Unfortunately for those like Ms. Pickler, some in the media miss out on at least some of the grace extended to Madonna. Surely Susan Jacoby and Patricia Cohen have not sought her opinion on the state of education in America or the Bush administration's policies in Israel. Her success is probably in the wrong sort of place to win an interview: she's too countrified for the urbane.
My broader point throughout this whole discussion is that those who condescend to even consider the "stupid Americans" ignore two things. First, that technology, the product of the brightest and best applications of the human mind, has created a paradox: human intelligence creates artificial intelligence, thus permitting humans to become dumber. Memory is now digital memory; computation is done not in the head, but in RAM. Our intelligence has made us stupider, in a sense.
Second, what is ignored is the compartmentalization or specialization of knowledge. Like St. Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, the corporate body of culture and state is made up of various and necessary parts, each doing their various functions. Any state that was all brain, just like a person that was all brain, would not function. A culture that was only arms, or only feet, would end in a quick death. Diversity of knowledge is necessary in the body, as is specificity: Lungs and hearts and pancreas all need to know what is essential for them to function, but they NEED NOT KNOW what the other organs must know.
That is why we all bring our cars to mechanics for repair, and not to Ms. Cohen. We bring our bodies to doctors who are specialists, and we don't care if they know the capital of Turkey. I do not need a lawyer who understands specific gravity; I do not need a hair stylist who can toss out Latin phrases. The man who empties my neighbor's septic tank (mine is always fine) is doing a very necessary job; his work is not one whit enhanced if he knows the difference between a libretto and an aria. In a functioning society, knowledge is distributed according to need.
And that is an interesting point, I think. One can hardly think of a culture surviving or thriving on the strength of the generalist, that person who knows a lot about a lot, but not enough of any one thing to be an expert. Such a well-rounded individual may indeed make a great conversationalist, but beyond that, one can't really find much essential value in the generalist. Imagine a bodily organ that can do a little of everything; imagine a body consisting of only a bunch of generalized organs. Common sense tells us that such a body generally would die quite quickly, and would be a mediocre body at its most vital best. A healthy body NEEDS a diversity and hierarchy of knowledge.
THREATS TO LEARNING
I made mention (here) of the irony that certain liberal thinkers bemoan the demise of academic and intellectual excellence. The irony, of course, is rooted in the liberalism touted by many of America's critics: liberals are devoted to radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. That these two are more often than not in opposition hardly matters. What matters, ultimately, is first that everyone in the classroom (particularly) defines for him or herself what constitutes "achievement," "value," and "purpose;" and second, that everyone ends up at the same level. "Over-achievement" should be a vapid redundancy, but it isn't: over-achievers are indeed often if not always seen as oddities and aberrations to liberal conformity. The goal of education in many liberal minds is the equality of outcomes: every kid on every team gets a trophy.
Learning, then, becomes less about individual greatness and more about bland and comfortable conformity -- where no one gets hurt, where no one stands out. And where no one gets paid too much. No wonder Americans are (allegedly) dumb. They don't want to be envied; and, furthermore, liberal thinkers don't want anyone to envy.
WHY LEARN?
I once talked to a colleague about the reason for learning, and he recalled a teacher of his who inspired his students to learn by appealing to hedonism: You can seduce more women, you can enjoy more of life's Epicurean delights, if you master literature (so you can recite poetry), music (so you may serenade), mathematics and economics (so you can excel in managing large and seductive portfolios), athletics (so you can be heroic and fit), science (so you look progressive), and so on; all for the purposes of securing and maximizing pleasure.
No doubt this appears a better philosophy of learning than mere fiscal ambition or foolish equalizing. But surely it is not the sort of thing one might want to share in public.
This writer, if pressed, would answer that his personal learning is motivated not only by a need for financial security (nor do I believe it off limits to learn in order to get the most out of life), learning is ultimately about overcoming error and deception. It's about seeing what REALLY IS. It's about avoiding the damnation of ignorance, or even revolt. I learn in order to be a more able bodied and able minded person; I learn to improve the lot of others; but I learn mostly because I do not want to fall prey to deception. I learn because I want to be free.
Not that I've achieved clairvoyance. I probably don't see what REALLY IS. But I am trying. At least, I am learning to try.
(I will leave it that this hardly amounts to a philosophy worth sharing.)
Peace to you,
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Day They Call Good (Redux)
[In honor of Holy Week, and mindful of what this day means to all Christians, I repost a meditation I wrote for last year's Good Friday.]
At this hour He hangs. The blind who were healed no longer see; the deaf He made hear no longer understand. Those who once stood as close as possible are scattered, most now only brave enough to stand -- at a safe distance.
He cries out; they bring Him vinegar and gall to drink. A small Roman market opens at the foot of His dripping cross: guards place bids on His garments, even the hem of His garment.
Nothing can stop His bleeding issue.
No one knows, perhaps not (yet) even He, that everyone hangs in Him, that His exsanguination is theirs; is their only hope. There is mockery, scoffing, cursing;
the unknowing living spit sarcasm into His wounds,
He, the only knowing dying,
turns vitriol to wine
He has finished His cup
and it pours out
pooling beneath so many
nervous feet
one thief finds paradise in His great poverty
another finds nothing worth taking
not even this broken bit of bread
a sign maker admires his work,
dumb to the irony of his irony
a crown maker picks a small thorn from his thumb
thinking about furlough
a virgin finds her son finding her God
and a son finds the mother who gave birth to
this dying God
a rabbi weeps at the Law's last breath
a guard feels the weakness of the sword,
the strength of surrender
a spear pierces the side of heaven
and hell spills out
there is no safe distance
©Bill Gnade 2007, 2008./Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
At this hour He hangs. The blind who were healed no longer see; the deaf He made hear no longer understand. Those who once stood as close as possible are scattered, most now only brave enough to stand -- at a safe distance.
He cries out; they bring Him vinegar and gall to drink. A small Roman market opens at the foot of His dripping cross: guards place bids on His garments, even the hem of His garment.
Nothing can stop His bleeding issue.
No one knows, perhaps not (yet) even He, that everyone hangs in Him, that His exsanguination is theirs; is their only hope. There is mockery, scoffing, cursing;
the unknowing living spit sarcasm into His wounds,
He, the only knowing dying,
turns vitriol to wine
He has finished His cup
and it pours out
pooling beneath so many
nervous feet
one thief finds paradise in His great poverty
another finds nothing worth taking
not even this broken bit of bread
a sign maker admires his work,
dumb to the irony of his irony
a crown maker picks a small thorn from his thumb
thinking about furlough
a virgin finds her son finding her God
and a son finds the mother who gave birth to
this dying God
a rabbi weeps at the Law's last breath
a guard feels the weakness of the sword,
the strength of surrender
a spear pierces the side of heaven
and hell spills out
there is no safe distance
©Bill Gnade 2007, 2008./Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sex, Sex, Sex: Growing Hard To The Core
I recognize that I promised to continue my discussion on learning and ignorance in America, but I feel it's important to examine some of the moral issues that may be buried in the Eliot Spitzer story. Part if not all of Mr. Spitzer's story has indeed been buried by the media avalanche which is the Barack Obama/Rev. Jeremiah Wright insanity, but that will not shake my resolve to look more closely at the underbelly of American sexual obsession and addiction.
For clearly this Spitzer tale is about obsession and addiction in more places than in Mr. Spitzer's personal and public life. American AND European media, and their consumers, are also obsessed with sex, sex scandals and the like; and not a few -- whether media producer or consumer, it matters not -- are addicted to sex as commodity, often in its most salacious forms.
Let us take note of something curious. There is a rather pervasive idea that sexual sins are private matters. One never heard the end of this particular defense when President Clinton was in office. In fact, the rather glibly spoken trope that Clinton's private life was irrelevant to his role as president was rolled out even before he was elected. And Eliot Spitzer tried to remind us all, in his resignation speech, that his sin, too, was private.
I am not here to quibble with the privacy defense, other than to point out that it is rotten and foolish to the core. What I am here to note is how our culture simply does not believe this sort of thing at all. We are a prurient and voyeuristic lot, perhaps so empty of soul and spirit that we are titillated by the sights and sounds of others' titillation. Privacy be damned!
How else to explain that thoroughly inhuman evil, the sudden interest in finding the prostitute with whom Mr. Spitzer had his dalliance? How else to explain that pornographers, like Penthouse and Hustler, want to PAY this prostitute to expose her body for their probing, salacious eyes?
It's amazing that so many folks can take the high road against those men who have sinned with prostitutes, and yet are curiously silent when those same prostitutes are paraded nude through video and print so they may incite lust and lubricity among tens of thousands. It is wrong, no doubt, for Mr. Spitzer to use prostitutes; but it is, apparently, OK for the snickering masses who denounce him (and men like him) as hypocrite to later go and salivate and secrete at the sight of the same exploited prostitutes in magazines and movies. Remember tele-evangelist Jim Bakker's 'paramour,' Jessica Hahn? Sure you do. Perhaps you remember her from her Playboy pictorials and videos that followed that scandal.
And one can never forget the great fall of that other tele-evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, who was busted frequenting a prostitute not so he could have intercourse with her, but so he could watch her in various poses in order to whet his beastly appetites. Recall the great hue and cry over this scandal; recall the righteous multitudes denouncing (rightly so) the flagrant hypocrisy of Mr. Swaggart. "How could men of such allegedly high moral standing fall to such depravity?" many of us asked.
Curiously, that was about as deep a moral question we could ask, because our culture went suddenly silent as Mr. Swaggart's prostitute posed in Penthouse, hovering over the camera to reveal to the world how she serviced Mr. Swaggart's lust (yes, I saw that issue years ago, when I visited the men's room -- there was a stack of magazines -- at a tire warehouse while waiting for my company truck to be fixed). No one seemed to care that this bit of 'journalism,' too, was a form of prostitution (as is all pornography), or that millions of men were consuming in print what had been so roundly condemned only weeks before when Mr. Swaggart was a headline.
Again, I am not a person who stands on high ground in this matter. Ever since I was shown my first Playboy when I was about to enter the 6th-grade, pornography has been a difficult temptation for me (as it is for millions and millions of men). It is, indeed, an addictive product, and pornography's peddlers know it. It is also a gross product, and it is every bit as immoral and empty as prostitution. Gratefully, I have been spared the greater temptations: I've never been to a strip club (and I pray I never will), nor have I ever sought the comforts of a prostitute. But this is more a function of God's grace, and not any function of my personal constitution.
Let me put it this way for anyone who does not get the power of the visual image for men. Please note the next time you drive down the freeway: notice the chrome, two-dimensional silhouettes of women, baring virtually NO RESEMBLANCE to any woman in three dimensions, that are affixed to mud flaps on tractor-trailer trucks. Why are those there? In part, they are there to incite lust among an invisible fraternity of men: it is code that hot babes are what all men crave. It is a reminder of sex, of copulation; it is really a subconscious trigger reminding men they are designed to fertilize (a compulsion that never really sleeps). And it is a reminder that men, too, are reduced to sex objects, susceptible to the slightest temptations.
Think, then: if mere chrome stickers are known to trigger something in the brain of a man, how much more powerful the images of women on the cover of Cosmo, or in the newest Victoria Secret catalog? (And why do you think so many TV news shows have gorgeous anchors? We all know the answer, but think what it means: men can hardly go ANYWHERE where they can get a break from being reminded of what they "really want.")
Many men know that they've been trained by peer support, and the Madison Avenue push of high couture and sexually suggestive advertising, to become visual predators, stalking women they pass with their eyes, women they might see for but a moment in passing. I have talked with enough men to know that this is indeed a real problem; I have sat in cafés, or in my car on a busy street; I have watched men in the fitness club, and I have seen how they move their eyes: I HAVE SEEN HOW THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. Some men will walk out of their way while grocery shopping to catch a glimpse of the woman they spotted at the end of aisle 3.
It is, in fact, a nightmare for many of us. And I have not even touched on the fact that the internet is in our homes allowing us access to the world's darkest imagery. (And the technology is still in its primitive form.)
___________________
How is it not a matter of broad cultural denunciation that the pornography/news/internet industries are trying to find Eliot Spitzer's prostitute so they can exploit her (of course, they'll compensate her handsomely) again, and again, and again; so that they can use her body to exploit millions of men for financial gain? And think of the motive, which is not mere profit: the idea is to show her naked wonders solely to judge them, to see if she is "worthy," to see if she is "hot" enough -- or not. This is precisely why images of Mr. Spitzer's prostitute have been shown on even the pages of the New York Times; editors and readers are responding -- and I've already heard radio comments along these lines -- to the pictures with a "would YOU spend $5000 to have sex with ... this?" The very reductionism should send us out in the streets in riotous rage.
But it won't, and it doesn't. We are too dulled, too inured, to care. We can't think of it; we just leave this all to 'privacy' and 'free speech' and 'market forces' (and, for not a few, 'boys will be boys' and even 'female empowerment' are suitable defenses).
We are fools, killing ourselves, our souls; we are grinding all that is romantic and beautiful and transcendent about sex beneath our feet, grinding it into a mundane mash of culturally permitted abuse. We denounce on Monday morning what we condone Monday night; and we do not care, really, that there are millions of men and women, men like me, women like you, who are imprisoned (or have been), or will be imprisoned, by the trappings of pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of sexual oppression.
The deep cultural hypocrisy is seemingly insurmountable. It is, in the end, like a pervasive blindness, a narcotic that has stolen our time and killed our inability to feel what is perhaps our most noble emotion: moral outrage.
'Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.'
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
For clearly this Spitzer tale is about obsession and addiction in more places than in Mr. Spitzer's personal and public life. American AND European media, and their consumers, are also obsessed with sex, sex scandals and the like; and not a few -- whether media producer or consumer, it matters not -- are addicted to sex as commodity, often in its most salacious forms.
Let us take note of something curious. There is a rather pervasive idea that sexual sins are private matters. One never heard the end of this particular defense when President Clinton was in office. In fact, the rather glibly spoken trope that Clinton's private life was irrelevant to his role as president was rolled out even before he was elected. And Eliot Spitzer tried to remind us all, in his resignation speech, that his sin, too, was private.
I am not here to quibble with the privacy defense, other than to point out that it is rotten and foolish to the core. What I am here to note is how our culture simply does not believe this sort of thing at all. We are a prurient and voyeuristic lot, perhaps so empty of soul and spirit that we are titillated by the sights and sounds of others' titillation. Privacy be damned!
How else to explain that thoroughly inhuman evil, the sudden interest in finding the prostitute with whom Mr. Spitzer had his dalliance? How else to explain that pornographers, like Penthouse and Hustler, want to PAY this prostitute to expose her body for their probing, salacious eyes?
It's amazing that so many folks can take the high road against those men who have sinned with prostitutes, and yet are curiously silent when those same prostitutes are paraded nude through video and print so they may incite lust and lubricity among tens of thousands. It is wrong, no doubt, for Mr. Spitzer to use prostitutes; but it is, apparently, OK for the snickering masses who denounce him (and men like him) as hypocrite to later go and salivate and secrete at the sight of the same exploited prostitutes in magazines and movies. Remember tele-evangelist Jim Bakker's 'paramour,' Jessica Hahn? Sure you do. Perhaps you remember her from her Playboy pictorials and videos that followed that scandal.
And one can never forget the great fall of that other tele-evangelist, Jimmy Swaggart, who was busted frequenting a prostitute not so he could have intercourse with her, but so he could watch her in various poses in order to whet his beastly appetites. Recall the great hue and cry over this scandal; recall the righteous multitudes denouncing (rightly so) the flagrant hypocrisy of Mr. Swaggart. "How could men of such allegedly high moral standing fall to such depravity?" many of us asked.
Curiously, that was about as deep a moral question we could ask, because our culture went suddenly silent as Mr. Swaggart's prostitute posed in Penthouse, hovering over the camera to reveal to the world how she serviced Mr. Swaggart's lust (yes, I saw that issue years ago, when I visited the men's room -- there was a stack of magazines -- at a tire warehouse while waiting for my company truck to be fixed). No one seemed to care that this bit of 'journalism,' too, was a form of prostitution (as is all pornography), or that millions of men were consuming in print what had been so roundly condemned only weeks before when Mr. Swaggart was a headline.
Again, I am not a person who stands on high ground in this matter. Ever since I was shown my first Playboy when I was about to enter the 6th-grade, pornography has been a difficult temptation for me (as it is for millions and millions of men). It is, indeed, an addictive product, and pornography's peddlers know it. It is also a gross product, and it is every bit as immoral and empty as prostitution. Gratefully, I have been spared the greater temptations: I've never been to a strip club (and I pray I never will), nor have I ever sought the comforts of a prostitute. But this is more a function of God's grace, and not any function of my personal constitution.
Let me put it this way for anyone who does not get the power of the visual image for men. Please note the next time you drive down the freeway: notice the chrome, two-dimensional silhouettes of women, baring virtually NO RESEMBLANCE to any woman in three dimensions, that are affixed to mud flaps on tractor-trailer trucks. Why are those there? In part, they are there to incite lust among an invisible fraternity of men: it is code that hot babes are what all men crave. It is a reminder of sex, of copulation; it is really a subconscious trigger reminding men they are designed to fertilize (a compulsion that never really sleeps). And it is a reminder that men, too, are reduced to sex objects, susceptible to the slightest temptations.
Think, then: if mere chrome stickers are known to trigger something in the brain of a man, how much more powerful the images of women on the cover of Cosmo, or in the newest Victoria Secret catalog? (And why do you think so many TV news shows have gorgeous anchors? We all know the answer, but think what it means: men can hardly go ANYWHERE where they can get a break from being reminded of what they "really want.")
Many men know that they've been trained by peer support, and the Madison Avenue push of high couture and sexually suggestive advertising, to become visual predators, stalking women they pass with their eyes, women they might see for but a moment in passing. I have talked with enough men to know that this is indeed a real problem; I have sat in cafés, or in my car on a busy street; I have watched men in the fitness club, and I have seen how they move their eyes: I HAVE SEEN HOW THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. Some men will walk out of their way while grocery shopping to catch a glimpse of the woman they spotted at the end of aisle 3.
It is, in fact, a nightmare for many of us. And I have not even touched on the fact that the internet is in our homes allowing us access to the world's darkest imagery. (And the technology is still in its primitive form.)
___________________
How is it not a matter of broad cultural denunciation that the pornography/news/internet industries are trying to find Eliot Spitzer's prostitute so they can exploit her (of course, they'll compensate her handsomely) again, and again, and again; so that they can use her body to exploit millions of men for financial gain? And think of the motive, which is not mere profit: the idea is to show her naked wonders solely to judge them, to see if she is "worthy," to see if she is "hot" enough -- or not. This is precisely why images of Mr. Spitzer's prostitute have been shown on even the pages of the New York Times; editors and readers are responding -- and I've already heard radio comments along these lines -- to the pictures with a "would YOU spend $5000 to have sex with ... this?" The very reductionism should send us out in the streets in riotous rage.
But it won't, and it doesn't. We are too dulled, too inured, to care. We can't think of it; we just leave this all to 'privacy' and 'free speech' and 'market forces' (and, for not a few, 'boys will be boys' and even 'female empowerment' are suitable defenses).
We are fools, killing ourselves, our souls; we are grinding all that is romantic and beautiful and transcendent about sex beneath our feet, grinding it into a mundane mash of culturally permitted abuse. We denounce on Monday morning what we condone Monday night; and we do not care, really, that there are millions of men and women, men like me, women like you, who are imprisoned (or have been), or will be imprisoned, by the trappings of pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of sexual oppression.
The deep cultural hypocrisy is seemingly insurmountable. It is, in the end, like a pervasive blindness, a narcotic that has stolen our time and killed our inability to feel what is perhaps our most noble emotion: moral outrage.
'Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.'
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, March 14, 2008
An Appeal To Men: Let Us Be Slaves No Longer (Redux)
[In light of the very harrowing tale about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's (alleged?) involvement with prostitutes, I feel compelled to replay a Contratimes essay. The Spitzer story provokes in many of us men the humbling thought that, but for the grace of God, there go many of us -- into the very pits of hell. Sexual addiction is no joke, nor is it victim-less. The pleasures of the flesh are more often than not harbingers of death.
Moreover, witness today the disgusting and prurient media interest in the prostitute involved. The world seeks to exploit her anew. Such sorrow! May God have mercy!- BG]
From February 11, 2006:
I wept last night, several times. You see, I was watching television, which is not usually my habit (particularly on a Friday night), and I found myself weeping as I watched the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies, particularly when the 9-year-old Italian girl sang the Italian national anthem; or when Pavarotti closed the show with transcendence. The pageantry and pyrotechnics were brilliant; and the Peace Dove, formed by white-clad humans scaling a vertical netted wall, was mindblowing (though the dove looked a bit hawkish, if you ask me). But I also wept when I jumped to another program, 20/20, which featured a segment by John Stossel that included film footage of the killing of African elephants. I cannot tell you how this vulgarity slays me. It is an abuse unconscionable. (I am not referring to bona fide hunting of elephants as a vital natural resource by indigenous peoples.)
I am glad for channel-changing remote controls.
__________________
But something else really tore me up last night. Something that caused me to rend my garments; to rend my heart. It is the sort of demonic reality that should set the world afire with outrage. I am referring to slave trading, sexual slave trading. I urge my readers to watch PBS's Frontline documentary Sex Slaves; and I urge you to help fight the abuse of women (and children) in a trade that is, in fact, only a few mouse clicks away from this site. In fact I urge you men, particularly, who, like me, struggle with even the casual visit to porn-sites on the WWW, to at least fight the darkness by refusing to click on a JPEG or MPEG that will cost a woman her soul. For it is all linked: prostitution, pornography, abuse: it is all part of the degradation of womanhood, of personhood, and, perhaps most of all, motherhood.
Men, lest we forget, are also victims of sexual degradation, in myriad ways. Battered women come to men in all forms: many of us are married to them, our wives having been victimized by fathers or brothers or former boyfriends (the worst culprits, usually), or the culture that begs women to throw their virtues to the wind. But we also, as men, know our own exploitation: We are told everyday in advertisements, books, magazines and porno-promos that sex is ALL we really want; that we are nothing but sex objects too, hungry with lust; that THEY know what we really, really need.
My conviction is that we men must stop the demand for the consumption of women by refusing to participate it in any form. Moreover, I believe we men must begin, perhaps in grand over-reaction, to honor women, elevating them if we must, by viewing their bodies, not as playgrounds, but as cathedrals, as sanctuaries, as temples of holy life. We must stop the tyranny, even if that tyranny turns a profit through increased ad revenue, circulation, retail sales, or web-traffic.
I confess that I am guilty. I have looked at photographs (many!) that are indeed indecent, photographs presented in ostensibly up-scale magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, or some such 'proper' website. I apologize to the women that I've exploited, unwittingly perhaps, with each mouse click. I stand ashamed.
But I will fight nonetheless for the souls of women. I cannot express to you the horrors under which many women (and children) are living right now. As one woman said, a former sex slave, she did not know "that there could be places on this earth that could be so evil. ... I kept waiting for one of my clients (pause) to help me. ..." There are women abducted and sent to foreign soil, chained in rooms, serving up to sixteen men a day, sexually, perversely, in abject decadence worse than Dante's lowest tiers of hell. Governments and legal authorities turn blind eyes towards these obscenities; men and women participate in luring and trapping vulnerable girls in schemes that are nothing short of sick.
I weep today, and I pray my tears are not for show, are not in vain. There is no hope for this planet if we do not honor women; if the womb is reduced to a commodity. I beg you to pray for me, and all earnest men, that we will fight, genuinely, for the glory of mother, daughter, sister, wife; that we will honor our wives; that we will heal our women; that we will heal ourselves, by refusing to countenance this evil any longer. Let us stop the evil; humans are not objects for sale.
Men, wake up and repent with me. We are needed.
©Bill Gnade 2006/All Rights Reserved.
Moreover, witness today the disgusting and prurient media interest in the prostitute involved. The world seeks to exploit her anew. Such sorrow! May God have mercy!- BG]
From February 11, 2006:
I wept last night, several times. You see, I was watching television, which is not usually my habit (particularly on a Friday night), and I found myself weeping as I watched the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies, particularly when the 9-year-old Italian girl sang the Italian national anthem; or when Pavarotti closed the show with transcendence. The pageantry and pyrotechnics were brilliant; and the Peace Dove, formed by white-clad humans scaling a vertical netted wall, was mindblowing (though the dove looked a bit hawkish, if you ask me). But I also wept when I jumped to another program, 20/20, which featured a segment by John Stossel that included film footage of the killing of African elephants. I cannot tell you how this vulgarity slays me. It is an abuse unconscionable. (I am not referring to bona fide hunting of elephants as a vital natural resource by indigenous peoples.)
I am glad for channel-changing remote controls.
__________________
But something else really tore me up last night. Something that caused me to rend my garments; to rend my heart. It is the sort of demonic reality that should set the world afire with outrage. I am referring to slave trading, sexual slave trading. I urge my readers to watch PBS's Frontline documentary Sex Slaves; and I urge you to help fight the abuse of women (and children) in a trade that is, in fact, only a few mouse clicks away from this site. In fact I urge you men, particularly, who, like me, struggle with even the casual visit to porn-sites on the WWW, to at least fight the darkness by refusing to click on a JPEG or MPEG that will cost a woman her soul. For it is all linked: prostitution, pornography, abuse: it is all part of the degradation of womanhood, of personhood, and, perhaps most of all, motherhood.
Men, lest we forget, are also victims of sexual degradation, in myriad ways. Battered women come to men in all forms: many of us are married to them, our wives having been victimized by fathers or brothers or former boyfriends (the worst culprits, usually), or the culture that begs women to throw their virtues to the wind. But we also, as men, know our own exploitation: We are told everyday in advertisements, books, magazines and porno-promos that sex is ALL we really want; that we are nothing but sex objects too, hungry with lust; that THEY know what we really, really need.
My conviction is that we men must stop the demand for the consumption of women by refusing to participate it in any form. Moreover, I believe we men must begin, perhaps in grand over-reaction, to honor women, elevating them if we must, by viewing their bodies, not as playgrounds, but as cathedrals, as sanctuaries, as temples of holy life. We must stop the tyranny, even if that tyranny turns a profit through increased ad revenue, circulation, retail sales, or web-traffic.
I confess that I am guilty. I have looked at photographs (many!) that are indeed indecent, photographs presented in ostensibly up-scale magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, or some such 'proper' website. I apologize to the women that I've exploited, unwittingly perhaps, with each mouse click. I stand ashamed.
But I will fight nonetheless for the souls of women. I cannot express to you the horrors under which many women (and children) are living right now. As one woman said, a former sex slave, she did not know "that there could be places on this earth that could be so evil. ... I kept waiting for one of my clients (pause) to help me. ..." There are women abducted and sent to foreign soil, chained in rooms, serving up to sixteen men a day, sexually, perversely, in abject decadence worse than Dante's lowest tiers of hell. Governments and legal authorities turn blind eyes towards these obscenities; men and women participate in luring and trapping vulnerable girls in schemes that are nothing short of sick.
I weep today, and I pray my tears are not for show, are not in vain. There is no hope for this planet if we do not honor women; if the womb is reduced to a commodity. I beg you to pray for me, and all earnest men, that we will fight, genuinely, for the glory of mother, daughter, sister, wife; that we will honor our wives; that we will heal our women; that we will heal ourselves, by refusing to countenance this evil any longer. Let us stop the evil; humans are not objects for sale.
Men, wake up and repent with me. We are needed.
©Bill Gnade 2006/All Rights Reserved.
[I have written a poem addressing the struggles men face with sexuality and pornography which is available here. Please note that the poem is unflinching in its use of language. I wrote the poem several years ago, and it was presented in workshop at a writers' conference at Colgate University. The leader of the workshop skipped over it for less controversial material. It's not that bad, but it is serious.]
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Pursuit Of Knowing: Thoughts On American "Ignorance" (Part 1)
[I imagine this series will have limited interest to most readers. My interest is to explore what strikes me as a condescending attitude about the causes of "American ignorance."]
A few weeks ago I commented, rather hastily, on the thoughts of Susan Jacoby regarding the state of "knowledge" in the United States. To properly understand what follows, readers should read my "Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?"; they should also read Contratimes friend Randall Sherman's related commentary, "What Are You Going To Do With That? Teach?"
In the early 1990s, while I was pursuing an advanced degree in education (personal difficulties interrupted my studies), I conducted a series of sit-down interviews for a major project in a philosophy of education course. My intent was to divine in part why people believe a high school diploma is desirable; but I also wanted to know what people thought was the most important reason to learn anything at all.
My interest in the question of why we should bother to learn was born a few years earlier when I taught in an alternative education program for troubled high school freshmen. Beside run-ins with the law and various behavioral problems, these children were cursed with something seemingly psychological: they had no motivation to learn. In fact, they scoffed at the idea. Learning was, well, stupid.
When I would try to motivate my students, using every dangled carrot I could imagine, I discovered that their resistance was nearly always rooted in monetary facts. Some students would point to Eddie Van Halen or Slash, two hot guitar slingers, and simply state that they too were going to hit the big payday with their respective rock bands. Van Halen and Slash didn't need high school English or American History to succeed, or so I heard. They just needed an agent and a deal. In fact, there was not a student who did not appeal to some seemingly rebellious role model who had, apparently, stopped learning anything from promotion from sixth grade to induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (or success on an NBA basketball court).
Moreover, nearly every student reminded me that they could just do what their "old man" did. I heard how workers at the paper mill or welders in "where my old man works" made $35 to $40 per hour, plus benefits. One day I recall the entire class laughing at me because I was making under $10 an hour: "Ain't no way we're going to college so we can earn 10 bucks an hour teaching in some dopey high school. We ain't listenin' to no college boy. Ahhhaah!"
I have to say, my students had a point. They could (and would) let me babysit them until they were 16, the legal age for dropping out of high school; they could get jobs down at the paper mill or the steel fabrication plant for fairly big bucks per hour without a diploma. And Slash did make more in a month than I would probably make in a lifetime -- and he wasn't making cash by reading lots of books.
In short, when confronted by true resistance to learning, I discovered that I did not REALLY have an answer to that resistance. My students were savvy, savvy enough to know that I could not come up with a decent reason for learning when so much of the culture in which I lived was all too often rewarding -- rather handsomely -- those who did not apparently need to know what I knew in order to succeed. And if I did manage to find a reason, it was usually rooted in some ideal that transcended the secular values of the classroom: I probably would have to make an appeal that approached the religious. Even if I appealed to the pursuit of happiness, my students rendered happiness in terms of money; knowing, as they did, that the rich were not necessarily happy, these students would reply that a welding job would keep them in their Ford F-250s and Friday night beers indefinitely -- which was all they wanted.
MY INTERVIEWS
For my project, I interviewed 12 or 14 people. One was a master chess player who had written a successful spy novel before becoming a defense attorney (he was not an attorney at the time). One was a child of two world-renowned intellectuals who in her own right had become world-renowned, sitting as she did in a very well-endowed chair at a major university. Another was a lawyer who made a very viable run at the state governor's seat; another person had already succeeded as New Hampshire's governor. Two were ministers: one, an Episcopal priest with degrees from Yale and BU; the other, a successful pastor of the area's largest evangelical church. Another was a trained biologist who had chosen to manage a main street grocery. There was a cabinet-maker in the mix, and a stay-at-home mother, a medical doctor, a high school dropout, and a high school valedictorian (before graduation).
I asked each person two essential questions: What is the single most important reason to earn a high school diploma? and, What is the single most important reason to learn anything at all?
All but one answered that the reason a person should seek the highest level of education was to increase his or her earning potential. In other words, the vast majority of people I interviewed, all from various walks of life, connected learning with earning. Only one person, the high school valedictorian, said that the reason he was learning was so he could help ease the suffering of his fellowman (he was hoping to study bio-engineering so he could create better prostheses for amputees).
Even the two members of the clergy reduced learning to financial terms: Knowledge was simply utilitarian. A person learned in order to transform knowledge into cash.
Now, I did not inform my subjects beforehand what I was exploring; I did not want them to think too long about things. I did this to reflect what is quite common, namely, that the reasons for learning are really hardly ever discussed or reflected upon. If I were to ask readers now to explore why they believed learning was important, and then engaged each reader in debate, I guarantee that we would all discover that most of our thoughts are rife with presumptions, with things we never considered.
In the end, my project focused on the fact that American educators have ably formulated a philosophy of education -- a theory of pedagogy and a list of academic standards -- but have failed to even consider a philosophy of learning (why learn). Granted, most students unquestioningly accept the goals of education. But those who don't may indeed be our schools' most honest and astute pupils, refusing to learn for purposes of increasing their earning potential or for some other purely utilitarian end.
And if Americans just think about it for a moment, there are indeed dozens of very dopey people who yearly acquire incredible wealth, fame and status. "Learning" in any traditional sense, especially as it may be defined by Susan Jacoby, does not necessarily translate into success, happiness, power, or financial stability. Unfortunately, too many folks accept the economic, pragmatic idols of the American cult, rendering many of our most noble inspirations mute and unattractive.
Part 2 tomorrow.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
A few weeks ago I commented, rather hastily, on the thoughts of Susan Jacoby regarding the state of "knowledge" in the United States. To properly understand what follows, readers should read my "Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?"; they should also read Contratimes friend Randall Sherman's related commentary, "What Are You Going To Do With That? Teach?"
In the early 1990s, while I was pursuing an advanced degree in education (personal difficulties interrupted my studies), I conducted a series of sit-down interviews for a major project in a philosophy of education course. My intent was to divine in part why people believe a high school diploma is desirable; but I also wanted to know what people thought was the most important reason to learn anything at all.
My interest in the question of why we should bother to learn was born a few years earlier when I taught in an alternative education program for troubled high school freshmen. Beside run-ins with the law and various behavioral problems, these children were cursed with something seemingly psychological: they had no motivation to learn. In fact, they scoffed at the idea. Learning was, well, stupid.
When I would try to motivate my students, using every dangled carrot I could imagine, I discovered that their resistance was nearly always rooted in monetary facts. Some students would point to Eddie Van Halen or Slash, two hot guitar slingers, and simply state that they too were going to hit the big payday with their respective rock bands. Van Halen and Slash didn't need high school English or American History to succeed, or so I heard. They just needed an agent and a deal. In fact, there was not a student who did not appeal to some seemingly rebellious role model who had, apparently, stopped learning anything from promotion from sixth grade to induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (or success on an NBA basketball court).
Moreover, nearly every student reminded me that they could just do what their "old man" did. I heard how workers at the paper mill or welders in "where my old man works" made $35 to $40 per hour, plus benefits. One day I recall the entire class laughing at me because I was making under $10 an hour: "Ain't no way we're going to college so we can earn 10 bucks an hour teaching in some dopey high school. We ain't listenin' to no college boy. Ahhhaah!"
I have to say, my students had a point. They could (and would) let me babysit them until they were 16, the legal age for dropping out of high school; they could get jobs down at the paper mill or the steel fabrication plant for fairly big bucks per hour without a diploma. And Slash did make more in a month than I would probably make in a lifetime -- and he wasn't making cash by reading lots of books.
In short, when confronted by true resistance to learning, I discovered that I did not REALLY have an answer to that resistance. My students were savvy, savvy enough to know that I could not come up with a decent reason for learning when so much of the culture in which I lived was all too often rewarding -- rather handsomely -- those who did not apparently need to know what I knew in order to succeed. And if I did manage to find a reason, it was usually rooted in some ideal that transcended the secular values of the classroom: I probably would have to make an appeal that approached the religious. Even if I appealed to the pursuit of happiness, my students rendered happiness in terms of money; knowing, as they did, that the rich were not necessarily happy, these students would reply that a welding job would keep them in their Ford F-250s and Friday night beers indefinitely -- which was all they wanted.
MY INTERVIEWS
For my project, I interviewed 12 or 14 people. One was a master chess player who had written a successful spy novel before becoming a defense attorney (he was not an attorney at the time). One was a child of two world-renowned intellectuals who in her own right had become world-renowned, sitting as she did in a very well-endowed chair at a major university. Another was a lawyer who made a very viable run at the state governor's seat; another person had already succeeded as New Hampshire's governor. Two were ministers: one, an Episcopal priest with degrees from Yale and BU; the other, a successful pastor of the area's largest evangelical church. Another was a trained biologist who had chosen to manage a main street grocery. There was a cabinet-maker in the mix, and a stay-at-home mother, a medical doctor, a high school dropout, and a high school valedictorian (before graduation).
I asked each person two essential questions: What is the single most important reason to earn a high school diploma? and, What is the single most important reason to learn anything at all?
All but one answered that the reason a person should seek the highest level of education was to increase his or her earning potential. In other words, the vast majority of people I interviewed, all from various walks of life, connected learning with earning. Only one person, the high school valedictorian, said that the reason he was learning was so he could help ease the suffering of his fellowman (he was hoping to study bio-engineering so he could create better prostheses for amputees).
Even the two members of the clergy reduced learning to financial terms: Knowledge was simply utilitarian. A person learned in order to transform knowledge into cash.
Now, I did not inform my subjects beforehand what I was exploring; I did not want them to think too long about things. I did this to reflect what is quite common, namely, that the reasons for learning are really hardly ever discussed or reflected upon. If I were to ask readers now to explore why they believed learning was important, and then engaged each reader in debate, I guarantee that we would all discover that most of our thoughts are rife with presumptions, with things we never considered.
In the end, my project focused on the fact that American educators have ably formulated a philosophy of education -- a theory of pedagogy and a list of academic standards -- but have failed to even consider a philosophy of learning (why learn). Granted, most students unquestioningly accept the goals of education. But those who don't may indeed be our schools' most honest and astute pupils, refusing to learn for purposes of increasing their earning potential or for some other purely utilitarian end.
And if Americans just think about it for a moment, there are indeed dozens of very dopey people who yearly acquire incredible wealth, fame and status. "Learning" in any traditional sense, especially as it may be defined by Susan Jacoby, does not necessarily translate into success, happiness, power, or financial stability. Unfortunately, too many folks accept the economic, pragmatic idols of the American cult, rendering many of our most noble inspirations mute and unattractive.
Part 2 tomorrow.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Wife Guilt: Why Some Women Stand By Their Men (And Other Realities)
Eliot Spitzer’s downfall has brought much discussion to the airwaves and blogosphere, with no small part of that discussion comprising speculations as to why his beloved wife, Silda, would stand at his much disgraced side. Very cynical commentators have suggested that her marital posture reveals a dark political strategy, or some nefarious desire to hold on to power. The same commentators liken Mrs. Spitzer’s resolute stance to Hillary Clinton’s allegedly politically calculated commitment to her unfaithful husband. Others see a heroic woman trying to hold her family together, while some see a woman too stupid to see she’s been shamed and abused by an aggressive and arrogant husband. (One conservative female blogger might not see Mrs. Spitzer as stupid, but surely she sees abuse in parading Mrs. Spitzer out onto the stage.)
There is much to say about all these observations, but I am not the person to say it. My default position is to see a woman who is in shock; I see a woman who looks like she has been forced to witness the execution of her children. If you ask me, Mrs. Spitzer looks in dire need of healing.
But I also see in Mrs. Spitzer's actions the possibility of Wife Guilt: The reason she is standing with her husband is because she feels guilty for sexually failing her husband. I can almost hear the tape in her head: It’s my fault, for what sort of wife fails to keep her husband happy? How could a wife of such an important man – a man attractive in so many ways – fail to keep her man satisfied? How could a wife who is clearly attractive, even beautiful, fail to keep that man content? I'm responsible for this: surely there must be something wrong with me!
And that is indeed what no one seems to be exploring: there might be something wrong. All kinds of married couples have ceased sexual relations with each other; we all know that things change in marriages. Many women in this country suffer from depression, and menopause is no small hindrance to sexual excitement, especially when depression or chronic fatigue is part of the equation. Many wives know that their husbands’ sexual urges do not decline with age, at least in the same way as a woman who has stopped ovulating loses her "urges." No doubt this puts such wives in a very precarious place. And so, too, their husbands, who are daily, even hourly, bombarded with sexual images and invitations for "mind-blowing" pleasures.
I have heard of several married couples who have made curious and risky sexual compromises with each other. Some wives give tacit approval to their husbands to solicit extra-marital sex so to keep their men happy, but only as long as such husbands recognize their offshore ventures are to be strictly about sex (no love allowed!). I know one menopausal woman who said recently that she would prefer it if her husband would just go out and find a little satisfaction, for she is too tired and too guilty to help him. I once dined (sort of) with a very progressive bi-sexual Episcopal priest and his wife who had struck an even more curious deal: she could have heterosexual extra-marital affairs, while he enjoyed sexual liaisons with men. The one caveat was that they could not commit “real adultery” by falling in love with their respective lovers. Sadly, couples strike deals, implicit and explicit, all the time.
Perhaps the Spitzers had a similar sort of deal, maybe even one that went unspoken. Maybe Mrs. Spitzer is ill. Or maybe Gov. Spitzer was cavorting with very high price prostitutes because there was some guarantee of anonymity; a "typical" affair would be too messy and too risky, even if his wife approved. Maybe some high-end escort services are set up strictly to serve clientele that cannot do the normal “public affairs” route. Husbands who believe they have the tacit approval for this sort of behavior nonetheless feel they must be discreet, so spending big money is seen as a sort of protection.
I realize, of course, that I am speculating about the unknown realities of the Spitzer marriage bed. But I am not speculating about the realities of many married couples, the impulses of men, and the fact that many wives feel guilty for losing their sexual passions (or for simply getting old). One of my childhood friends lost his wife to cancer in a slow and miserable death; her guilt for not being able to have sex with him as she slowly died was one of the burdens he could not carry for her no matter how hard he tried to reassure her that he was fine (and boy, the guilt he felt for thinking about sex beyond her death, while she was still alive, was nearly enough to kill him).
All this to say that we do not know the reasons Mrs. Spitzer is standing on the dais with her fallen husband. But guilt might be the reason she’s not running toward divorce court. Sadly, much of that guilt is often self-imposed, reinforced by a culture that tells us that we not only CAN have it all – success, luxury, power, money, sexual fulfillment, perpetual health and beauty – but that we MUST have it all.
In short, in all of this, I see nothing but grief and sorrow, and a great deal of ugliness.
But, in the end, even if there is no dysfunction in the Spitzer bedroom, even if Mrs. Spitzer feels no guilt at all, there is the distinct chance she still feels responsible. I, at least, have known more than a few women who have taken responsibility for ALL the problems in their marriages. And that, as we all know, is a terrible weight to carry.
(One note: I had a very cynical college buddy who believed that the best way to keep a woman attached to you was to pull away from her; cheating on her was seen as the best way to keep her close. His theory was based on vanity, that the woman would be drawn closer to her cheating man to find out how she had fallen out of favor. The woman would fret to no end: Have I lost my allure? my beauty? my sex appeal? Did I do something wrong? My friend felt this worked even if the guy was a loser. But it especially worked if he was a great success, at least in the eyes of the world. Surely a successful man who wandered was saying that his wife was not up to par, no? That there was something wrong with her?
Of course, PAYING for sex is not the best evidence that a guy is particularly skilled at romancing the ladies.)
Peace.
BG
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
There is much to say about all these observations, but I am not the person to say it. My default position is to see a woman who is in shock; I see a woman who looks like she has been forced to witness the execution of her children. If you ask me, Mrs. Spitzer looks in dire need of healing.
But I also see in Mrs. Spitzer's actions the possibility of Wife Guilt: The reason she is standing with her husband is because she feels guilty for sexually failing her husband. I can almost hear the tape in her head: It’s my fault, for what sort of wife fails to keep her husband happy? How could a wife of such an important man – a man attractive in so many ways – fail to keep her man satisfied? How could a wife who is clearly attractive, even beautiful, fail to keep that man content? I'm responsible for this: surely there must be something wrong with me!
And that is indeed what no one seems to be exploring: there might be something wrong. All kinds of married couples have ceased sexual relations with each other; we all know that things change in marriages. Many women in this country suffer from depression, and menopause is no small hindrance to sexual excitement, especially when depression or chronic fatigue is part of the equation. Many wives know that their husbands’ sexual urges do not decline with age, at least in the same way as a woman who has stopped ovulating loses her "urges." No doubt this puts such wives in a very precarious place. And so, too, their husbands, who are daily, even hourly, bombarded with sexual images and invitations for "mind-blowing" pleasures.
I have heard of several married couples who have made curious and risky sexual compromises with each other. Some wives give tacit approval to their husbands to solicit extra-marital sex so to keep their men happy, but only as long as such husbands recognize their offshore ventures are to be strictly about sex (no love allowed!). I know one menopausal woman who said recently that she would prefer it if her husband would just go out and find a little satisfaction, for she is too tired and too guilty to help him. I once dined (sort of) with a very progressive bi-sexual Episcopal priest and his wife who had struck an even more curious deal: she could have heterosexual extra-marital affairs, while he enjoyed sexual liaisons with men. The one caveat was that they could not commit “real adultery” by falling in love with their respective lovers. Sadly, couples strike deals, implicit and explicit, all the time.
Perhaps the Spitzers had a similar sort of deal, maybe even one that went unspoken. Maybe Mrs. Spitzer is ill. Or maybe Gov. Spitzer was cavorting with very high price prostitutes because there was some guarantee of anonymity; a "typical" affair would be too messy and too risky, even if his wife approved. Maybe some high-end escort services are set up strictly to serve clientele that cannot do the normal “public affairs” route. Husbands who believe they have the tacit approval for this sort of behavior nonetheless feel they must be discreet, so spending big money is seen as a sort of protection.
I realize, of course, that I am speculating about the unknown realities of the Spitzer marriage bed. But I am not speculating about the realities of many married couples, the impulses of men, and the fact that many wives feel guilty for losing their sexual passions (or for simply getting old). One of my childhood friends lost his wife to cancer in a slow and miserable death; her guilt for not being able to have sex with him as she slowly died was one of the burdens he could not carry for her no matter how hard he tried to reassure her that he was fine (and boy, the guilt he felt for thinking about sex beyond her death, while she was still alive, was nearly enough to kill him).
All this to say that we do not know the reasons Mrs. Spitzer is standing on the dais with her fallen husband. But guilt might be the reason she’s not running toward divorce court. Sadly, much of that guilt is often self-imposed, reinforced by a culture that tells us that we not only CAN have it all – success, luxury, power, money, sexual fulfillment, perpetual health and beauty – but that we MUST have it all.
In short, in all of this, I see nothing but grief and sorrow, and a great deal of ugliness.
But, in the end, even if there is no dysfunction in the Spitzer bedroom, even if Mrs. Spitzer feels no guilt at all, there is the distinct chance she still feels responsible. I, at least, have known more than a few women who have taken responsibility for ALL the problems in their marriages. And that, as we all know, is a terrible weight to carry.
(One note: I had a very cynical college buddy who believed that the best way to keep a woman attached to you was to pull away from her; cheating on her was seen as the best way to keep her close. His theory was based on vanity, that the woman would be drawn closer to her cheating man to find out how she had fallen out of favor. The woman would fret to no end: Have I lost my allure? my beauty? my sex appeal? Did I do something wrong? My friend felt this worked even if the guy was a loser. But it especially worked if he was a great success, at least in the eyes of the world. Surely a successful man who wandered was saying that his wife was not up to par, no? That there was something wrong with her?
Of course, PAYING for sex is not the best evidence that a guy is particularly skilled at romancing the ladies.)
Peace.
BG
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Dershowitz On Spitzer: No Big Deal
Alan Dershowitz, the well-known Harvard Law School professor, offered his profound insight into the cause of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (NY-D) very recent downfall: It's America's fault.
I happened to catch Mr. Dershowitz's comments this afternoon on MSNBC. He was interviewed by phone not 90 minutes (it was probably within the hour) after the New York Times broke the story of Spitzer's involvement with a high-society prostitution ring. In Huffington Post blogger Sam Stein's piece posted late today, we find a video link of Dershowitz's MSNBC appearance; Stein quotes Dershowitz saying that Spitzer's fall from grace is "a uniquely American story:"
"I feel terrible for Eliot and his family ... But I feel that this was a story that we have to put in perspective. Big deal. Married man goes to prostitute. In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper."
Amazing, no? America is to blame for Gov. Spitzer's political and moral decline, or so avers Mr. Dershowitz. After all, if America could only get over its moral archaisms; if it would just show the moral maturity of France or Italy, Spitzer would not be losing all his political capital in what is really, in the proper scheme of things, no "big deal."
In short, Spitzer is a victim.
To be honest, I am grateful Spitzer is not being accused of cannibalism, for surely the American outcry would be just as embarrassing. Everybody knows eating one's neighbors is not newsworthy among certain tribes in Papua New Guinea.
Consider it another victory for European moral hegemony. And to think America is considered imperialistic, imposing its standards on the world.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I happened to catch Mr. Dershowitz's comments this afternoon on MSNBC. He was interviewed by phone not 90 minutes (it was probably within the hour) after the New York Times broke the story of Spitzer's involvement with a high-society prostitution ring. In Huffington Post blogger Sam Stein's piece posted late today, we find a video link of Dershowitz's MSNBC appearance; Stein quotes Dershowitz saying that Spitzer's fall from grace is "a uniquely American story:"
"I feel terrible for Eliot and his family ... But I feel that this was a story that we have to put in perspective. Big deal. Married man goes to prostitute. In Europe, this wouldn't even make the back pages of the newspaper."
Amazing, no? America is to blame for Gov. Spitzer's political and moral decline, or so avers Mr. Dershowitz. After all, if America could only get over its moral archaisms; if it would just show the moral maturity of France or Italy, Spitzer would not be losing all his political capital in what is really, in the proper scheme of things, no "big deal."
In short, Spitzer is a victim.
To be honest, I am grateful Spitzer is not being accused of cannibalism, for surely the American outcry would be just as embarrassing. Everybody knows eating one's neighbors is not newsworthy among certain tribes in Papua New Guinea.
Consider it another victory for European moral hegemony. And to think America is considered imperialistic, imposing its standards on the world.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)