The Stewart Consortium

Age of Consumerism: Avarice, Wealth, & the Jones'

2011-12-10T09:49:00.015-07:00

The United States is suffering through one of the greatest economic downturns in its history.The “Great Recession,” as it been called, has put Americans into a deep funk. Signs of portents had percolated for years that a great economic downfall was amassing . The exporting of jobs began in the mid-1980s with manufacturing,and later the importation of cheaper steel took jobs away from the America’s Rustbelt states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland. The transfer of wealth from the Middle Class to the top two percent cemented the betrayal of the American Dream.

Prior to the financial crash in early 2000, the technology boom of the 1990s began to crater and the psychological impact of September 11, 2001 shook Americans to their core. The United States was headed to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. While Americans were encouraged to buy their way out of the emotional trepidations, political machinations in Washington spent trillions of dollars on the machinery of war; set up unfunded mandates, such as No Child Left Behind, and passed the Medicare Part-D, and cut an unprecedented amount of taxes out of the federal budget.

Critics of Medicare Part-D point out, although that cost for the program has been significantly less than projected, its average cost for the next decade will exceed that of inflation at proximately 10 percent per year (see Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, articles 1 & 2). Defenders of Medicare Part-D, on the other hand, assert that the market base competition is actually curtailing the cost of prescription drug costs (see James Capretta article of The Heritage Institute) and shows why this model will work for containing health care cost.

Along side these events, financial decisions were being made by United States Congress, and President Bill Clinton in 1999 by the reversing of the Glass--Steagle Act, which prevented banks selling securities and financial mechanisms, such as derivatives (see Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act). According to Bergen Jersey Foreclosures website, democratic Senator Byron Dorgan proposed an amendment that would have barred the banks and credit unions from using the financial mechanisms of derivatives.

The anger that followed the 2008 financial crisis that sent Americans into a conniption fit manifested itself into the form of self-flagellation and curious form of euphoric hope.The disparate emotions were the results of the 2008 presidential election. On the one hand, the citizenry of the country was in an euphoric state with the election of President Obama; and on the other hand, the eclectic levels of frustration of a political system that resulted in an overabundance of crony capitalism, and self-involvement led to disillusionment of the entitled consumer by the fall of the financial markets.

The Age of Consumerism: the keeping up with the Jones, the Smiths, and the Von Trapp families left the average American believing that they could have it all. All Americans had to do was put it on credit. For over thirty-years, the economic model was to spend beyond one’s means. To have what one wants, when one wants it. Americans need for instant gratification and sense of entitlement for ownership drove the economy.

The need for instant gratification created a culture of impatience, indulgence, and political polarization. The financial collapse of 2008 ensued, in part, because of the attitudes of the financial firms, regulators and congress. For instance, Alan Greenspan monetary policies mindset during his tenure allowed for the Age of Consumerism be engulfed by avarice of the culture. Greenspan’s policies, therefore, of low interest rates on short-term loans and bonds sprinted the economy forward and created a false sense of security, which catalyzed into the formation of co-dependency of entitlements and fiscal irresponsibility. These policies also ingratiated themselves with this false confidence and led eventually to the bailouts for the “too big to fail” banks and securities firms.

Alan Greenspan admitted that mistakes in his monetary policies for the United States were made and yet he said in October 2011, U. S. News and World Report, “We all misjudged the risks involved. Everybody missed it—academia, the Federal Reserve, all the regulators,” in an article that, in part, accounted for the inaccurate forecasting of 2008. The article author’s, Steve Beck, further asserts that the predicting of market forces accurately is and was a precarious venture at best.

Nevertheless, despite the precarious nature of predicting market forces and the resulting financial crisis of 2008, it was foreseeable that economic boom of the real estate market and other financial mechanisms were headed for a bust. History itself had been an indicator of boom and bust cycles of capitalism. Ancillary of these factors, those with a living memory (or the foresight to adhere to historical trends) of the last real estate bust with savings and loans debacle of the 1980s had positioned themselves accordingly.

The aforementioned contributory factors of the past decade and the generational shift in savings rate attributed to the political and economic betrayal of America ethos. The betrayal of America therefore has become ingrained allowing for the furtherance of a generational institutions to become bloated and overly bureaucratic with ineffective regulations and philosophies. It is time for Americans to take back responsibility of the American Dream; stunt the growth of our own and politicians avarice; and, hold accountable our own disillusionment of consumerism.

The Post-Modern Christmas World

2011-11-27T19:54:00.012-07:00

In recent days I have seen several post on Facebook on the Christ in Christ-mas, the topic being that, Merry Christmas moniker should be the sole greeting and departure term during the holiday season. Happy Holidays not being true to Christ and the Christmas spirit. Somehow, these posts seem to believe that because one does not say "Merry Christmas" that it is an affront to Christ and Christianity. The celebration of Christ's birth is somehow diminished.

Some of these post go even further, in that, they challenge the readers to get behind saying Merry Christmas or delete them from their Facebook if they are offended. The ridiculousness of these posts in their variations is that they fail to recognize this country's great compact "Freedom of Speech." This freedom is grounded in the foundation of our country's, the United States, greatest founding document -- the U. S. Constitution.

It is the Constitution that makes this country 'the beacon on the hill' for the rest of the planet.Its ability to codify the rule of law and allow for the relative ease to transfer power from interest group to interest group despite religious, ethnic, and demographic differences. The U. S. Constitution is also the document that takes the most abuse from misinterpretation and created fallacies from various interest groups.

It is the veneration of the United States Constitution that has allowed interest groups and ideologues alike the ability to spin their ideals varying forms of truth. The freedom of speech which endures within the country sets us apart from any other country and yet this freedom also allows for the citizenry to be offended despite the cries for censorship.

Tied in also with this relationship of freedom of speech is the rule of law that freedom of religion be separate from the state. This capability to separate the institutions of religion and government has allowed for the stability of our country and its endurance. For an individual or group able to speak freely without the pressure of the majority or the state has allowed for different beliefs (be them religious or rational outliers) to be co-opted, adopted, or rejected without full oppression and acrimony of standing institutions. Moreover, in these founding principalities is the dexterity of truth so out of the many we are one nation (E Pluribus Unum).

One nation with many differences is allowed to not only make itself disparate in its beliefs in Christ but is allowed to disbelief in his existence. And, if a person chooses not to say Merry Christmas that is okay too. And, if you are one of those (and you know who you are) by someone simply saying Happy Holidays -- my suggestion to you is to get over yourself -- because it may not be about you, Christ, or anything else determined offensive -- it simply may be a way of celebrating all the 'high holidays' that come at the end of the year between Thanksgiving, Hannukah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa. Each of these holidays comes with the certification of human agency. Each provided with a narrative so their followers can be swept away in the ethos and mythos of the holidays' origin. And, in the end help provide one more variation of the human narrative--in structure, form, and function.

And, if you are offended by my lack of being offended -- I am sure this too shall pass in a post-modern Christmas world...

Betrayal of the American Promise

2011-11-20T14:42:00.027-07:00

Apparently, the republicans and the democrats on the Super Committee are not serious in reducing the deficit. Nor are they apparently serious about keeping the "American Promise" to future generations.

The promise that each successive generation will do better than the last. The promise that America's meritocracy elevates the individual and enshrines the community for the betterment of its citizenry but also illuminates the world with hope.

Unfortunately, the polarization of the two party system in American politics has created dysfunction that may imperil future generations' dreams.

In past generations of American politics, the political parties understood the necessities of pragmatism. Pragmatism ruled the day and despite the ardor of argument and contentiousness and controversial viewpoints common sense eventuated into reality regardless of political and corporate interests.

In 2011, corporate interests rules the day instead of the pragmatic visions of equality and the betterment of future generations. Case and point, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in regards to Citizen United v Federal Elections Commission (183 page ruling here) opened the floodgates of overt corruption and successfully subverting the definition of "person."

When the US Supreme Court codified that "corporations" were the same as a "living person"; and, that corporations were held as sentient beings and therefore are entitled to the full protections of individual citizens in terms of free speech, it set into motion the political paralysis that this country is faced with today. Not to rehash the slippery slope of arguments and precedent that led SCOTUS to the Citizen United decision, but the illusion that corporations are sentient beings was flawed and counter-intuitive to reality.

People (persons) are biologically alive entities; people are ephemeral; and, limited in function and form. Thus, free speech for the individual is the only characteristic that can be eternal and transfixed into the currents of time.

Corporations, on the other hand, can survive beyond their creators and override an individual's (or individuals') speech and rewrite the individual's free speech. The corporations self-interest usurps the people individually and communally by its influence and can affect and effect a communities' traditions as well as the communities' self-interest writ-large (see pizza as a vegetable example).

Although corporations influences on the political process preceded the ruling of Citizens United decision, the entombing the nature of a corporation as a person put the American Promise in jeopardy and set the stage for policy and political betrayal by American institutions, government, and our leaders.

Now, our leaders are telling the American public that the Deficit Supercommittee, which was created during the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis in the summer, that pragmatism, policy compromise, and fiscal responsibility are not possible. Each of the political parties are blaming the other for their dysfunction and the lack of results (see this Sunday's Meet The Press show as an example).

Is it any wonder then, that the public from both end of the political spectrum, the Tea Party and Occupy movement, and those in the middle are so angry? The middle class, college students, people of color and even the elite are in danger of America's falling into a dystopian failure.

A world where fear and dehumanization of the person becomes transformed by the Frankenstein's nature of the corporation. A world where our political leaders betrays the needs of the people and places the country's future generations into despair and the American Promise into a pine box....

Herman Cain--A Perspective

2011-11-15T20:22:00.030-07:00

In a recent conversation with a conservative friend about Herman Cain, he stated that race, as an issue, would not be a factor. His rationalization is, of course, flawed. For the example, the fact that the media will not use race as a way to divert and parse out differences is simply naive. Case and point in the recent accusations of sexual harassment of women by Cain, Charles Krauthammer, a Fox News analyst and conservative columnist, asked Herman Cain if race was behind the controversy (video).

CAIN: I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it. But because I am unconventional candidate running an unconventional campaign and achieving some unexpected unconventional results in terms of my, the poll, we believe that, yes, there are some people who are Democrats, liberals, who do not want to see me win the nomination. And there could be some people on the right who don't want to see me because I'm not the, quote/unquote, "establishment candidate." No evidence.

Essentially, race is will be a factor, whether it is rooted in conservative or liberal speak. To think that race will not be some part of American politics in the near future is to ignore the political polarization that drives corporate and popular interests in this country. Moreover, within the context of this polarization is how the narrative exceedingly defined, for the most part, by the conservative model--and which factor of the wing wishes to attach its brand of populism.

The assertion by the conservatives that this is a “liberal” driven story in order to usurp Cain’s only creates further dissension within populace of independent and moderate voters in the electorate. For instance, on the October 31, 2011 broadcast of Hannity on Fox.. The host, Sean Hannity himself along with Anne Coulter put forward that the allegation that Herman Cain was part of “High-Tech lynching” (video). Anne Coulter states that racism is the driving force behind the Poltico.com (article) against Herman Cain, she says

COULTER: People who don't like Obamacare is, oh, you must be racist. No, I think we are upset because he is wrecking the country. Maybe that figures in to it, we are against socialized healthcare. And this is why liberals detest, detest, detest, conservative blacks. I mean, they harang blacks and tell them, you can't be Republican, you can't be Republican, it is so hard for a black to be a Republican. And then when we don't have that many Republicans or blacks showing up at a Republican event, oh, you have no blacks there. Well, maybe if you want haranguing them so much.In any event, this is now the second time a conservative black has had outrageous and what appear to be --

The rhetoric speak by which Anne Coulter pontificates makes a salient point of why race is a factor within American body politic. It also baseless generalities, in which, liberalism and racism has been defined and is also why the republican establishment has problem attracting other black Americans to the party. This attack mode rhetoric demonstrates to black Americans that the insufferable hypocrisy put on by the party of Lincoln since the Southern Strategy of 1968 left blacks abandoned and unwanted. Therefore, the loyalty to which black Americans have to the democratic party was due to necessity and that it was democratic presidents, which have achieved the culmination of social justice for people of color. Yet, the inequity remains in the economic houses of black Americans. Poverty levels, despite the progress and achievements, remain largely disparate. In access to healthcare, jobs, and education -- black Americans are at the bottom of employment, education, and monies access.

In a recent Pew Research Center (July 2011) report, the financial crisis and generational opportunities are furthering the disparity of economic opportunities and wealth generation. The positioning of the party on this access and fairness to the average Joe has been perverted by the last century and beyond neoliberal economic model; which in simple terms is define as cutting-taxes, cutting-governmental spending, and cutting-regulations. This model also believes in the deconstruction of social programs and the middle-class by way of the elimination of unions, social security, and medicare.

The aforementioned programs allowed for people of color and the economically disadvantaged to close the gap in wealth generation and opportunities. These programs have been co-opted into the American Mythos and how they have been disintegrated by the neoliberalism model of capitalism in the last 30 years. The stories that make up ideological believe in the American Dream is often reveal in our “deep narrative” as Robert Wuthnow puts forth in tasking of the ruggedness of individualism of the American spirit. Yet, the inequities and disparities as seen by the people of color, blacks in particular, see themselves as outsiders (or more specifically “the other”) until recently.

This feeling of being “the other” returns to me to my initial point of why race will be part of the near future landscape despite the declaration of “we have arrived.” The main color in politics is green and while there is profit in creating separateness and yet a belief that “we are one” out of the many, the American Dream cannot be fully realized and the disambiguated unification of hope cannot be seized. American blacks are not “brainwashed” by democrats as asserted by Herman Cain in his CNN appearance The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (video), when Cain stated that,

Because many African-Americans have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view. I have received some of that same vitriol simply because I am running for the Republican nomination as a conservative.... So it's just brainwashing and people not being open-minded, pure and simple.

He was wrong, of course, because most black Americans are opened to conservative point of view. An example of this openness to conservatism could be seen in the exit polling conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the national media outlets ABC/AP/CNN/CBS/FOX News/NBC news of California’s Proposition 8 (which eliminated same sex marriage from the California’s constitution) majority of blacks voted for it, 75 to 25, which were primarily women; while Latinos men (54 to 46) and women (52 to 48) seem to be evenly divided. In general, according to Pew Research Center, black Americans are more religious and more conservative on social issues than the average American. Herman Cain’s assertion is simply wrong.

The issue with Herman Cain, in this writer’s view, is that black-Americans see him as a fraud; and, they see his candidacy as a show piece for the party--which only reinforces their belief--that the republican party is inauthentic. Cain’s continual gaffes beyond the sexual harassment issues shows his incompetence. For instance, his flubs on China (CBS; PBS) Libya (full interview), and flawed 999 tax plan as seen by conservatives (read here) only demonstrates to black American he is nowhere near ready for prime time.

Additionally, the republican party’s hard-core principal that individualism above the community cements black Americans credence that to access the body politic of the party requires one to do gymnastics if one is viewed as the “other” to gain acceptance.. Herman Cain’s minstrel show antics and apparent incompetence on the issues has only confirmed black Americans opinion in that belief. Thus, to think that race will not be an issue if Herman Cain was to be nominated is simply naive and provide false hope to the idea of equity, when socioeconomically black Americans are so far below the horizon.

The Contemplation of Paradise

2011-11-13T16:20:00.048-07:00

Watching the political discourse in the country for the past three years, it has been apparent that the next civil evolution for democratic developed nation-states, such as the United States, was and is at a critical precipice. The United States, for instance, has been in many civil turmoil, which hit critical mass in the 1960s. In 2008, the financial crisis ripped away the American vision, the band-aide that kept the merry race of consumerism was torn away and revealed that the "beautiful symphony" of home ownership and financial security was a farce.

In 2009 and 2010, civil blow back: the Tea Party, the obfuscation of politics, the polarization of the electorate, and the crisis of uncertainty led to the American Dream falling into disrepute. The dream of home ownership spiraled into uncontrollable descent. The psychology mores of fellowship and camaraderie sunken into the depths of despair. The collective majority and citizenry has lost confidence in what paradise, the American Dream, meant to them--home ownership.

In 2011, the farce that was the American Dream has continued to fall. Housing sales for the year are static and housing starts are to continue to decline. The foreseeable future in returning to the Golden of Age of consumerism was far off and crumbling. The belief of having what one wants, when one wants it, and that everyone can have the dream of home ownership fell into tumultuous water. Anger and fear ruled the hearts of the people. The economy of inevitability could no longer be dressed up.

Now, in 2011, the year has seen another civil uprising. This year, like 2009 and 2010, people are speaking. Instead of the usual anger and frustration reverberating in the starkness of fear, the riled makeup of the people has been founded in the continue failure of the United States government to protect the disenfranchised citizenry; the very young, aspiring college students, women, elderly, and minorities. Meanwhile. businesses and the financial institutions demoralize citizenry's hope in their quest and idolatrous relationship for money.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a response to this demoralization and idolatry. Business and government have fostered angst. The expectations and long forgotten paradise of the City on the Hill have resulted in betrayals. The expectations of paradise and the expectations that our leaders will be there for us and that the system of markets and freedom would and will guide us to the happily ever after of our consumable dreams have been dissembled.

The contemplation of paradise had to be redressed. The Occupy movement is another symptom of the downfall of the American happiness to be swallowed inequity. Shattered dreams crumble into devastation. Yet, in all this devastation, demoralization,and the angst of helplessness, and the betrayal of expectations. I do see a seed of hope with the prattling of the talking heads and the chattering of the Cheshire Cat smiling politicians, and even with the extremes of the left and right body politic, I find myself in a place of ineffable and inexplicable hope. The energy of the people speak to me. The ground swell of the Occupy (and even the Tea Party) signals to me that Americans are ready to take back their dreams--and reclaim them. The contemplation of paradise in these tumultuous times are rising within the cleansing flames of the emotional phoenix of the people demanding that the "promise" be restored.

The Meeting of Liberty Right and Liberty Left

2011-11-11T22:53:00.021-07:00

Tonight, I met for the first time, long time acquaintance via the Internet -- Warner Todd Huston - the conservative blogger. I met Warner a number of years ago online at a community called BlogExplosion, which gave people the ability to market their blogs by "surfing." Warner and I would often have discussions online about a particular political of event the day, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, or debate a particular policy point.

Our discussions would be passionate, not polarizing. I am libertarian democrat, which I define as socially left and a believer in the celebration of liberty for all consenting adults. And, I firmly believe in fiscal conservatism, in which, the social contract allows for the "true balance" and "pragmatic" approach in paying for new and old governmental programs alike. Warner, on the other hand, is an old school conservative. He is not Tea Party conservative. He is a man that is fair minded and willing to listen to other perspectives. This also means he understands that compromise may be necessary to foster consensus and that compromise is not a four letter word.

I am a pragmatic centrist. I see fanaticism (on either side of the aisle) as a death knell to liberty and hindering the civil evolution and justice of America's promise. Warner sees the need for the conservation of American principles and that the cultural mores of traditionalism are grounded in the principality of capital markets and small government. The largesse of government binds us and hinders liberty and the freedom of individualism. We both believe that the radicalization of politics is omnipresent and that the effect of American political discourse is at critical. Thus, our discussions over the years have been sometimes contentious, sometimes antithetical of pragmatism, yet Warner and I found ways to respect each other viewpoints.

Tonight, my meeting of Warner confirmed for me that we as Americans are, in principal, closer together in our values than apart. While the meeting tonight was not -- "My Dinner with Andre" -- it was definitely conversational. The ability to have a full dialog with opposing viewpoints was refreshing. We discussed Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, and the GOP Presidential hopefuls, and, of course, the radicalization of politics in brief.

Upfront was Herman Cain, which I described as a wolf in sheep clothing - a RINO - that is placating the base. Warner saw Herman Cain as a candidate that is not ready for prime time (and I agree). He expressed his concern over Herman Cain's temperament after meeting and observing Mr. Cain on several occasions. Furthermore, setting aside sexual harassment accusation (which we felt was an opposition Republican candidate doing instead of the MSM or a "left-wing democratic conspiracy") against Mr. Cain, it is quite apparent that Cain's organizational and knowledge skills are limited. We both agreed that Cain is not ready for being President (may be the Department of Transportation).

Meanwhile, though each was not discussed in full, the GOP field seems to be imploding in some fashion. Rick Perry was discussed more and how the hope of him (Perry) became deflated soon after he join the race.and another candidate that is not ready for prime time. Leaving me with the impression that Warner was still searching for a candidate that could truly challenge President Barack Obama in 2012. We had in the past online discussions his dislike of Mitt Romney and other candidates in the field.

Our other in depth discussion was Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party. We both agreed that each movement is founded in the frustration with our political system. The discussion set aside the extreme examples of reporting of each group. Admittedly, the Occupy movement has more clashes with authorities and thereby discrediting the movement. Yet, n Denver, the Occupy Denver movement, for the most part, has been tame with a few exceptions and embodies some of the principles (link here) and eight rules of the Occupy Wall Street. The main difference between the Tea Party and Occupy "movement" is that, Occupy movement is organic, in that, it is still its infancy, while the Tea Party over the same amount of time had been infiltrated by corporate money, such as Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity. This infiltration has been called by the media as "Astroturf" money.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has not fully utilized the "interests group" yet, in part, because the money interest sees the Occupiers as rudderless and leaderless. My fascination with the Occupy movement, as a cultural anthropologist, is to see how the eventual shape of the movement will evolve -- if at all. One of the questions I proposed to Warner was, will the Democratic National Committee (DNC), President Obama grass roots organization, and other left-leaning interests take advantage of the energy of the Occupy movement?

The final topics of our discussion was our perspective state parties (Colorado and Illinois) both republican and democratic, each discussing the flaws and corruption (more in Warner's home state of Illinois than in Colorado). We both agree that for the citizenry, the Tea Party, and Occupy movement need to be involve on the local level to affect change in policy not just emote fiery rhetoric and react in hapless platitudes. The true change in policy begins in the city councils around the country and if we, as a nation, are to correct the direction of this country. then it will require more involvement by the citizenry not just the extremists. Thus, the meeting of the liberty right and the liberty left was concluded -- and we both found that our long acquaintance online had been founded in respect and that we had more in common than differences....

My Response to John Mariotti of Forbes:Where are your solutions?

2011-09-01T02:28:00.043-06:00

On August 28, 2011 -- John Mariotti, of Forbes, wrote in his column titles, Obama's Legacy: A Failed Recovery & Double-Dip Recession, in his conclusion that

... Whatever happens, this failed recovery and impending recession belong to President Barack Obama. His condescending explanations of why “we Americans” don’t get it, how “this will take a long time,” this recovery, and his “class warfare” about “millionaires and billionaires” versus the “common folk” are all wearing thin...

And, with this I begin my response to Mr. Mariotti -- as I pointed out to a friend of mine that these criticism have been pointed out by numerous commentators and critics for months and have been stated before and provided no constructive solutions of how to resolve to the problem of the economy--and then I provided my ideas to the debate. Their response,

.... It's not a journalist's job to pose solutions, just to deliver the facts. I respectfully disagree with many of your suggestions, and they don't belong in a critique of Obama's term...

Really? When this, journalist, John Marriott poses as an expert in the "Strategies & Solutions" section of the Forbes online, one better bring more than just punditry and criticism that has been used repeatedly by the talking head critics of the far-right and Fox News propaganda machine. Especially, if this journalist and according to Forbes online, "is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author" that does "keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies." Therefore, this journalist, of sorts, is furthering the angst, fear, and doubt of recovery that Americans have been feeling since the fall of 2008 markets. In the words of Buddha,

....There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills....

In other words (as I wax in poetics), with doubts comes fear, making one small and inhabit the places of darkness within our spirits. Fear and doubts are the mind killers*, which destroys rationality and openness. Only through hope and certainty can expansion of the universe be born in the worlds of possibilities and exist beyond the realms of conflagration and polarization.

The rehashing of President Obama's faults and placing blame for his inabilty to get economy going by Mariotti's habitation of fear with his prognostication of a double-dip recession separates and destroys relationships with the 'other' political party. Any potential cooperation that might make a difference in changing the economy's outcome by having the 'adult conservation' with those that might want create jobs is subverted. Mariotti's criticism may be valid in general terms, but it continues the space of negativity and denies the opportunity of rational discussion. Playing on the fears of the American public leaves not only angst but destroys civility and the ability to create compromise during times of crisis. As Mariotti says,

... This kind of rhetoric won't solve America's problem ...

The bitter truth is that the president of the United States has limited ability to affect the economy, but the president's leadership and certainty are the guideposts in which country's economy can falter or thrive.

With that stated, John Mariotti's lack of vision and inability to provide constructive criticism and provide possible "solutions" or "strategies" is disingenuous. My friend's assertion that Mariotti's column was merely statement of facts and critiques of President Obama's term, again may be valid, but not in the "strategies & solutions" of the Forbes online section--he is an advisor -- Yes? Advise. Provide alternatives and possibilities. And, this is where I, Mariotti, and Facebook counterpart disagree. To put out possible solutions and strategies provides opportunities to bring not only resolution but a possible starting point to compromise so that United States can move forward and prosper along with its citizens. For instance, as Mariotti relayed the job facts about unemployment, he could have also provided possible solutions and strategy to help create jobs, such as the continuation of the payroll deduction rate, but also reduce the employer side of the contribution. Move Federal dollars to infrastructure projects. There are numerous bridges, highways, and new roads that need to be updated and built. Additionally, the United States' electrical grid needs to be reworked and updated along with delivery of fuel distribution system of pipelines.

In the late 1980s Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were able to come together and rework social security and it is time again to do so. The "entitlement programs" are guarantees that make this country great. Pragmatic decisions need to be made. The Paul Ryan's Budget Plan is too extreme and recreates the tragedies of the early and mid 20th century for our seniors and the poor. And, although the sentiment of the far left is understandable of not wanting to change any plans to medicare and social security it is not realistic. Specifically, their should be some means testing for the plans and up of the age requirements from 67 to 70 for social security and 65 to 67 for medicare. Additionally, the money that has been borrowed from social security needs to be paid back.

In terms of taxes, the tax code needs to be reformed. End corporate loopholes, such as subsidies to corporate farm, oil companies, corn, and reinstate the top tax code of 39 percent. In exchange, the top corporate rate should be lowered to 25 percent and corporate entities that do light manufacturing, such as electronics, shampoos, lotions, etc. corporate should be lower to 22 percent. In the short term, the payroll reduction tax holiday should be continued and should be extended to the employer not just the employees. The ending of corporate loopholes by 2012 and returning of 39 percent should be slated for the end of 2011, while the reduction corporate tax code could be back dated for 2011 and payroll deduction holiday to 2015.
In terms of regulation, they should be streamlined and duplicative policies removed. The EPA is a protective agency and is needed. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
that protects the general public needs to get up to speed and running as soon as possible.

The Pentagon has suggested many programs to be cut and the reduction of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the necessary austerity measures. However, the reduction of troops can also be expedited in non-hostile areas such as Germany--and reduction of our role in NATO should be considered. Most of the military technical and troop support comes from the United States and it is time that the nations of Europe and beyond contribute heavier in their spending in support of NATO.

These are few of my suggestions and are a starting point for discussions, what are yours?

This, That, and the Other Things

2011-08-29T22:35:00.048-06:00

It has been awhile since I posted to my blog--and my urge to write has resurfaced and I know this by my ranting on my Facebook page and my re-posting shared links. In the last two weeks, and actually weeks before, the craziness of political theater in Washington DC was getting under my skin. For example, when the politicos on the far-right stated that defaulting on the "full faith and credit" was not good only for the controlling the country's debt, but necessary for the US stop its "excessive spending," I wanted to pull out the rest of my hair--I am bald, what does that tell ya?

Sooooo I begin here, watching the GOP political formation of candidacy has been interesting at the very least. There are over ten candidates in the race for the GOP nomination, it has been virtually major research project to keep up with all the ins-and-outs of the group. Like the Seven Dwarfs of the Democratic nomination process a few years back, the Republican field itself will provide many political science courses much fodder for years to come.

Under the category of This ... Michele Bachmann (see the Jon Ward article on the Huffington Post) attempted to joke about how Hurricane Irene and the earthquake on the east coast were a warning from god to politicians to get their act together--and listen to "the people" of the United States. My response to a friend on my Facebook page was a bit snarky, but this was my thought with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I said

.... Funny, I was just thinking as a possibility -- but more appropriately a warning for the Republicans and 'Teapublicans" from God (but then my vision from God said, 'No He didn't'). And, the Universe said, "The Devil did it!" (and He said, the Devil that is, 'No I didn't')--and Mother Nature responded, "I am the Bitch the sent the messages --and if the vaulted political beacon of lights doesn't get off their collective ASSES, I am going to send a F5 tornado and lay the place to waste .....

This, of course, got the laugh-out-loud from my friend; but more importantly, it proved to me that I had been in a political ranting mood for quite awhile. Previously, I had ranted about the insanity of the far right and drug testing welfare recipients and not the rest of those who received State's money for such thing, such as state contracts and scholarships. In May, Governor Rick Scott, the Teapublican for Florida signed in to law that require welfare recipients to be drug tested and took effect in July.

Returning to Michele Bachmann (and who doesn't want to?), this commentary by her about the divine warning from god, whether in jest or a serious comment, proved to me that the ideologues in this year's GOP nomination have a long way to move to the middle to be elected next year. In addition, it proved to me that this year's GOP contenders are more extreme in their views than year's past.

However, I reminded myself that I say this every election cycle and realize that I am just getting more crotchety in my old age.

Nevertheless, continuing in the category of This, Michele Bachmann -- and other of her ilk, such as Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, have proven to be entertaining and very much hypercritical in terms of policy and prescience in terms of 'moral authority'. In terms of fiscal responsibility, however, all of these candidate would expand the role of government to repress an individual's right, either through legislation or governmental regulations therefore increase spending to do so.

Isn't any wonder why the Republican base wants to keep adding to its field of candidates?

Until Rick Perry, the governor from Texas, jumped into the race for nomination no candidate had greater than 23 percent of the Republican base's support.....

In the category of That, and previously mentioned above, Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, had signed into law the drug testing of Floridians receiving welfare but thus far has only resulted in a 2% according to the Tampa Tribune article have tested positive, which is substantially less than the 8.13 percent population of Florida 12 and older who have used illegal drugs (ibid). Nevertheless, the Rick Scott governorship has yielded another layer of government regulations in order to 'reduce' the spending, which is only increasing it.

This makes since--yes? Increasing the state's deficit and regulations in order to reduce the state's budget relies on the creating inequities for others. To the fiscal conservatives of the Teapublicans, however, none of their entitlements can be touched, such as social security and medicare. Setting aside the constitutionality of the issue, such as a personal rights in terms of the 4th Amendment, the cause for fixing the budget becomes circumspect at best when it is on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised.

And now for the Other Things, prior to the landfall of Hurricane Irene, Representative Ron Paul, of Texas, another GOP presidential candidate--and the father of libertarianism--stated that there is no need for FEMA, because, as reported by MSNBC, "We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960...," He continues with this statement, "I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district...," and that "... a state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington." He failed to remember or mention, of course, that the hurricane in 1900 killed nearly 6,000 people, and, the sea wall that was built in the following years, was rebuilt with Federal dollars in 2008 after Hurricane Ike (msnbc-1 and msnbc-2). This has won him the old-timer award of the week from me, but then Scrooge award has to go Representative Eric Cantor, of Virginia, who stated simply that in order to help those affected by Hurricane, cuts have to be made first to the budget.

Let me see if I understand what Eric Cantor is saying, we are not going to help you until we have cuts in the budget from somewhere else, such as Plan Parenthood--for instance, right? I have suggestion Mr. Cantor, how about you and the other 449 US Congress members don't take pay raises (or try to cleverly rephrase it with the term raises as "cost-of-living-adjustments" aka COLA) for the next ten years--that would be a beginning--yes? Never mind that thousands of people in dire need of help from the storms or that FEMA needs more funding to complete the other natural disasters that have happened this past year.

And finally, the rant that set my mood for this posting was a recent episode of The Rachel Maddow Show on the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) and the US House proposed budget cuts, beginning at the 19:55 mark, she discourses how this agency of the Federal government has kept the US and its citizenry safe. I, of course, notice that NNSA and FEMA are agencies that aid in prevention and restoration and subject to political fodder by the budget cut extremists in the name of austerity.

Thus, this has set my mood for this, that, and other things and my random thoughts of the day for this weblog, returning me back into the world of blogging my opinions--and leaving you, the reader, with this final thought. What will it take to end political polarization? What will it take for the center to take back control from the wing nuts of the left and the nut-jobs of the right? Simple -- be vocal, be active, and participate in this next election cycle.

It’s a Changing World – Vote!

2010-10-08T09:43:00.004-06:00

Right wing blogger, Warner Todd Huston, in his blog, the Publius’ Forum, commented on the fact that First Lady Michelle was one the list Forbes list of powerful 100 women (see link). He felt that to put her on the world’s list of power woman was a disservice, since was she was not an “elected” official. He felt that her role was nothing more than “traditional” and diminished the list. He further commented on the rest of list of the top 10 list. He took issue with Lady Gaga, Ellen Degeneres, and Beyonce; and, I may understand on why one may not see them as “power women,” but I have to respectively disagree with his perception of power.

I will concede that First Lady Michelle Obama has no “direct power” — but she does have “direct influence” on the perception of women and for the first time the women of color. Just like Laura and Barbra Bush, their “direct influence” resonated with women in terms of their access and connection to women generationally. And, if I recall correctly, in the 2008 election cycle people used Michelle Obama as one of the reason to question the electability of Barack Obama. Often stating, “Not only are you electing Obama but also his wife”. I also took note that he did not mention the other women on the list…

So hear are the top 10 power women,

10 Ellen Degeneres, Entertainer
9 Beyonce Bowles, Entertainer
8 Gail Kelly, CEO of Westpac
7 Lady Gaga, Entertainer, Social Activist
6 Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi
5 Hilliary Clinton, US Secretary of State
4 Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
3 Oprah Winfrey, Entertainer, Social Activist
2 Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft foods
1 Michelle Obama, First Lady, Lawyer

Okay, I have to admit when comparing the rest of the list, Degeneres, Beyonce, and Lady Gaga are circumspect in the terms of perception of traditional power. Yet, this is not our “Daddy’s Oldsmobile” either. The editor of Forbes makes her case of how power is perceived through the use of “sphere of influence” with the advent of the internet, with “tweets,” social networks, and cable. (Yes I roll my eyes too, with Twitter and Facebook, but yet most of us in the blogging sphere are using them just about everyday (I am not much a fan of Twitter). However, I was surprised to see how far down the list Sarah Palin #16 and Nancy Pelosi #11.

I may agree with him how one measures power has changed; however, unlike Edmund Burke he cannot bury his face in his hands in the fact that the world is changing much much faster than we both may like (I often step and want to say whoa doggie) with the perception of power and influence shifting along with it.

In many ways, the list is a celebration of diversity there are four women of color in the top 10 list: Michelle Obama, Indra Nooyi, Oprah Winfrey, and Beyonce—and that is powerful for any little girl no matter what their color. And yet, there are women out there that believe women roles should not have a say over their own bodies, see Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Laura Ingram. But, none of these women would not give back their opportunity for fame, fortune or stay home to be “with” their husbands.

So remember on November 2^nd – if you do not want to go in reverse vote NO on Colorado Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63, and Proposition 101. This is not the time reduce our ability to create jobs, and, certainly not the time to restrict the freedom of women and health care professionals. This is not the time to go backwards and to be small because of fear. It is a time for hope and to look forward. Remember, fear makes you small – hope expands one’s world and possibilities.

It’s Crunch Time, Your Vote Matters!

2010-10-06T12:09:00.002-06:00

From national perspective, the Midterm elections of 2010 are far more complex than the pundits may understand themselves. However, after looking at the polling numbers from the PEW Research Center for September 30^th to October 3^{rd (see link)}, victory may not be as easy as the Republicans think. For instance, in the category of less likely to vote for category, a survey of 1002 adults, 46 percent stated that they would not vote for a candidate that supported the bank bailouts.

What is even more fascinating in this category is the Palin and Obama’s effect on their respective parties and independents when campaigning for them. Overall 42 percent stated that they less likely to vote for a candidate that was campaigned for by Sarah Palin, while the overall number for Barack Obama 33 percent. As one might suspect, the partisan divide marginalizes the difference, but it is independent (unaffiliated) adults that makeup the margins 43 percent less likely for Palin, while 32 percent less likely for Obama. Even more interesting, inside the numbers reveal that Republicans do not see Palin’s support as significant, 45 percent stated that it made no difference.

Even more significant is how the Tea Party support plays a role among Republicans. Although overall 32 percent would less likely vote for a Tea Party supported candidate, 42 percent of Republicans would, while 54 percent of Democratic supporters would not. This is a twelve-point gap and should be used to inspire Democratic Party members to go out and vote. The support splits among independent voters 29 percent would not, while 22 percent were more likely to vote for, with an indifference factor of 43 percent. In other words, there is still time for Democratic canvassers to make a difference with independent voters.

In other polling by Pew, Latino voters do not seem as energized for the 2010 elections. 51 percent of registered Latino voters said that they were “absolutely certain to vote, while 70 percent of all registered voters “certain” they will. My response to this is shame on them, or, any traditionally marginalized or disenfranchised group that cannot get enthused about the 2010 Midterms. Remember it took eight years of screws up by President Bush and the Republicans to foul up the economy. It will take more than 18 months to fix our economy.

Admittedly, the behemoth that is the United States’ economy needs to be attended to—and according to the polling any candidate that supported “bringing home the bacon” was overwhelmingly supported. In the less likely to be supported category the highest number was among Republicans at 19 percent, 14 percent for independents, and 3 percent for Democratic supporters. Meanwhile 42 percent of Republicans, 68 percent Democratic supporters, and 51 independents stated that they would support a candidate that helps bring home government money. In essence, if they supported bringing home jobs they were in. This is where the Democratic Party has to frame the debate to demonstrate that Republican are not out for the best interests of the country with especially independent voters. In the Senate especially, the filibuster has been used to kill job creation over and over. A message needs to be sent to the blue dog democratic representatives as well.

On November 2^nd vote! Remember to vote no on Colorado Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63, and Proposition 101. These bills and measures will put our state in reverse with Republicans and continue to drive us forward with Democratic support!

Tea Parties Buyer’s Remorse – A Response

2010-10-05T18:58:00.000-06:00

In Tuesday’s October 5^th issue of the Denver Daily News, guest editorialist, Mark Hillman (see link here), argues that the key to this year’s victories, of the 2010 election cycle, will be the TEA parties. His recounting of “conservative history,” although partisan, is more or less accurate. The problem with his analysis is that it fails to confront the primary issue of governance and fiscal responsibility. He also fails to acknowledge that in political history that there is usually a bit of buyer’s remorse of after a primary election (see Reagan’s, George H. W. Bush’s, Clinton’s, as an examples). Hillman’s assertion that this is an opportunity for Republicans to push forward this new wave of conservatism has failed to take note that these were the same values, which created the economic crisis that we are in now.

To be sure, Americans are tired and angry, and are fearful of not knowing what to expect next. The feel that they are overburden with taxes and tired of dealing with the perception that the government has failed to help them “bail” them out—and are instead bailing out the big-wigs of Wall Street. Hillman states that, “the arrogance and relentless big-government crusades of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid were like a cold shower to Republicans and many Americans,” is a bit spun. The shock and awe for Americans was how fast the economy failed during the latter part of 2008 and early part of 2009—and that despite the public sentiments to one of the most historic electoral moments in the United States history—it was business as usual in Washington and the beltway. Politicians’ insufferable arrogance to the plight of the American people demonstrated to the public that the only “best interest” politicians were interested in was their own.

The vitriol that preceded and came after the election demonstrated to young and old voters alike that no matter what that politics is a zero sum game and politicians are only out for themselves and the disillusionment that followed has in part help create the TEA parties phenomena. Hillman’s perspective is part of that disillusionment. For Hillman to imply that the only way to govern is to oust the moderate elements of the Republican Party, such as Mike Castle of Delaware, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Charlie Crist in order to create a Republican return to power is to overlook the extremism of TEA party elements.

If the Tea parties were only concern were to return to fiscal responsibility, then ouster of Bob Bennett of Utah makes no sense. The “conservatism” that is suppose to bring victory to the Republican Party is a disguised social movement, which believes that their effort to take control is now, when Americans are distracted.

The Tea Parties, such as 912 Project and TEA (Tax Enough Already) are being manipulated by the conservative social wing of the Republican Party, playing on the concerns and fears of Americans. The social conservatives want to restrict the freedoms of Americans by taking away rights (see Colorado’s Amendment 62), punish the disenfranchised (illegal immigrants), and create a xenophobic nation state (see the possible election of Tom Tancredo for Governor in Colorado). To be afraid of those who are different and to be afraid of our president because his name is not “Joe Smith” sets the course history into the classic clash of doing what is right versus what is expedient.

Hillman’s history lesson of the conservative movement only sugarcoats the reality on the ground. Yes, many Americans are upset with present state of the economy and Hillman’s misdirection does not serve the public interest or inform the public. Yes, there has been an expansion of government but out of the necessity of an economic crisis. The expansion of government was due to many years of contraction in services such as regulations in industries of food, oil, and financial. Yes, government expanded during the Bush administration, but in the wrong direction. Government expanded in restricting rights (see USA PATRIOT Act) and expanded in the military industrial complex with the fighting of two wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, during the war crisis years, the government irresponsible expansion was due to inability to cover it bills and created the largest US deficit in its history. Cutting taxes may have been “good” for business and the economic elite, but it was certainly not beneficial for balancing the budget or for that matter not very responsible for taking care of its citizens (see New Orleans). Simply, it was fiscally irresponsible. Previously, Republican or Democratic, no president prior to President George W. Bush’s administration cut taxes during a “police action” or wartime.

Hillman’s rhetoric on the new wave of conservatism and its best chance, “If 2010 isn’t the year for conservative candidates to break new ground, then such a year will never come” state that the willingness of those to take advantage during the economic crisis is at the very least a misplacement of his civic duty and its worse manipulative. His first duty is and always should be the protection of his citizens. This supposed leader has perverted the peoples’ fear and uncertainty to regain his party’s power. A party, whose economic policies failed the American public miserably, and a party that sold out itself to economic royalist of the 21^st century.

A bit of buyer’s remorse is expected, but don’t buy into the latest model, because the model they are selling is a lemon.

So, the gauntlet has been laid down by the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and Hillman’s assertion, it is time to stand up and be counted, vote on November 2^nd like your life depends upon it. Vote No on Amendments 60, 61, 62, 63 and Proposition 101.

Apathy Redefined

2010-10-03T18:52:00.000-06:00

The other day I was talking with a friend who said that our peers on the Auraria Campus are too apathetic in showing care for the greater good of others. She felt that, and she made her case, that the college students are too inundated with people with their hands out, and this in turn, creates the laziness or the indifference for political action. She believed that this “laziness” is why those of us involved in social justice are frustrated, while another friend of mine stated similarly that the reason for student apathy was that were too many causes, too little time, or simply too many people asking for money as well, and that the students simply “tune out” because they are overwhelmed.

As a non-traditional working student, I had to agree with my friends’ assessment, but I felt and think that there is more. This is not the dictionary sense of apathy – it is an over saturation of the students’ consciousness. An over saturation of awareness, in that, the colleges on the Auraria Campus: Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and the University of Colorado Denver, are awakening critical thoughts in young and old minds alike. This awareness brings forth, in its initial forays, a fanaticism that is not sustainable but in a very special few.

In the young, a formation of their ideology and philosophy begins to take shape and a sense of whom and what they want to be is formed, with the opening of their minds. These young minds are bombarded with new information. Many of the students on the campus for the first time are seeing themselves through the eyes of marginalized and disenfranchised. They are “meeting them” instead of “viewing them” through the media and the “interwebs.”

And, although the “interwebs” has surpassed the expectations of providing access to information, and, has in a very real sense, created a hyper reality. A hyper reality layered in fact, fiction, fantasy, and outright lies. The interwebs cannot provide the experience of actually meeting the “person” in person or provide the actual experience of doing. Other than sight and sound, the entity, the idea, or the symbol that shapes ideas is filtered. Therefore, the information age and the interwebs have created a false sense of empathy and understanding, which cannot be fully realized. The intangibility of experience cannot be shared in the fullness of ones senses.

In the older students, the cynicism of experience taints political action and creates the apathy. Yet, as one of the older students on campus, I have felt compelled to pass along my life experience and share with others are how my own inaction has contributed in keeping in place the social injustices that surround me. Failing to speak the truth and speak out on the issues of the marginalized and disenfranchised contributed to my own apathy—and in spite of everything—I am still an optimist. I have a seen change and history in motion with the election of the first African-American president, the passage of healthcare, and the largest economic downturn in my lifetime. And despite human nature, humanity and evolving American attitudes (despite the recent noise of the political far right) is moving forward in its beliefs and philosophies. The Information Age has enabled people greater access to information and knowledge than ever before—and the speed in which this knowledge is obtained has benefited the average person.

Admittedly, the Information Age also, along with the media, has changed the dynamic in proffering how the individual receives their information. Taking action is now relative to the amount of noise one can generate on the web and able to sift through. However, some believe that there is still an information gap, and, how people access this information is relevant to their desire to seek it out. Leaving no excuses for the individual not to be informed. Nevertheless, there seems to be a relative relationship to access and apathy. The more an individual is engaged or disengaged the more or less the political awareness. With students, the amount of information absorbed beyond the book learning can generate much exhaustion.

The exhaustive amount of information that bombards students, while attending school, inherently places them in the state of paralysis. Students become seemingly unable to take action because they are overwhelmed with schoolwork, and, in much of the Auraria Campus schools cases, jobs and careers, and family duties. The students’ demographic on Auraria places them in a rare category of academic, urban and political activity. The bottom line is that student apathy is only part of the dynamic in which students fail to take action in the matter of social justice, again with the exception of a very special few, this apathy is more about feeling overwhelmed, over consumed, and over saturated in a hyper reality world than about laziness and cynicism.

The Exploitation of Fear

2010-08-12T15:14:00.002-06:00

Ever since September 11th, fear as a political motivator has been on steroids. The joint efforts in the early days of the war by the mainstream media and that of the conservative right led the general public into a state of paranoia and mistrust of the others. Citizens were convinced that there was a boogeyman around every shadowy corner. Everyday the alert state of the country was trumpeted and the war on terror televised. Beginning with Afghanistan and peaking with the invasion of Iraq. American patriotism was all or nothing subject. One was not to question the efforts of the United States and the way the war was prosecuted. Everyday, in some form of another, popular media found away to indoctrinate and endure the mistrust of the foreign other, such as television shows like 24, Alias, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Each of these shows represented a form of public mistrust in the alien other, especially 24.

Unfortunately, the American public became conditioned with the emotions of fear and mistrust. These emotions were later transferred to the internal domestic problems of the United States and have been fully realized in the turmoil in the latest rounds of the illegal immigration debate and that of economic turbulence. The Tea Party is a manifestation of these concerns and the 2010 midterm election cycle.

The far right wing of politics are preying on the publics’ concerns of the United States’ instability by demonization of President Obama, his policies, and that of illegal immigration. The month of August will bring the hyperbolic and vitriolic extremists in trying to persuade the public that the sky is falling—and the continuation of fearing the other is in our best interests. Don’t! Fear limits possibilities. Hope brings the expansion of possibility. The midterm elections will show if the United States citizenry willing to drive forward or place itself in reverse. Letting the extremist exploit the American public fears will set this country backwards—it is time to shine the light on the boogeyman and forever rid him into insignificance.

Race, FOXNEWS, the Administration, and the Media

2010-07-23T01:42:00.008-06:00

Race in America has flared up once again. It is unfortunate that the race issue has continued to be a factor. It has been nearly two years since the election of President Barack Obama. It was thought that America had finally grown up and was potentially transitioning into adulthood. The election was a signal that America was getting beyond its petulant teenage or twenty-something years and moving forward somewhat graciously into a pragmatic thoughtful entity. The honeymoon barely lasted a month, when the near collapse of the US economy curtailed the visions and hopes of the citizenry.

The opposition party, the Republicans, used the failing economy as an excuse to become the party of “no.” No help to the unemployed (see Cantor; Unemployed; Politics Daily; Angle). No help to creating jobs (See Jobs). No help to financial responsibility (Senate; Snow; Passage), and no to healthcare (Cantor; Obama On passage). Alas, if the Republicans were the President Obama’s only problem then he would be in pretty good shape domestically.

Fortunately, the collapse of the economy was thwarted by the swift action of the elected Democratic majority-led Senate, Congress, and the President with the Stimulus Recovery Package. But, the economic recovery and American optimism are disjointed. Million of Americans are still unemployed. Job creation remains stagnate, and the American public feels devoid of the promise they once felt, when President Barack Obama was elected.

Today, the country seems even more polarized than before the 2008 election. The political opposition and the conservative news outlets are in hysterics, emotionally and rhetorically. Since the election, the conservatives, and actually prior to, the extreme right wing wrought in conniption fits has been messaging the public sphere with conspiracy after conspiracy. Everything from President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, to him being a secret Manchurian candidate, to him being a communist, a socialist, or Hitler – and importantly a racist. The first African American president is a racist according the right-wing ideologues. Rush Limbaugh (on January 16, 2009) stated that he wants President Obama to fail. Glenn Beck (on July 28, 2009) declared that President Obama has a “hatred for white people.” Yet, the political atmosphere of angst, dissension, and a general sense of maladie du cœur et l’esprit (a sickness of the heart and mind) has the electorate more divided than ever.

The conservative media, such as Fox News, and the “main stream” media, and the political dirty tricks of web bloggers are driving the issue of race, from both sides of aisle. The American public bears the brunt of the media saturation. The latest round of race claim, initially from Andrew Breibart website BigGovernment.com set into motion a claim of racism by an USDA government official—Shirley Sharrod. The conservative media pick up the allegation, Fox News Channel (July 20, montage ) and called for her resignation. The following 48 hours was tumultuous, from indignation and outrage calling for Shirley Sherrod's head (from both sides) to indignation and outrage, calling out President Obama’s administration apparent lack of spine and its hypersensitivity and lack of judgment in “railroading” Shirley Sherrod to turn in her resignation.

The administration rushing to judgment of Shirley Sherrod, especially by her supervisors, agriculture chief Tom Vilsack (apology), let the conservative media set the framework and context of the story on race. The conservative media, from the Bill O’Reilly to the on hour breaking news by Fox Channel demonized Shirley Sherrod for racism, based on an edited video of her speech at a March meeting with NAACP. The Fox News Channel rushed to judgment based on the posted video by Andrew Breitbart’s website, but later castigated President Obama’s administration for doing the very same thing.

Did President Obama administration rush to judgment? You betcha! Did the conservative media rush their judgment? You bethca! Did the NAACP rush to judge? You betcha! Did Andrew Breitbart rush to judge? Nope. Why? Because he had the full context of the video and he deliberately went out of his way to defame Ms. Sherrod and the NAACP. He set the framework of the debate to discredit the NAACP; and he was using this as a “teaching” moment, so he says. In truth, Andrew Breibart’s actions were malicious and motivated. His actions were not accidental. Were the actions of Fox News malicious? No. But were they accidental and unmotivated? No. The Fox News Channel on a regular basis over sensationalizes elements of race. Fox News Channel goes out of its way to frame the debate in terms of race and uses the false argument of reverse racism to justify their indignation. Fox News Channel goes out of its way to be in opposition with policy matters that has to do with President Obama’s administration.

Admittedly, so does the main stream media stir the flames of racism. In part, whether conservative or liberal, the current atmosphere of report for better part of two decades has been driven by conflict. The media uses conflict; in the sense of violence, in the sense of terror, in the sense of emotion – fear, anger, and revenge. The media in it various concoctions, distorts, defames, and divides the citizenry based on their gender, their race, and their ethnicity. The media divides young and old and those that are outside the “mainstream.” Today political polarization is the norm. Instead of consensus and cooperation, the political construct now includes the fringe element of the extremes, in which divisiveness drives the debate. On the left, the nannyists, and on the right the moralists, but these are not the only extreme actors within political theatre. With the advent of the Internet, the anonymous can rage against the machine without the consequences of accountability, but it also allows for the unification of like minds. For instance, the rise of the Tea Party is a mixture of independents, Democratic and Republican party members—that feel disenfranchised and marginalized from the political system, and as within any new movement the extremes are shape the messaging.

In the case of the Tea Party, their primary message has been purportedly about the expansion of government and taxes. Yet, the underlying message that has coincided with the Tea Party messaging is its xenophobic fear of others, both foreign and domestic, and its unrelenting fixation on race and the race of the President. With the denouncing of Hispanics and Blacks as communists and socialists, and illegal aliens as inhuman villains, the strain on race relations has deteriorated. The Tea Party the selfishness quotient to new levels and. It part, the Tea Party (and some mainstream Republicans see Michelle Bachman) demonizing of the races as supplicants, weak-kneed purveyors looking for handouts, articulating that black Americans are out to get white Americans (see the Black Panther controversy, Hannity).

All in all, the Shirley Sharrod controversy teaches us that depending on the “objectivity” of the mass media for our information can be filtered with skewed political leanings and must be judged with a critical eye. Furthermore, the political antipathy that is generated by the sluggish economy and the xenophobic extremists is ripping the scar off of race-relations and creating unnecessary divisions among American. Instead of working together and creating unity, the political opposition is willing to subvert the future of the United States with fervor and vitriol to regain the power they lost due to their greed, incompetence, and their lust for power.

Return from the Abyss Part 2-- The Sequel

2010-07-21T23:10:00.004-06:00

Well, my new-old site crashed and is finally out of commission. And it has been quite awhile since I have written anything. Mostly because of time, work, and school.

The last bit will change in one week...

So I had to go my old school blog. I came back to blogspot to reclaim my voice, if only temporarily. I graduated last year and decided to return to school to a degree in film studies to make documentaries.

Its time to get my mojo back working. The voice returns from the dark abyss. And, the light shines brightly from within. Tomorrow brings hope. Hope brings eternal love, humanity, and spirituality. Knowing this, I see the brightness of opportunity to come, in combining my anthropology and videographic skills together, in order to make compelling narratives for public consumption.

Returned from the Abyss

2009-05-07T08:03:00.005-06:00

Well, my new-old site crashed... Not that I have written anything in quite awhile... Mostly because of time, work, and school.

The last bit will change in one week...

So I had to go my old school blog. I came back to blogspot to reclaim my voice, if only temporary. Anyway, I will be graduating in one week as long as I don't bomb my finals. And, I will be returning to the world of blogging on a regular basis....

Its time to get the mojo back working.... The voice returns from the dark abyss. And, the light shines brightly from within. Tomorrow brings hope. Hope brings eternal love, humanity, and spirituality. Knowing this, I see the brightness of opportunity to come....

A Confession of a Journalist --- In Film and Politics

2008-10-10T04:00:00.003-06:00

This journal shall contain my random thoughts of the movies we see in class. They will be often disjointed and out of context. However, in the summation of journaling I shall try to adjoin these thoughts in to some form of coherency. This may not always work, but an attempt shall be made nonetheless. In these epiphanies of thoughts, I shall endeavor to glean some significance or cogent primacy of how movies reflect the public policy in regards to politics, or should say how the public mirrors the prescription of its identity in its display of their movies. Filmmakers despite their some demonization are part of the public, and as such, represent, in some cases, the public pulse to high hyperbole.

Nevertheless, the institution of Hollywood has been used as a propaganda tool to further the causes of those who wish to persuade the public sphere. In so doing, Hollywood has been used as a tool to some degree to instill a moral attitudes and ideals. In addition, Hollywood has been used to reflect what cultural mores that are outmoded and outdated, in the sense that, the injustices, or simply the uncivil intrusions of human rights has been put on display for consideration…..

Dateline August 15, 2008:

I just finished watching Wag the Dog, directed by Barry Levinson, in class today. In the story, we have a president involved in a sex scandal days before the election. If this sounds familiar, it should, it is the President Clinton Monica Lewinski Sex Scandal (not mentioned by name, because the movie was released at the same time the controversy took hold in the media) exaggerated. It is the Grenada action repackaged, it is the Persian Gulf War marketed. The film Wag the Dog uses these references in order to make a point how the influence of government and television can be perverted to massage the ego of the public masses to create fear and pride….

The movie extends one of Karl Marx’s oft quoted references, and I paraphrase, that “Religion is the opiate for the masses.” In other words, the application of power and policy are often the acts of persuasion, trying to convince a people to believe or to do something that may be contrary to what “actors” or “portrayers” actually think, so they can control or keep control of the discussion…..

In the case of an election, the discussion for the actors or participants is to convince the “public” or enough of the “masses” to elect the candidate of their “perceived” choice. I say perceived, because as Wag the Dog illustrated, the medium in which receives cultural attitudes, mores, and ideals are inputted through what they, the public, see on television.

For instance, throughout the movie there is a television commercial, which tells the public, “Not to switch horses in midstream,” in part this is a satire on the communication of campaigning. How the communication experts perceive the public views by stroking the ego by appealing to their sense of traditions and conservatism. Nowhere, in the movie, do we get a sense of what political party is being put on display. Moreover, the face of the president is never revealed, within the movie itself, the characters at the end explain that the president is a marketable commodity. In which, the presidency itself is part of the institution, mythos, and ethos that is America.

America’s name itself is a marketing tool, a product, in which certain depiction of mythos and ethos are products and images that can be parlayed into profit from merchandising. The Denis Leary character proves this out. His character, the “Fad King”, tries to figure out how market the images of America, from the standpoint of merchandise and “backend deals.”

Wag the Dog is a movie that is wrapped in hyperbole, metaphor, and mischief. In so being that, the manipulation, coercion, and the political spinning—lying—that shaped the public perception of the politics of the moment. In the shaping of the election, the scandal of the presidency has to be diverted and distracted from the public view. It is a lesson in illusion and deception. The characters throughout the movie practice a level of perverted deception with not only the public masses, but also with each other. Some of them even practice the art of self-deception, in order to realize the goal so that they create their own world of self-importance—see Dustin Hoffman’s character.

Dustin Hoffman’s character is the “producer” of the war, the “pageant” director of the farce of the war that wasn’t. He aides and abets the political players in fooling the public at large, but he has convinced himself that someday he will be able to tell someone what he did. This is his self-deception. He is told from the beginning that he won’t be able to tell anyone—ever. However, Hoffman’s character, does a “yeah – yeah” with the players because his ego cannot believe that the government would actually kill him or “silence him.” He miscalculates.

This miscalculation by Hoffman’s character is another element for the movie to provide an ominous satirical moment, layered in cliché and perspective, which allows for critical analysis of the American political system; although it is wrapped in political circumspection. This brings me to a point of analysis, in that, this movie’s satirical moments are most critical of the process of not only those who wish to keep power, but those who wish to obtain it; in addition, to those who want to maintain their power. The difference between “keep” and “maintain” is that those who wish to “keep” are elected, and those who maintain are “bureaucratic,” such as the CIA….

There is a moment when the CIA confronts the principal actors of the deception with Al Pacino and Anne Heche; in that moment, we see two primary aspects of communications put on display: the coolness of Pacino’s passionate discourse in response Macy’s CIA intimidation act, and Heche’s second banana role was stereotypical for not only the gender identification purposes, which dictates that women are emotional beings not be trusted, but also as the comic relief in the scene. This scene enactment reinforces a cultural mores, in how to perceive the role of women and men, in the political spheres of power. From the sex scandal to the allocation of implicit sexuality of a White House aide in planting deceptive information to be spun in the press, women roles are deemed as secondary as well as a tool for the creation of illusion.

Ultimately, the illusory powers of spin and deception that are deployed and displayed within the film, leaves the viewer with a cynical outlook of Washington politics and the institutions of powers, and the power brokers.

Dateline August 22, 2008

In the movie, Medium Cool, if one can all it that, there several transitory elements. First of these, is the style in which it is filmed: a documentary, within a narrative fictional story. The second element of this film is the documentation of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. However, this is secondary to the overarching story narrative that is not only convoluted, but also disengaged from the non-fictive elements of documenting the convention.

The third element of the film is how gender is portrayed, of course, remembering the era, in which it was filmed. This is late the 1960s men and women roles were, for the most part, clearly defined. Strong elements of sexism reverberate through this picture, in the instance, in how women are cast as well as underutilized. For instance, women are seen as objects, secondary in nature, and considered subservient to the role of men. The machismo nature of men reigns in the display in not only sexual display of play, but also in the role of occupations. Men in this film are the dominate patriarch: rough, brutish, and clearly dominate. Defining women place as a form of property, and, secondary to that of men in their display of power. Although, there seems to be an element of expressed feminism, it gets lost the convolution of the story and eventually relegated to the status of “fad.”

The fourth element of the story is how the director-cinematographer uses the camera from his wide shots to his narrow shots the audience sees the movie from the camera lens out. There is an aspect of the film, which seems to be voyeuristic, as if one is watching something unfiltered, uncensored, and untoward. It is this aspect of the movie, which draws the viewer; it is the watching of the car accident aftermath, and he actually uses this metaphor to begin and end his movie.

Playing on the viewers visceral need for gratification and curiosity, the director-cinematographer, uses colors to oscillate the senses. The sound, however, is imbalanced, sometimes deafening, sometimes, too quiet to be heard. I think his intentions are to drive the emotionality of his work in a certain direction of an illusionary pathway. In which the voyeur has to be engaged in, straining to understand, searching for meaning in the non-relevant nonsense that was imparted in the narrative of the movie. For instance, the primary character that happens to be a photo-journalist gets involved with a single mother, who is from West Virginia, the principle male character becomes the hero for her and her child by male authority and father figure.

It is this display that lends some coherency to the film, the cinema veritae, which is “tell it like is”, in many fails to convey its main representative point until the very end. For this element, at the very least, should have been better threaded, the movie various tangents, and misrepresentations drives the viewer’s attention span away from its main point: in that, the American culture had become voyeuristic and consumed by its platitudes of democratic ethos.

In a scene with black militants, the photo-journalist is confronted. He is confronted with their angst, anger, and bitterness, in which a system of disproportion has affected the minorities’ access to power and their access to have a voice, a choice in which they perceive that they have none. They ridicule and also look at the photojournalist as way to obtain: both their power and voice. On the one hand, they despise what he represents—the hegemony—the man—but on the other, they realize that his power to tell their story is their only way to gain it.

This gain feeds into the stereotypes of women, of minorities, and also of the press. How the press sensationalizes events, and fails to report those events, and hollows the human narrative to mere surface chatter; and, induces the voyeur to become passive participants. But in Medium Cool, Hesko Wexler, the director-cinematographer, compels (or, at the least, tries to) the viewer to be watchful, and vigilant to the powers that make up the hegemony.

It is therefore compelling to see the filming of demonstrations and police reaction of the Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention. This is the backdrop of the movie, and, is only relevant to the story in that the filming coincided with the political events of the day. American polity was in crisis, and, the citizenry was amidst turmoil. The 1960s assassinations and the Vietnam War along with Civil Rights Movements gave the film a dynamic cannot be duplicated in 2008. In other words, the emotions, which were a product of the 1960s, and the historical of cultural transformation context is quite different from the dynamic of 2008. Cultural views of the 1960s set a different perspective of how persons and people were and are treated.

Dateline September 5, 2008

In Frank Capra’s, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there is nostalgic feel that may have been present even during its presentation in 1939. There is a romanticism that Jimmy Stewart’s character of Smith is engaging, his ability to convey the new senator’s naivety is memorable, because we see the freshness of America ideals through his eyes. The opening scenes of seeing Washington D C brings a matter of pride and raw patriotism.

The flag waving through the displays of various memorials from Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial sets the premise of the story premise of what it means to be citizen in America. His guffawing to the residence from his receptionist/love interest to his fellow Senators perplexes them, as if this dope had no clue what the “real world” wrought.

We see from the beginning that the city slickers, the newspaper reporters, secretaries, ushers, and page boys are “clued in” to the workings of Washington. They admire him for feelings for the institutions of government, his idealistic views of what government should be, and how he believes that he will make a difference in the programs. Jimmy Stewart’s portrayal of the young junior senator’s appreciation of the American promise gave gravitas to the film, in that, despite the fact the political was portrayed as fixed and corrupt, his optimism left the viewer wanting.
However, Frank Capra also deployed the political cynicism with the Washington beat reporters; demonstrating their eagerness to make Jimmy Stewart’s character as a buffoon. He also illustrated this cynicism with Jimmy Stewart’s eventual love interest, on the one hand she is a dynamo that has an understanding of the workings of inside baseball Washington politics, but on the other, Capra is willing to deploy her in a secondary role as a female, allowing for the deployment sexism to be portrayed.

For instance, there is a running gag throughout the movie to show her as “an emotional female,” where she proclaims she going to quit and marry the beat Washington reporter that covers the junior senator’s office every time she faces a crisis of conscious. In another instance however, she is a competent player, but she gets lost in the young senator’s charisma, when they decide to create a bill for the kids of his community similar to a boys club.

This is the moment within the movie that every movie has—the crisis. This sets up the main antagonist. Jimmy Stewart’s main mentor, a person he really respects and thought as a hero, is actually a “made man” in the sense that he has been bought off by a business entrepreneur (or in a today’s world a lobbyist). This “lobbyist” wants to be a build a damn, and, he also has the ability to “clog up” the system by controlling media outlets.

This representation of how powerful individuals or individual is another aspect of the film political perspective; although, democracy, and especially the America democracy is a wonderful thing it is easily influenced by the few, and, can be manipulated by these few—and thereby taking away the representation of the many. Democracy in America is supposed to be representative of the people, not an oligarchy. This is the subtle message of the film. The government’s place is for the people, not the privileged few, which is the driving message of the film.

The people are the source of power for the government and its representatives. This is where Frank Capra direction leads the audience to see how the duality of the power relationship can be corruptive and abusive, but it can also be empowering and tempering. The power of film as used by Frank Capra communicates to the audience, how America is to be seen. For instance, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, he not only shows the typical average American with his son, but he also shows the under represented American, a minority, who understands the power of President Lincoln leadership during America’s great crisis. This is to adjoin the mythos of America, and, the belief that America is truly the beacon for freedom.

And, when Jimmy Stewart’s character is in crisis and is standing in front of Lincoln statue again—feeling disillusioned—Capra provides the metaphor for salvation: out of darkness comes the light with the love of a good woman.

The many political aspects of Frank Capra’s movie and the movies to follow it, showed filmmakers to follow how to put on display the values and criticism of America, and to demonstrate how the little the guy was to be represented from that of the oppressed and to that of the hero.

Dateline September 12, 2008,

In the viewing of the movie, In the Heat of the Night, by Norman Jewison, it occurred to me what an impact film, for the time it was. This picture stands today as referendum on race relations. The assumptions and stereotypes that seem to be significant in 1967 are still prevalent today.

For instance, when the murder victim is found with his head bashed in, it is assumed that a stranger had committed the act. So, when the deputy comes across an unfamiliar person, who is a stranger waiting at the train station, and is also black (and is played by a black actor Sidney Poitier), it assumed that he is the person who committed the crime. This single event leads to unfounded assumptions and conclusion, which only do not prove out, but leads the audience to reexamine their beliefs; in 1967, the reexamination would have been profound.

In addition, in the aspect of the use of color for a dramatic picture of this type, as pointed by Mark Harris, in his book, Pictures at a Revolution was uncommon. Normally, the use of color, lack thereof it, told the audience that the picture was to be consider an alternate perspective of reality. But, Heskell Wexler, the cinematographer, felt that shrouded the subject unnecessarily. In essence, the lack of color misleads the audience in consideration of the subject.

Moreover, the film took examination of taboo subjects, such as: how “blacks” were to behave, what jobs are blacks to have, how much is a person worth, and how people interact with another, when given an opportunity to observe a person’s character. One of the most powerful moments within the film is when Sidney Poitier’s character is slapped by the richest white man in the county, who also owns a cotton plantation, and still has an “in-house nigger”/butler, and Sidney’s character slaps him back (the white plantation owner that is). There is a moment of doubt of whether Rod Stieger’s character, who is the sheriff, will do something. The white plantation owner expects the Stieger’s character to shoot him, or, at the very least, beat Poitier’s character down. He does nothing.

This moment of the truth within the film communicates to the audience that things have changed; the position of the hegemony, of dominance is no longer valid; in that, the respect of an individual is not contingent on their status or power, but on their character. Admittedly, power and status are still relevant in America structure of stratification, but it is no longer a get out of free jail card, and it is no longer allows for the abuse of authority. As the white plantation owner says, “There was a time ….” He could have Sidney Poitier’s character killed on the spot and no one would question it. The character sense of powerlessness is felt, and, the power of authority and respect is transferred to Poitier’s character. It is also transferred to the sheriff and interestingly enough to the butler who has witnessed the interaction between the characters. His character understands that America is in a transitional moment, where abuse of power is not a given anymore, and he smiles knowingly that the authority of power has now been cuckold.

In addition, when the white plantation owner sends some of the town folk to “teach” Poitier’s character a lesson, Stieger’s character finally has to choose a side, that of justice and righteousness or to simply look away, and, give into the abuse of power, racism, and prejudice. He chooses the former. Again, this signals to the audience that character matters and one’s consciousness is part of one’s character. The importance of this revelation of Stieger’s, Poitier’s portrayals and this film is the placement of it, within the context of history.

The 1960s was in major turmoil in terms of civil strife and cultural transition for the United States. The values, ideals, and beliefs were being reexamined some of it film, some of it within government, some of it within the public sphere. The questioning of the hegemonic culture at large, and place for minorities within that structure had been to some degree questioned implicitly, but now, after fighting a world war, and now fighting another war, it was being question explicitly.

In Hollywood, however, minorities were being seen as another economic vehicle and not necessarily as an equal opportunity. Sidney Poitier was a trailblazer, the Jackie Robinson, for black male actors, but roles afterwards where still shrouded in stereotypes, or certain personality types. Although, Frank Capra tried to reflect minorities in a positive light in his 1939 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, they are still seen as secondary citizen. And, even though Norman Jewison gives Poitier the lead role, and his name appears first in the credits, his representation of powerlessness is that of black plantation worker as the faces of oppression.

Admittedly, Jewison tries to show that poverty is equated to both sides of the races, but it is not given the same weight, because he understands that the color of one’s skin gave a person to some degree a benefit of the doubt—and usurps that equation of equality.

Roles for minorities, blacks especially, in the decades to follow do shift in representation, they become more urbanize and less rural. However, within this new representation comes a new set of stereotypes, after the blaxploitation films, blacks roles for the 1970s and good portion of the 1980s, are represented as: athletes, pimps, hookers, or as comic relief, or tied to another character as a buddy. Stand alone roles would not be considered even on a regular bases until after the 1980s. Positive and character role models for minorities have to be situated. It is not until, a second generation of minority actors does the lead roles start freeing up, and, this is primarily due to the fact that Hollywood has realized the full economic opportunity within their equation. Furthermore, it is not just minorities seeing other minorities, but the general public, white America, is seeing these minority actors in their films.

Another aspect of the film is the role that secondary characters play. For instance, the role of the sheriff’s deputies, as the grudging come to realize that their perspective of Sidney Poitier’s character. Interestingly, as Mark Harris tells in his book, how the movie seem to reflect reality to some extent of where they filmed, and how the politics of the day reflected the turmoil of the 1960s. Moreover, there was a foreshadowing of issue that would be revealed by a 1973 court decision—abortion. In the film, it is used as a plot device to wrap up the conclusion of the movie, but it is also significant that the issue is being used. Again, Jewison uses this device to show the inequity of the have’s and have not’s, in that those with power and status can go to have certain medical procedures done safely, while those without have to use backrooms and unsafe conditions to get access.Jewison is trying to show the inequality of how poverty is the true oppressing force, and not necessarily of race.

This brings me to another point, the sexism, overt and covert used within the movie; first, there is the murder victim’s wife, who happens to be from an urban center, like the Sidney Poitier’s character. There is an element of emotionality that seems to be over the top, but there is another layer as well, the interchange between the wife and Poitier’s character. There is unease, which is left unspoken, but is felt on the screen. It is the matter of an interracial man and woman left together in an emotional moment of loss. His moment of compassion in the telling that her husband is dead leaves the audience raw, when she reacts to his concern. It is to tell the audience that he has to be put in his place, despite the human need for compassion and comfort.

In other words, men and women of different races are not to be seen in emotionality. This is spoken more broadly, when one of the sheriff’s deputies tries to hide the fact, the paramour he believes that is his, will be seen nude by a black man, since she is exhibitionist. The deputy’s paramour is later used as a plot device in resolving the murder, and she used as a “sex kitten” to entice the men of the town. On the other end of scale, though the wife of the murder victim is shown in a typical emotion, she was later seen as a strong, intelligent, independent woman, with her own onus of sexuality as alluded to earlier, but this revelation set up another juxtaposition of stereotypes.

The stereotypes of rural versus urban, which was established early within the film, sets a level of demarcation: small town prejudices versus urban cosmopolitanism, uneducated small town girl versus urban educated woman. These oppositions set principals within the movie as a lens to focused, along with the stereotypes of North versus South……

The Venus Figurines

2008-07-13T00:37:00.000-06:00

by Gregory Stewart

Introduction

What does it all mean? Looking at the Venus figurines of the Paleolithic period leaves one pondering, what were they there for? Is it as simple as pornography for Upper Paleolithic man? Or, are they ritual, magical, mystical goddess symbols? Or, are they simply the representational symbol for motherhood? Whatever the answer, these highly debated representative symbols, the Venus figurines, are one of the first indicators of ancient peoples lifeways and thought.

This paper shall look at peered reviewed articles of Upper Paleolithic Venus figurines. I will attempt to sort through the debate of their representation and possible meanings. In addition, this paper shall discuss these interpretations and how they effected the perception both from an academe and public perceptions. And, finally this author will attempt to reconcile the debate.

The Debate

The debate of the Venus figurines has gone for more than 82 years, but that is where I begin the review. George Grant MacCurdy, in an article in theAmerican Anthropologist, in 1924, says that the Venus figurines are a representation of fecundity. He says that the anthropomorphic symboling falls in line to the Upper Paleolithic peoples obsession with fertility that, this is represented in the various cave art forms to the Venus figurines statuettes. This paper is beginning of a trend to refer to the characteristics of the statues as “steatopygic” and although his paper is more of a review of the varying examples of types of art in regards to animal fauna for Upper Paleolithic peoples (p 29), he also discourses how these relationships are entwined with human imagery and the figurines.

In a 1976 article by Robert J. Trotter, how the Venus figurines are emblematic of motherhood, and that they, Upper Paleolithic peoples, may have been “mother worshipers” (p 106). His article traces back mother worshiping from various ethnohistories and contemporary ethnographies from around the world. From India to Africa, mother worshipping are a component of a cultural artifacts. She is seen within these cultures as a “nurturing” and as a “life giver.” He gives the example of India as being tied to mother worshiping as dating back as far as 5,000 years ago. Others have speculated that Venus figurines were symboling as a reproductive metaphor for Upper Paleolithic women, or charms to insure that their pregnancy carried to term. However, Sarah M Nelson points out that the Venus figurines may have been enculturally biased via school textbooks. Sharing the same titillating characteristics, the Venus figurines, the buttocks, breasts, and belly, are typically illustrated, or pictured (within these textbooks) as “modal” and as primary features for Upper Paleolithic peoples’ self-representations of their sexuality. These biases, she indicates, are presupposing a false premise that the Venus statuettes are all the same and share the same function. LeRoy Dermott, alternatively, sees the Venus figurines as “ordinary women” views of their own body; therefore representational of the self (p 227). These multiple interpretations have given the Venus figurines a long storied history in how archaeology and social context matters in the discovery of the past.

Discussion

The past we seek to reconcile; to bring order to; to understand in the machinations of our ancestors, and to apply traditons that matters to us today. In archaeology, we can the find these truths, or at least perceived truths through the shapes and symbols of our present and of our past. In our symbolizing, we interpret, we convey, we construct our knowledge to be meaningful that is understood not only to ourselves, but to others as well. In archaeology, however, trying to interpret ancient peoples’ symbols is tenuous at best and impossible at the least. Nevertheless, interpretation of symbols is what we humans do, what we archaeologists do, and what is needed to be done in order to determine what the ancestors may have meant by the symbols they left behind.

Symbols that are left behind in material culture, in the context of archaeology, are often perceived as, according to John E. Robb (1998), “wasting our time trying to recover mental phenomena archaeologically” (p 329). He further asserts that symbols are “irrelevant,” and are“structured [to] human lives,” and has broken down into two “traditional viewpoints” (ibid): gender archaeology, and agency interpretations. He says the following,

Both gender archaeology and agency-centered interpretations have us to confront ancient identities and motivations. Even under the agency theory umbrella, however, there is diversity. Some theorist with ‘Symbols with a Capital S’—pyramids, chiefly insignia, and the obtrusive icons of rank and rituals. Others see every human intervention in material things as a symbolically constructive act (p 330).

In other words, just being human is a symbolic in and of itself. Humans cannot help but be symbolic. And, this leads me to point made by Joan Gero and Jim Mazzullo (1984) about artifacts, when being interpreted and sorted by humans, that they are “intuitively sorted” and are typological, spatially, and temporally “derived distributions of cultural manifestations”; in essence, artifacts (a left behind symbol) are sorted subjectively by the human agent (p 316).

One of example of subjectivity, a comment to LeRoy Dermott 1996 paper, “Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines,” by Alice B Kehoe, takes umbrage to the fact he and his commenter’s had failed to notice to the possible male figurine pendent from Dolni Vestonice. She chastises,

Why can male archaeologists not recognize a straightforward representation of their own genitalia? For that matter, why has a note in the principle international journal for prehistoric archaeology been overlooked? Will this comment register, or are the gentlemen so fixated on female sex objects that their memories blank out any challenge to their objects of desire? (p 665).

Dermott replies to this challenge, by acknowledging her perspective, and then gently slams her interpretations of how the pendent was worn and why the male figurine may have not been male. He explains, “Furthermore, suspension on a string is not the only “sensible” or “parsimonious” use for their perforations … I saw no sign of polish in the perforations of the originals to indicate how they were actually worn (ibid)…” He later indicates that they could have been sewn on since the technology was available to the Upper Paleolithic peoples at that time. Dermott lets the science indicate the possible interpretation, instead of imparting a subjective motive of his own. His 1996 paper, does however, impart some interpretation, but the logistics of viewing the female figurines as self expression is a lot more prudent.

In another 1996 paper by McDermott along with fellow author Catherine Hodge McCoid, explain how the “female vision” of the self, explains the out of proportion anatomy of the Venus figurines by detailing through illustrations and of pictures of modern women viewing their bodies from over the shoulder, under their arm, or looking down their torso. They also speculate that is possible that the Venus figurines were functional, they say “Perhaps the figurines served as obstetrical aids, the relatives sizes of the abdomens helping women to calculate the pregnancies” (p 323).

However, there is the perspective of Robert J Trotter (1976), that the Venus figurines were possible mother goddess symbols. He alludes to this through the use of an ethnohistory and ethnography of the Indians, for instance, how their belief in Chandi goddess in Orissa in eastern India helped adapt to the transform of their culture into modernity and adjust social change that went along with it (p 106). By using the modern examples of the mother goddess symbols, Trotter tries to correlate how the Venus figurines may have been used by ancient peoples.

Diane Bolger conveys the stories of the Venus figurines as the erotica or fertility symbols for the Upper Paleolithic man. These interpretations have lasted since their discovery, often based on out of context, both spatially and temporally, “fragmentary” evidence. This fragmentation, however, has been parlayed into college textbooks and popular media; frequently providing with imagery of exaggerated sexuality (p 366). This has also been true for later period figurine pieces, in that, they have been explicated as the symboling for pregnancy.

In Bolger’s discourse of the Venus figurines, she explains the difficulty of finding a proper contextual and critical theory. She says that this has prevented the Venus figurines and later figurines discoveries “from developing socially based interpretative models” (ibid). A recent discovery of a figurine in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Cyprus has reset the talk of what their purpose were; at least for the Cyprus site. She connects the figurine with marked changes of the period, socio-economically and materially. She says of the Chalcolithic figurines,

The vague, generic image of a ‘mother goddess’ embodying all aspects of ‘fertility’ from sexuality and fecundity to procreation, motherhood, and life in general may be contested on theoretical grounds as subjective, undifferentiated, ahistorical, and gender-biased, much in the same way as have the Upper Paleolithic ‘Venuses’ (Conkey 1991, Nelson 1993) (p 366)…

In other words, there seems to be a broad theme within archaeological circles, that figurines are stuck in their stereotypes initially assigned to them. Diane Bolger’s work, in spite of this, focuses on the figurines contextual and spatio-temporal finds at the Chalcolithic site.

The Chalcolithic figurines are described by Bolger as being parturient females, one is sitting on a stool giving birth, she says of the evidence,

In summing up all of the above evidence, attention must be paid to the wide range of symbolic images represented in Chalcolithic assemblages of figurines and cruciform pendants. They are manufactured in a variety of media, and although figurines made of stone are more schematic than those of clay, virtually no two are identical. The self-supporting types demonstrate a variety of postures from standing cruciforms to squatting or seated examples (p 368)…

This summation above is provided as a way to foster the examples of figurines variety.

The assumption of the lifeways of the Upper Paleolithic people had been, for the most part, the imagery of “mighty hunter” while the women foraged (p 1203). In a Science, an article by Heather Pringle, challenges that image. In comparing two sites from Gravettian: Pavlov and Dolni Vestinoce, Olga Soffer, and James Adovasio proffer that these ancient peoples may have been “expert net weavers” for hunting, they said “This is not the image we’ve had of Upper Paleolithic macho guys out killing animals up close and personal with spears and stone points’ (p 1203). The article continues that they believe that these sites were “highly occupied” during winter and revealed, according to the article author, “many traces of Paleolithic ceremony, including clay Venus and animal figurines that appeared to have been ritually destroyed” (ibid). Implied also within the article are two interesting factors: the implicit lifeways of women in Upper Paleolithic may have been weavers and contributors to the hunt, and the other factor that the Venus and animal figurines may have been used for “hunting magic.”

But not all scholars believe in hunting magic, Patricia C. Rice thinks that the Venus figurines allocation to the “glorification” as female fertility symbols is misplaced. In her 1981 article, “Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood Womanhood” she explicates that the a priori presumptions of the Venus figurines, but also recounts the exception to the rules. Students of archaeology who did not accept the a priori explanations of the Venuses fertility positioning, say they could have been “art for art sake,” or that they may have been “magic guardians” (p 402). However, Rice does give three possible explanation of why the public images of the Venus figurines have been serialized, stereotyped, and linked to fertility, she says,

First, most analyses have used only a small sample of the extant figurines, specifically the Venuses shown in prehistoric art books, which more often than not appear to be pregnant. A cursory look at the entire collection of 188 Venuses call into question the dominant focus on fertility; most figurines simply do not appear to be pregnant. . Second, the use of the name “Venus” to refer to prehistoric female statuettes may have conditioned the perceptions of prehistorians in the direction of an exclusive fertility function. Third, modern humans may be blinded by an assumption that the ability to give life must have been regarded as sacred, and that the Venuses were therefore sculpted to honor that sacredness (p 402-3)….

Thus, this treatise of characteristics, of the Venuses, indoctrinated not only the public viewing but the academe perspective as well. Rice surveys the extant figurines and does a comparative analysis on them. Trying to determine whether the existing paradigms of the Venuses are valid or not. She does a body comparison on their attributes to determine whether these symbolic of fertility or representational of womanhood. Her analysis concludes the latter.

Wrapping Thoughts Up

The debate of the Venus figurines has primarily surrounded around fertility, whether it was from the perspective of pregnancy, mother goddess cults, or that of womanhood. These ideas are related to status, power, and gender, in which, these social constructs are inherently transmitted from a cultural bias point of view. In another paper, Power and Inequality: A Gender Perspective, I discuss the relationship of gender objectivity versus the empiricism of science. This relationship in terms of the Western construct breaks down into the interpretation of the data. In so being that ancient peoples lifeways, in proportion to their daily lives are examined in terms of the symbols and representations.

In the perspective of the Venus figurines this symboling has been interred into folklore, popular culture, and academic dogma. In essence, the Venus figurines have been objectified, even reified to a point of certainty, in which cultural bias of gender has obscured any empiric data. In looking at the Venuses within their context, and out of context, their representation has been limited to the cultural roles of gender. Even with feminization of archaeology the Venuses have been strapped into the role of femininity in regards to their sex and sexuality.

Moreover, the academic certitude that the Venuses are related to fertility has decompressed the other possible representations. Furthermore, the Venuses stigma of fertility was set upon by the misguided perception that primitive peoples thought was restrictive, uncomplicated, and simple. In essence, any thought of complex cognitive thought would be beyond that of the Upper Paleolithic peoples.

In the view of Sarah M Nelson, the textualization of the Venus figurines, in the terms of their gender, and the deconstruction of introduction to archaeological knowledge, has comported it to fertility. She proffers that the variability of the Venuses “provides diversity and possible interpretations” (p 11). In this, she says that “failure to acknowledge the variability makes it easier to produce sweeping generalizations about their probable meaning and function” (p 14). These functions and interpretations of the Venus figurines have proffered a mythological ontology. In terms of conflicting viewpoints, and conflating narratives the Venus figurines have become textualized in the context that has been limited by hegemonic biases and beliefs. These beliefs have subverted the knowledge of variability in terms of ancient peoples’ pathways and lifeways, the Venuses are the symbols, in which, the culture they left behind are tenuously interpreted.

Bibliography

Bolger, Diane

1996 Figurines, Fertility, and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus, Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 2, (Apr., 1996), pp. 365-373.

Gero, Joan & Mazzullo, Jim

1984 Analysis of Artifact Shape Using Fourier Series in Closed Form, Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 11, No. 3. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 315-322.

MacCurdy, George Grant

1924 The Field of Paleolithic Art, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 26. No. 1 (Jan. –Mar., 1924), pp. 27-49.

McCoid Catherine Hodge, & McDermott, LeRoy

1996 Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic, American Anthropology, Vol. 98, No. 2, (1996), pp. 319-326.

McDermott, LeRoy

1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurine, Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 2, (Apr., 1996), pp. 227-275.

Nelson, Sarah M.

n. d. Diversity of the Upper Paleolithic “Venus” Figurines and Archaeological Mythology, (on file, University of Denver)

Pringle, Heather

1997 Ice Age Communities May Be Earliest Known Net Hunters, Science, New Series, Vol. 277, No. 5333, (Aug. 29, 1997), pp. 1203-1204.

Robb, John E.

1998 The Archaeology of Symbols, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 27. (1998), pp. 329-346.

Trotter, Robert J.

1976 God: She’s Alive and Well, Science News, Vol. 109, No. 7, (Feb. 14, 1976), pp. 106-107+110.

Bicentennial Man—A Soul to Remember: A Study in Accommodation

2008-07-11T23:58:00.003-06:00

Editor's note -- This paper was originally for a Cross-Cultural Study in Psychology class....

Definition of Terms

Accommodation – is to change one’s mental schemas (programs) in order to fit one’s personal experiences.

Acculturation – a process of “cultural fitting” of significant life changes during cross-cultural transitions that leads to the appraisal of these changes and the selection and implementation of strategies to cope with them. Thus, acculturation is the availability for adaptation through life changes without losing one’s identity.

Agreeableness – is a person that is affable, trusts, compassionate, modest, and generally good natured to other’s differing viewpoints and positions.

Assimilation – the taking in of new information and having it fit into one’s mental schemas.

Conscientiousness –a person that takes great care, that is careful, or meticulous in the feeling of others, or in the work the work they do, such as: for a job, or providing care for others.

Ethnic Identity – is a dynamic state, an ongoing process, in relation to one’s adaptive personal resources, such as: coping styles, self-esteem, developmental state, and/or disposition.

Extraversion – is a person that is outgoing, lively, cheerful, sociable, charming, generally gregarious, and assertive. Opposing definition is a person that is considered an introvert, who is somber and taciturn (McCrae, 2002).

Five-Factor Model – is a comprehensive taxonomy of personality traits, which are tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions (McCrae, 2002).

Intra-Cultural – is the studying of the internal mechanizations of a culture from observable societal indices, such as popular media, religion, shared values, beliefs, ideals, and ethnic identification.

Neuroticism –is a person that, in general terms, anxious, that can be phobic, and fixated on irrational fears and concerns. When neuroticism is low, a person is calm, and even-tempered, and emotionally stable.

Openness – is a person that is curious, original, artistic, open to new experiences, but they are also honest, and sincere. Opposite definition is a person that is closed to new experiences, and in psychological terms, conventional and down-to-earth (McCrae, 2002).

Personal Traits – as defined by Robert McCrae (2002), “the dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions.”
An Introduction

The below pages are an excerpt from my thesis, Just Another Day In Paradise: In Science fiction America—The Signs and Symbols of the American Life Mythology (unpublished), and from the movie, Bicentennial Man—based on the Robert Silverberg and Isaac Asimov story, The Positronic Man. The main character, Andrew, within the movie wants to be declared human, he is android that has gain sentient, and wishes to marry the love of his life—Portia. In the below passages, is the extrapolation of how western-American culture transmits its primary religion, Christianity, values and beliefs through the guise of science fiction. Andrew’s journey of self-discovery is the examination of human condition in psychological terms: from his accommodating to his acculturation of his own ethnic identity. In the case of Andrew, his ethnicity is tied to his identity of being an android, whose programs seem to have gone beyond their initial instructions and have cascaded into the creation of original thoughts, but is still locked into the logical formation of their schemas. Andrew is learning to go beyond these schemas and become more of an emotional being as the below pages will illustrate.

***

(excerpted pages 100-105)

Chapter 6

One is Glad to be of Service

I can’t help being differential! It’s built in!

Then change!

Change? I have changed!

I don’t mean on the outside, change on the inside! Take chances! Make mistakes!

Mistakes?!

Yes! Sometimes it’s important not to be perfect, Okay?! It’s important to do the wrong thing…!

To do the wrong thing?

Yes!

Why? Oh! I see to learn from your mistakes…

No! To make them! To find out what’s real and what’s not! To find out what you feel?! Human beings are terrible messes, Andrew…

I grant you that …

I see this is what is known as an irrational conversation, isn’t it?

No! This is a human conversation. It’s not about being rational. It’s about following your heart.

And, that what’s what I should do?

Yes! And you do have a heart, Andrew, you do! I feel it! I don’t even believe it sometimes, but I do feel it!

In order to follow that heart one must do the wrong thing?

Yes.

Thank you.

(A conversation with the android Andrew Martin and his paramour Portia)

The above dialog is from the movie Bicentennial Man, which has been adapted from the Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg story, The Positronic Man,and one of my favorite movies in exploring the human condition. Apart from the emotional heartstrings the movie pulls to manipulate the audience, and apart from the bittersweet ending, it has a very powerful testimonial regarding family, companionship, and love; but, it also is an allegory for what it means to be sentient, what is the meaning of life; and, what does it mean to be human.

It is this exercise of what it means to be human, that Isaac Asimov and the movie explores; he also asks, when does one “become”, or “aware”? He wants the audience to extrapolate from his exaggeration of the possibility that “we are all machines in part.” Therefore, the story begins, a “household appliance,”[1]which happens to be a robot, is delivered to the all American home of the Martins. He is the “newest addition” to the family. The children, who are two girls, and the wife, do not know what to make of him. Little Miss names the robot quite by accident, by asking, “what is an Andrew,” while trying to say android. So begins the story.

After a couple fits and starts with girls and the mother (the father, if not stated earlier, is the one who purchased the robot) begins to find a routine, he serves them their meals, puts them to bed, and watches over them, while at the beach. He is for all practical purposes—a butler. In a stirring moment, at the beach with Little Miss, he accidentally breaks one of her crystal horses. She is angry with him. And, somehow, understands her pain and tries making it up to her; he has a robot epiphany. He suddenly comprehends that he can carve her a wooden horse by looking at piece of wood he finds on the beach. When questioned by the parents as to where he get the design or copied it from, he says, “One simply looked at the wood until one had the design one sought.” This is the first sign that Andrew is not quite what he appears. The family begins to project a quality of emotion with the robot. Sir, the father, at one point catches Andrew listening to opera. He realizes that the robot is unique and brings it to the attention of the manufacturer. However, when confronted with this information, he wants to “examine” Andrew, to “understand” what makes the robot “unique.” The father does not want the robot harmed; he becomes protective of it, as if it was one of his children. The father understands that Andrew is unique as a robot, and since he is a robot his potential is infinite, and because he is virtually immortal with proper maintenance, Andrew has potentiality goes beyond man—and possibly into the eternal, the spiritual, into the aesthetic of god. Thus, Andrew’s owner, Sir, would instruct the robot, all the knowledge of the classics and beyond.

As time goes by Andrew learns to play the piano, to make clocks, which is the father’s occupation, read and write, and he eventually begins to earn his own money. The question was asked by the mother, “What does a robot need to earn money for?” The answer comes in the form of a demonstration, when the father takes the robot to his lawyer to find out if he can open up a bank account. The lawyer asks why, of course. Andrew responds, “That he wants to pull one’s own weight, in order to buy supplies for the materials that he uses” to make clocks and carvings. This is the first indication that liberties for the mechanized being will be difficult to obtain. Andrew and his “family” must continue to argue against the prejudices of his uniqueness. This is a subtle analogy for racism against robots and for humans.

At one point, this analogy is revealed in the relationship of Andrew and Little Miss who have a bond that seems to go beyond friendship, implying that she has fallen in love with him, but she realizes that “she cannot invest her emotions into a machine” something her father once said to her. She gets married, has children, while the ever-reliable Andrew stands by the Martin family. Years go by, when the robot comes to the realization that, he is not free; his original “master,” Sir, releases him from his obligation to the family, although reluctantly. Sir feels abandoned and betrayed, because both girls have grown up and left the house; now, Andrew wants to be “free.” He thinks that the robot is ungrateful for all that he has done for him, but Andrew denies this: “I will still perform what Sir wants. One merely wants to purchase his freedom.” Andrew gives Sir a check with all the money in his bank account; Sir is flabbergasted with confusion.

Then Little Miss enters, she has always been a major advocate for Andrew, and her father believes he understands why the robot has asked for his freedom. She denies her direct involvement, and replies, “No Dad! I am not the one who put him up to this, you did! When you gave Andrew all those books to read, it was just a matter of time, before he asked for his freedom.”

Sir eventually acquiesces, but he tells Andrew, “You must live elsewhere,” because his feelings are hurt. This is a bit of irony; remember, what he told Little Miss, “You cannot invest your emotions into a machine.” Nonetheless, that is exactly what has happened; Sir, feelings are hurt because Andrew is the son he never had. Sir returns the check to Andrew. He has “displaced” (projected) all the expectations of a son onto the robot. Only when Sir is about to die does he forgive himself and Andrew. The death spurs the robot to seek out others of his kind, to find out if there is another like himself. It takes twenty-years of sojourning across the globe only to find the son of the creator of his facial features, and why Andrew able to display emotions, from where he started—his home. There he is able to upgrade from robot to android. The difference is, he is now able to have full digits fingers, toes, teeth, mouth, and hair; Andrew returns to his “family,” after his makeover, to find a young adult Portia (who is not Little Miss) playing the piano. He startles her. Andrew and her are initially confused, because for him, she looks just like Little Miss as a young woman. Moments later, Little Miss, now decades older, comes in to see what happening, seeing the new upgraded Andrew and happily greets him. Portia watches her grandmother, watches the affinity that is between them, and watches with curiosity, as they visit with one another, the interaction of old friends catching up.

Time continues to march on. Andrew and Portia become friends. Little Miss dies after having stroke. Andrew says to Portia, “It is cruel that you can cry and I cannot” he later ask, “Will all human beings I care for die?” Portia nods, “That won’t do.” Andrew stiffly replies. He goes to the Rupert, the son of the creator,with designs for “replacement” parts not only for himself, but for humanity. He creates a central nervous system and begins to “sense” the world around him. He does this because Andrew understands that part of being human requires the ability to express emotions and the feelings that are felt inside one’s person.

The symbolic feelings within Bicentennial Man, of love, of companionship, and aspiring to be greater than the sum of one’s part, and what means to be human are intrinsic to the transmission of western-American cultural values; and, throughout the movie, Andrew explores these traits with great fascination, along with relationships, humor, pain, death, love, and the quality of life. Thus, finding himself being defined by those who have a familial relationship with him as well as by the community that surrounds him; in turn, leads Andrew to the World Court, so he can be acknowledged as a human being, in order to marry his life long paramour and companion—Portia.

His appearance before the court brings Andrew to a finality of lucidity of the human condition, when the judge tells him, “Humanity may be willing to tolerate an immortal robot, but is unable to tolerate an immortal human: it would foster too much jealousy and anger.” He realizes what he must do. His appreciation of the human condition comes in a illuminating conversation with Portia that she does not want to live forever—and her vocalization that there is “order to things” brings Andrew to the realization that in order to fully accommodate he must become mortal. He must be able to die to, in order for humanity to finally embrace him as human. This is one of Andrew’s final acts of acculturation and assimilation that he takes within into his own consciousness as he remembers his father figure Sir telling him about his potential as android. So, he uses blood to deteriorate his system, when he asks his friend how long he has to live, his friend Rupert tells him thirty or forty years depending how well he takes care of himself. Andrew responds, “That is kind of vague, chief.” Rupert responds, “Welcome to the human condition.” The dual message of sacrifice and compassion has now been transmitted when he appears to the authority of the World Congress before his and Portia’s deaths. He is, in a sense, martyring himself, in order for humanity to recognize his own humanity.

In sum, when Andrew uses the blood to degrade his system, this symbol is a Christian metaphor of letting the blood wash away the passion and the sins of technology and to sacrifice his immortality and shows the World Congress that he is worthy. Thus, illustrating, as he stands before the World Congress as an “old man,” his mortality and willingness to be martyred as an android to be declared human honors what is most sacred to humanity—life. Therefore the messages, within the movie, are “projected” to the audience are ones of: service, sacrifice, compassion, curiosity, companionship, love, and tolerance; and thereby, in turn, deployingthe best virtues of humanity within the model of western-American culture set.

***

More Than a Tool

The above excerpt is to reiterate the examination, and, the extrapolation of the human condition through the vehicle of science fiction. A medium, of which, cultural values and beliefs that are not ordinarily challenged in the convention of social discourse are viewed in the lens of science fictive narrative. The cultural adaptation that Andrew goes through, assimilation and accommodation, are gradual yet profound. At the very beginning, the metaphor in which the character develops, show Andrew being constructed, or many Andrews being manufactured, to illustrate that he is nothing more than a simple tool—a machine that people use. But from the moment he is turned on, we see through his eyes, a coming into being, a birth, if you will, that something unique is about to happen. The naming of him by the littlest sibling, Little Miss, by the mispronounced word of android to Andrew signals to the audience and the family that he is to be humanized. He is therefore more than a tool.

As a tool, however, Andrew can be dehumanized and therefore relegated to insignificance, standing outside the normative society and deemed as a non-member. Andrew’s growth from the moment he is turned on until his eventuated death provides us, the viewer, the potential showing of the human spirit and condition. Nevertheless, in the beginning, Andrew had to learn how to adapt into the family structure of everyday life; in many ways, he was a neophyte, learning the dynamics of etiquette, and his role within the family social hierarchy—essentially assimilating the information in order to fit in his role as servant. At the same time, his curiosity to learn, to understand, and to create is part of his self-perception. He wants to feed his “hunger” for acculturation to the other; those that he serves and make up part of his ethnic identity, and in part, are entwined to his programming or schemas in which he formulates the ideals and beliefs that he learns from the family.

Andrew gains self-esteem, life experiences, and personal interactive disposition, in which the characters of Little Miss and Portia “invest emotion”[2] into a “robot.” Andrew’s journey throughout the movie is one of predictability, his character’s development of self-actualization and transformation is done through a series of “Ahha” moments as illustrated earlier in the opening dialog of this essay, but there are others. For instance, when he arbitrarily decides to repair an old crank-handle record turntable to listen to opera, to his decision to continue wear clothes, after being asked to be usher at Little Miss’s wedding, or when he decides to seek out his own kind in order to find another like himself, is not only adopting to his familial role but he also showing varying coping styles from his primary and secondary environments.

He, Andrew, is developing social structure outside of himself, albeit a small one, His ability to plan, to express beyond initial programmed schemas, to participate in activities are similarly mechanized, but they are genuine and authentic in their display of emotion and his acculturation to other members of society. He adopts the strategy of isolation, after he is given his freedom by Sir, but his accommodation of family and friends (which are few) allows him to have his own community of peers.

The Factor of Five

In studying psychology cross culturally, a number of characteristics were found to be present, but have broken down into taxonomically into five categories: neuroticism, extraversion, openness (to experience), agreeableness, and conscientiousness. This is known as the Five Factor Model (FFM) (Robert R. McCrae 2002). And, depending on the level of intensity of the varying categories, an individual’s personality can be ascertained or predicated by these factors. Therefore by extension, the individuals, which makeup the society, will reflect the culture’s overall identity and predictability within the template of the FFM (McCrae 2002).

In the movie, Bicentennial Man, the character of Andrew reflects the underlying characteristics of his culture writ-large, at first on a micro level, and then later, on a macro-level. Andrew is enculturated by the family of the Martins, in particularly by Sir and Little Miss, their interactions with Andrew, aid the development of the FFM traits (McCrae 2002). Admittedly, some of the factors of Andrew were programmed into him, such as conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness; however, though these traits are high within his schemas, his ability for extraversion and neuroticism were developed out of his need to express his curiosity and fascination with humanity—and the need for him to be considered human.

Andrew development then, is predestined and preset by the culture that programmed him, and the culture that later enculturates him, his immediate family—the Martins—and by the surrounding community that acculturates him, in which he later interacts with by establishing a bank account, so he can “pull his own weight” and not have to be dependent on Sir’s generosity. His ability to accommodate and integrate new concepts and values demonstrates his openness, but also his neuroticism being modest and even-tempered emotionally shows his development within the story of Bicentennial Man, Andrew’s FFM traits are nuanced.

In addition, aspects of Andrew’s character are reflected visually within the movie, showing the various technologies, transportations, and buildings as being in balance with nature. The aesthetics of using light and colors reflect the coolness and evenness of a culture that seeks rationality, but also seem to look for and understand the need for contentment and happiness.

Thus, to find contentment, to find happiness, the characteristics of a sentient being is therefore the capability to fend for oneself, to think in the abstract, and to adopt and adapt to the environment to fit one’s need; such as the use of tools both psychological and physical—Andrew does this. The FFM, in which Andrew displays, seems to have been just over the edge of moderation to one side or the other with the exception of openness to new experiences (McCrae 2002) that has been heightened in order to extrapolate the human condition in its penultimate transformation for good.

Cross-Cultural Symbols

Symbols throughout Bicentennial Man, are put in display through its use of music, light, color, and the relationships that Andrew develops; and as mentioned before, the movie is the study of the human condition, in which it contrasts the human element against that of Andrew’s robotic programming. In the early stages of Andrew’s enculturation, the viewers sees that his understanding is no more than that of a small child, but his learning curve potential is exponential.

Along the continuum of potentiality and cultural processing, Andrew moves from one end to the other, from assimilation to acculturation, to find a static middle, a moderation of normality. This is part of cultural processing, if you will, is to find a homeostasis that entreats the individuals within a society to comply. In other words, cultures, societies, implore the actors and participants, individuals, to not only engage in the acceptance of cultural norms, but to also, retransmit those ideals and values to individuals that are not fully aware, such as children or sentient robots, of the social contract that has been passed down through cultural traditions. The social contract, universally cross-culturally then, are the agreed to norms that a culture or society has determined to adapt to and the adoption of the natural and metaphysical environments in order to create a homeostasis (balance) necessary for it to survive.

Andrew’s development, however, is not only a measure of cross-cultural study, but is an intra-cultural study, of how western-American culture set transmits its values, beliefs, and traditions. The avocation of capitalism, freedom, free will, and the right of free expression is prevalent throughout the movie. For instance, by Sir teaching the “classics” to Andrew it is imparted to the audience that a sentient being, whether as a robot or “natural born,” who have self-awareness, and an abstract sense of self, are entitled to the knowledge of their own self-endowed liberties and dignities of life: shelter, warmth, food, water, and education.

Admittedly, the education that is provided to Andrew is to give him an under-standing of how humans’ interacts with one another, and to give him a sense of purpose and self-awareness; and, through this process of learning what it means to interact with other humans, Andrew also learns intra-culturally, as stated before, the values, ideals, and beliefs of the Western-American culture set—although it is implied inherently within the movie that some of eastern mysticism has been incorporated by the West. Again, this is shown visually through technology of transportation and the implicit interjection of “collectivism” of the World Congress and World Court when they rule on Andrew’s status of being human.

However, an argument can be made that since the character of Andrew is a robot that there are some “cross-cultural” comparisons between technology and humanity, but only, if one anthropomorphizes the machines within the environment, such as the robots used within Bicentennial Man, then it becomes rather easy to humanize the technology one has created. It also becomes easier to compare one self culturally by attaching human emotions to inanimate objects, an investment of emotion can be justified, and thereby the labeling of the “other” can be rationalized. This is in turn, is what happened to the character of Andrew within the movie; his character is inside out. In other words, although he has been incorporated within the human society, he is an outsider to them as well. He has to make the extra effort to be accepted; the mother’s to reaction to Andrew initially was that of a person being threaten. She feels that her position as caretaker is being taken away from her, only to realize, that her position has been enhanced with her daughters and husband, because she has more “quality time” to spend with them. The other instances of enculturation for Andrew is his attendance at Little Miss wedding, his dancing at a ball with Portia, his development of a sensory, by his invention, of a nervous system to name a few.

But it is his interactions with his friend Rupert that shows how Andrew development captures the subtlety of his intra-cultural inclusion. His friend does not objectify Andrew as mechanical object, but as a confidante, a sentient being that has feelings and as a person that he respects. The growth of their friendship is like any other, at times, it appears to be strained, while at other times, there is a closeness that reflects a brotherly love; nevertheless, it is this fluctuation of their relationship that reveals cultural examination within Andrew’s character in the movie—and a mirror to the beliefs, values, and ideals that we, the western-American culture set, hold prevalent.

Andrew’s ethnic identity from being a robot, to an android, and finally human is displayed from assimilation to accommodation. He has to adjust to a new level of assimilation and acculturation at each transformative moment. In his robot form, he had to learn to what it meant to be part of a familial unit, while at the same time be a “servant” within the human constraints. Yet, Andrew had the “freedom” to be express his original thoughts, “feelings,” and curiosity and interacts with the family as a person, in part, because, Sir, the father gave instruction to that effect. On the other side, is the family’s reaction to Andrew as a robot, he is considered property, a person, but a non-contributing member within the society other than things he makes at the discretion of the family. Again remember the mother’s remarks of “What does a robot need money for,” or the reaction of the manufacturer upon the discovery that Andrew may be flawed, because he displays a sense of uniqueness. Of course, the manufacture’s concern is that of liability, and the possibility of that their line of robots might be considered defective, if considered emotionally capable of “running amok.” Thus, Andrew’s assimilation into human society on a base level is no more than him, in psychological terms, “fitting” his initial program schemas to adapt to the surrounding human world; albeit with spark of curiosity and originality.

In his android form, Andrew not only learns to adapt, but he begins to adopt human traits, such as fingers, toes, and a true face and facial fixtures. He eventually becomes a full sensory being by the integration of a nervous system, bringing him ever closer to the status of human. It is this development that leads Andrew to his final accommodation of what it means to be human and the cultural values that surrounded him by being developing a circulatory system.

Conclusion

In sum, the character development of Andrew is tied to his transformation, not only physically, but also psychologically. He learns to adapt and adopt his schemas from assimilation to accommodation, which he integrates along the continuum of his emotional development. He incorporates the Five Factor Model of personal traits into his being, and goes beyond them, to his actualization of becoming the human representation for good. This realization of Andrew’s character allows us then, the viewer, to see not only what is good about us, but our flaws as well; his is the penultimate vessel of our own humanity and the human condition.

Bibliography

20002 McCrae, Robert R., Cross-cultural Research on the Five-factor Model of Personality, Lonner, W. J., Dinnel, D. L., Sattler, D. N (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 6, Chapter 1), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University: Bellingham, Washington USA.

(2006) Stewart, Gregory, Just Another Day in Paradise: In Science Fiction America—The Signs and Symbols of the American Life Mythology, (unpublished).

Movie Credits (abbreviated)

1999 Bicentennial Man, Chris Columbus (director), based on Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg story, The Positronic Man, Nicholas Kazan (screenplay), Wolfgang Peterson, Gail Katz, Laurence Mark, Neal Miller, Chris Miller, Mark Radcliffe, Michael Barnathan (producers), Robin Williams (Andrew), Embeth Davidtz (Little Miss/Portia-adult), Sam Neill (Sir), Wendy Crewson (Maam), Oliver Platt (Rupert), Hallie Kate Eisenberg (Little Miss-7yrs Old)—(actors).

[1] This is a reference from the manufacturer of Andrew as being no more significant than a “household appliance” in the movie. Andrew later, of course, in the movie proves to be anything but, as Andrew has to come in for a repair and facial upgrades. Sir informs the manufacturer, if anything nefarious happens to Andrew, there is an alarm to alert the police. Andrew, asks while his is “in the shop” could he get upgrades to his face so he could he express what he “feels.”

[2] This is a running quote from the movie, first from Sir, saying to his daughter, “one cannot invest emotions into a robot, then daughter, when she realizes she can’t marry Andrew, and then Portia, when she later reveals early in their relationship, she can’t invest her emotions in robot. Andrew, says to himself that “it must be genetic.”

Movie Review: Sex and The City

2008-06-10T05:24:00.000-06:00

Okay, this a chick flick and a bargaining point for all the guys in relationships and potential relationships, and those who are “just friends” who are need in of counting coups. This movie, and secretly a guilty pleasure for guys, has successfully transferred itself from the small screen to the big screen. It had everything including the Hollywood ending, except for a good car chase and bullets flying through the air.

It did, however, have the emotional daggers and dramas that women tend to crave, and allow the 21^st century guy the ability to empathize and relate without appearing gay or as wimps. In other words, it had enough titillation (pun intended) for the guys to be appreciative of the raw honesty that had made the series a success on HBO and plot to keep a guy’s interests. With that said, this reviewer does not reveal plot points or twists, enough of that has been in the commercials on television. Yes, it is predictable. Yes, it is sugary sweet, schmaltzy even, but it will allow you, the guy, to connect in an adult way with your lady friend for the evening—and if you are lucky, have a fond memory as you watch the joy on your lady friends face as she is viewing the movie.

I certainly do—even after the movie, when we went out for drinks (we had Killians not Cosmopolitans, by the way)—her face lit up each time she recollected a particular moment within the movie. There was much joy—and I was happy I had been there to share it with her (yes, even guys get sentimental). Sex and The City may not make the top ten list at the end of the year on anyone’s movie list, but it will certainly be top ten list of memories (oh god—that was way too schmaltzy—I need an action flick—quick!) Oh, by the way, I parlayed taking my friend to Sex and The City for a romantic comedy and an action flick.

So guys take your gal pal and enjoy the evening, you might even enjoy yourself and have a couple of good laughs…

Movie Review: Chronicles of Narnia – Prince Caspian

2008-06-08T05:15:00.002-06:00

I have been on a big budget movie kick of late, so naturally, Narnia fell into place. As a Mother’s Day gift to a friend, the opening of the movie played right into my hands, for me to see it. Then, it occurred to me that the piper for all these big budget movies would come at the end of the month with Sex and The City—the ultimate chick flick (yikes!). At any rate, to return Narnia, all the principles come back with another year of maturity (story wise) under their belts, but 1300 years later for Narnia in this latest installment, of which there will be seven by the way, and humans have oppressed and suppressed the mystical and magical creatures. Need I say more?

Although this is a typical and predictable movie, the special effects are excellent, and the story, for what it is, is a good yarn. It is a family movie. And, it is a enjoyable romp. It is unfortunate however, that Disney decided to release it between the two biggest hits of the summer, Indiana Jones—and—Ironman. Nevertheless, feel free to your take your kids to one of the best big budget movies of the summer.

Movie Review: Ironman

2008-06-07T05:21:00.001-06:00

It is that time of year, when big budget movies, bad guys, action flicks, come roaring to the screen; expectations and hype run high and over top advertising tries to herd the masses into the cool darkness of movie theatres. Well, wait no longer the first big budget movie has made its pitch—and Robert Downey, Jr., has brought the comic book character Tony Stark a.k.a. Ironman to the screen successfully.

Downey’s depiction of Tony Stark leaves one the impression that he was destined to play the role, his bit of playboy and boy genius is played deftly, and gives the core comic book geeks satisfaction—at least for this one. I was not looking for the perfect origin narrative, but a well sketched story that reflected the current dynamics of the world today; that was done.

This version of Ironman was enjoyable and enough action from start to finish to almost satisfy any appetite. The special effects, which makeup big budget movies during the summer, seem to be almost flawless, but a second viewing is required (gee, that is too bad). Anyway, if you plan to see Ironman—do so—your time will be well spent. And, by the way, if you are wondering, more about plot and twists, this reviewer has decided that the commercials do a decent enough job to provide interest, besides I don’t like reviews that tell me everything before I go. Enjoy and have fun.

Psychological Perspective: The Creation of New Worlds

2008-04-28T00:08:00.006-06:00

by Gregory Stewart

Editors note the following paper below is this author to illustrate how science fiction impact the Western-American concepts through narrative, ideology, and cultural constructs...

The World of Sorrows

So it began. Johnny struggled to rid the image that had haunted him since early breakfast. But no matter how hard he tried to shake the image from his mind. To set it aside. To displace the inexplicable unknown that could not be reasoned, he did not how to deny what Two Crows knew or with any certainty did not know.

He had failed to realize his vision. All too late the image of denial haunted his consciousness; his subconscious; his primordial id; staring back at him wanting explanation and rationality. It did not want to be set aside; or, to be displaced. It wanted validation. It wanted narration. It wanted to be deployed; redeployed over and over again.

The image that spirited Johnny’s mind and it wanted to be born into culture. To spread like a virus—and infect the world. It wanted to take hold and reveal itself to the world, but it needed Johnny to speak it into reality…

* * *

Any student of psychology, anthropology, or science fiction or otherwise understands that reality cannot be viewed until it has been objectified—or at least observed. In the sense that, until it is shared with another, the other’s view of their world is internalized, private and unspoken. If the perception of another, if vivid enough, will find a place, a name, and at the least, acknowledgement. How it spreads beyond textual and contextual impression is dependent upon the receiver perception of the other and their acceptance of what has been transmitted to create culture.

Culture has a purpose, whether viewed with a capital “C,” or small “c”; its purpose is to transmit the values, the ideals, and ideologies of the hegemony. And, for our children, according to Naomi Quinn (2005), “Culture has everywhere evolved to enhance the child’s brain’s capacity to learn (480).” In essence, culture was and is the arbiter of humanity’s text, in which the narration of community was and is told writ-large to individuals small and large over and over again in order to insure its world was and is created and its place was and is maintained: temporally, spatially, and geographically.

Thus, for this author, the science fiction genre was and is one of the vehicles that allows for culture to be maintained with a critical eye; and, through the examination of science fiction, the taboos, the extremes, the narrows, and the mainstream can be parsed, separated, and atomized for individual absorption. A unity, some claim to be, hegemonic and dichotomous in its presentations of the medias: writing, television, and oration.

Although there are the other genres, other fictive writings, television shows, and orations that allow creation of alternative worlds, such as murder mysteries, romance novels, and non-fiction historical writings, science fiction can examine these worlds as well, and in turn, propagate the social narratives of the hegemony and the oppressed. In the sense of Bourdieu’s “creative structure”, science fiction sets aside the norm, and enables the formation of alternative possibilities that can be deconstructed away from the “habitus” of socialization and idealized predispositions. Moreover, science fiction is a “configuration” (Ruth Benedict, 1932) of constructs of culture and cultures that can impart the ideals of identity, but also refute the fallacy of such folly. It is psychological. It is imbues the human condition; the evolution of the human spirit. It is science fiction, the Rorschach test of the Western-American culture set; symbolically, imaginatively, and to some degree, interpretively gives insight to the cultural milieu that makes up the Western thinking. From the psychological anthropology perspective, science fiction mental make up encounters the multi-various montage of cultural “somatic” meanings of diversity. In essence, science fiction whether locked in a utopia or in its counter-opposite, dystopia setting, becomes the materialist’s structuralized perspective; and is constructed in the form of vilification of the “modes of production” whether it is technological or post-apocalyptical viewpoint.

For instance, in the Mad Max series of movies, the over arching hegemony had been destroyed in a post-apocalyptic event, and the corruptive feudal states had replaced the once over burdened populace of consumption with fear and scarcity. In this world, it was the over consumption of goods and the means of production that brought down civilization and entombed humanity into a “new dark ages”; where knowledge and technology are in the “network” (Blanton et. al., 1996) of a few individuals restricting access and control of resource materials.

By network, I mean to say that power is perceived as coming from the top down. In essence, a centralized authority in which the resources are limited to an individual or within a constructed “network” accessible only to a few (Blanton et. al., 1996). The Mad Max movies replay these themes repeatedly in order to create a world of despair and hopelessness in order to create the mythic hero who will save the downtrodden. He is the anti-hero, fights against the establishment, the feudal states that is, in order to bring a better day and a better world to those that have lost their way.

The Mad Max movies are a simulated world, a possibility, in that it can be born into reality, if we let our guard fall. As a movie, it can be physically seen, observed in the physical world of senses, with the exception of smell, unless of course one considers the smells of the movie theatre (popcorn, soda, and candy). But I stray, the purpose of movies, television, books, radio, or any media for that matter, including in one’s head, is to realize the potentiality[1] of one’s vision imparted onto the physical world.

In terms of the psychological, the media[2] in which this potentiality is formed has left us pondering of whether they are prescriptive or descriptive for the narration of transmission (or deployment). In other words, how does culture permeates itself into the individual in order to shape the reality that is perceived? A possible source to answering this question can be found, in part, and in this author’s view, in the science fiction genre.

A genre, which at times, that can be very insightful as well as outright over the top fantastical. The many worlds that can be created in science fiction are first created in the simulation of a person’s mind, at one point displaced (set aside), validated, narrated, and then deployed into and onto reality. It is at this point, the question comes into play, of whether the projection from within the person is anew, or an instance of recapitulation of the culture is writ-large; in most cases, it is the latter, instead of the former.

This recapitulation of culture is revitalized in which the reforms the values, the ideals, and overarching beliefs that entwine the individual and culture are inexorably linked. Looking from the many perspectives of psychological anthropology, from Sapir’s “Two Crows” to Kroeber’s “super organic” to Levi-Strauss’s linguistic structural model, one has to wonder, if anthropology fully understands the extrasomatic nature of humans. Oh, to be sure anthropology may have coined the term “extrasomatic” to indicate humanity’s adaptability, but the arguments of understanding human nature’s variability in projecting itself onto reality, at best, is quixotic. I believe that mental creation of reality that humans project are simulated worlds, which are combined in the form of associations, or put properly, in the form of the social consciousness becoming the collective; or, as some see it, the super organic (Kroeber, 1917).

* * *

Johnny speaks the horror’s name. A world of uncertainty forms. Its foundation is set in fear and emotionalism in doubt to the skies of Sorrows. A place that had become known for its melancholy citizens and despairing souls, where Johnny’s heart sank deeper into his chest and his mind raced as he regretted for speaking its name. Now it was born into the world, waiting for a carrier to breed its discontent. It was Johnny’s culture, his moment of subversion, and his chance to renew the world in the image and name of the horror he had spoken.

He asked himself, what would he do if it took hold? His friend Lane, a soul, who had lost his way since birth, had heard him say the horror’s name—and recoiled in disgust. What had made him say such a thing? Had Johnny lost his mind? Who was he to counter the world before him? Lane ran away. Johnny looked desperate as his friend’s rejection broke his mettle, but he knew he had to tell others and why he had spoken it. He had to tell the horror’s name and the story of why it came to him. He was compelled, if not obsessively, he certainly was a bit overly determined. But his friends shook their heads in disgust, sympathy, or derided him for even talking about the story over and over again.

Nonetheless, it came to pass, that Johnny’s horror’s name was repeated. Like a wildfire, which has its own beauty, consumed and burned those who heard its name and enveloped them into something anew and ineffable. Even more, like a virus, the horror’s name attached itself throughout the small community of Sorrows. It reshaped the landscape—and its form shined light onto darkness that been Johnny’s world.

The Sorrows had always been a place of darkness—dank and foreboding. Like Sodom and Gomorrah Death’s odor filled the nostrils, and the people faces mirrored each of their personal hell, their madness, and their bitterness. Their very foundations were grounded in light and shadows, which danced off the walls of the city—and they gave it a name—Chiaroscuro. The darkness of shadows inter-played the desperation of the Sorrows’ geist, never quite fomenting into physicality and translatable into perceptual reality. Johnny’s specter left the local folk psychology into disarray, the foundation of the community was disassembling, crumbling, disintegrating and transforming the very culture that embodied the darkness…

* * *

Science Fiction Thinking

I have repeatedly, in various ways, implied, inferred, indirectly, and directly to state that science fiction not only mirrors one’s culture, but also the individual’s view of the world. It is these mental capacities that shape the reality of potentiality. But, in addition of all this, science fiction potentiality has also created a cultural narrative and ideology of its own.

In a paper by Darko Suvin (1972), he says that, “SF is, then a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author’s empirical environment (p. 375).” In other words, science fiction allows for the potential, a possibility, a placement, if you will, for alternate viewpoints to best into a simulated “cognitive” world. Thus, science fiction allows for the estrangement (Suvin, 1972:374-375), and “sees the norms of any age, including emphatically its own, as unique changeable, and therefore subject to a cognitive glance.”

It is then, the conflation of cognition (which other vehicles and methodologies are capable of as well) with science fiction that sets it apart from other vehicles, this genre gives the permission of the authors, the viewers, and those outside of the genre to extrapolate their own interpretation, filter, if you will, in projecting their mental potentiality unto the sensory or physical world. This physical sense can be embodied within the mental construct as well as the projective construct in how the world view can be seen in the cultural and individual perspective.

This is what I mean, in a paper by William R. Bascom, in 1953, that folklore and anthropology should be concomitant, in that they are both entwined and cannot be parsed or separated (pp. 283-290). He says in discussing the positioning of folklore within anthropology, “Folklore, however, falls squarely within the fourth field, cultural anthropology, which is concerned with the study of the customs, traditions, and institutions of living peoples.” Essentially, folklore and anthropology are the individual narratives of a culture that illustrate the potentiality of not only redeploying those cognitive traditions that are seen from within and without, and whether emically or etically, but also can be demonstrated empirically in such vehicles as science fiction, as imparted by Suvin:

In the 20^th century, SF has moved into the sphere of anthropological and cosmological thought, becoming a diagnosis, a warning, a call to understanding and action, and—most important—a mapping of possible alternatives. This historical movement of SF can be envisaged as an enrichment of and shift from a basic direct or extr (a) polative model to an indirect or analogic model.

Therefore, science fiction can be used as an analogy, in which cultural norms, deviancy, taboos, or any other sub-categories that can be thought of, and in turn, examined. Suvin says that myth, fantasy, and fairy tales, however, should not be confused, he sees these as a disservice to science fiction—and is “creative suicide” (p. 375).

Suvin then believes that science fiction, and I tend to agree, is a cognitive exercise that is multi-vocal, multidimensional, multi-local, multi-reality, and multi-lingual in its expression of empirical knowledge and critical thought. In closing remarks of his poetics essay on science fiction Suvin says,

Significant modern SF, with deeper and more lasting sources of enjoyment, also presupposes more complex and wider cognitions: it discusses primarily the political, psychological, anthropological, use and effect of sciences, and philosophy of science, and the becoming or failure of new realities as a result of it (p 381) [Suvin’s emphasis].

Therefore, science fiction was and is a result from the Age of Enlightenment and a way for Western thought to express and extrapolate itself. Suvin continues, “Once the elastic criteria of literary structuring have been met, a cognitive—most cases strictly scientific—element becomes a measure of aesthetic quality, of the specific pleasure to be sought in SF [Suvin’s emphasis].” I see this structuring in the context of Bourdieu’s structuralizing structuring, in which, the contextual and textual perspectives are “capitalized” in socialized forms of culture or sub-cultures in providing an “educational tool” for critical thinking. Suvin eventually concludes,

Even more importantly, [science fiction] demands from the author and reader, teacher and critic, not merely specialized, quantified positivistic knowledge (scientia) but a social imagination whose quality, whose wisdom (sapientia), testifies to the maturity of his critical and creative thought (p 381).

It is this “critical and creative thought” that makes science fiction a functional feature for analogy and metaphor gives the individual and the “group social collective” dynamic to exploit the potentialities of one’s projective simulation onto the world.

* * *

A new day had been borne unto the world of Sorrows. The horror’s name had brought a new way of thinking, a perspective, based on rationality, based on empirical data, based on observation, but also entangled with emotion. The shadows that once dance on the walls of the city, now illuminated the dark towers in their full decrepit display, the state of tattered pillar were rundown and in need of repair, walkways, thoroughfares, expressways had deteriorated beyond repair showed the city at its core being. The illumination from the horror’s name revealed the state of fear and foreboding that had reigned within Sorrows had imbued the citizenry with the smallness of spirit and of physical stature.

The citizens of Sorrows saw themselves as they were: small minded, closed-off, fearful people who looked for the darkness as comfort food in order to maintain a life of scarcity. Never did they seek for abundance or happiness. They never knew such things were possible, but now, a light in which the horror’s name had born, had perfunctorily disrupted life. It shown their foibles, their failings, their discontent—their bitterness for existing—Johnny’s friends were changing. He saw things that he did not know were possible. He saw changes he had only seen in nightmares of possibilities. He had spoken it—and the world had changed before him. The horror’s epidemiology was a contagion that infused enthusiasms, possibilities, and potentialities. It was a disease that spread with a single word—and it was a contagion that made the opposite sex swoon. Words are like viruses Johnny soon realized, they either catch on, hold tight as they can, or they fail to take hold and are thwarted by the defenses of the other person. However, despite his fear, he told his world of the horror’s name. His validation, his story, his telling inspired him, compelled him to do it again and again; it became comfortable and rewarding.

***

Science Fiction and Gender

Invariably, when one thinks of science fiction genre, an image of a geeky ten year old boy with acne and glasses, reading a novel with giant robot on the cover with a blonde young woman scantily clad in the arms of the robot, screaming her head off for somebody to rescue her. This is the stereotype that has been generated, and like a place name in Western Apache (Basso, 1995), the term science fiction generates an image, a history, and expectation from the receiver of the message—and certain beliefs that in general—science fiction has primarily been written by men. This is not the case, however; one of the first novels, in the fantastic genre was written by woman, Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley.

Her novel has been often the standard bearer of what a “critical cognitive” extrapolation of the fantastic should be, an enough of an estrangement to take one in the potentialities of natural science into the area of the unusual, but not so fantastic that it is rejected—and considered out of place. This is how science fiction entangles the reader, and why Darko Suvin rejects fantasy as being part of the genre. He says of fantasy,

A genre committed to the interposition of anti-cognitive laws into the empirical environment… [in] that fantasy is significant insofar as it is impure and fails to establish a super-ordinated maleficent world of its own, causing a grotesque tension between arbitrary supernatural phenomena and the empirical norms they infiltrate (p 375)…

In other words, if the simulated world is too fantastic, it can be rejected out of hand as a farce. A world that is too improbable to be created in reality has no basis to be simulated, although it can be displayed in the form of fiction, television, and movies. But to return to point, Mary Shelley setting the standard for the science fictive propelled the simulated worlds into a “structuralizing structure” (Bourdieu) which enabled the vehicle for cultural examination.

It is unfortunate, however, that so few women, until recently, have written in the genre of science fiction. This is due, in part, of the perception of the structuralized stereotypes of who reads the fantastic novels, and in part, of who were in the position of power in deploying the simulated worlds. Granted, in the beginning, there were more than capable women writing for the start-ups of science fiction magazines, such as Amazing Stories and Science Wonder Quarterly. These women not only wrote what has often been associated with female writers, the utopian future models, but also compelling space operas (Donawerth, 1990).

Authors such as Minna Irving, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Clare Winger Harris were all early contributors to the genre, but sexism often held these women back in making deeper contributions. Harris once quoted her editor, Hugo Gernsback, as saying that “as a rule, women do not make good scientification [sic] writers, because their education and general tendencies in scientific matters are usually limited” (Donawerth, 1990:39). The belief back then was that, when women names appeared on the bylines of stories that it “lowered sales to adolescent males” (ibid, 40). It was not really until the 1960s when women came back into the fold of the genre in full force with authors such as Ursula K. Le Guins, whose father was anthropologist A. L. Kroeber, and wrote such classics as Lathe of Heaven and Left Hand of Darkness.

What is fascinating is that science fiction and anthropology took similar parallel courses, in the matter of how women influenced their particular fields; Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were early contributors to the study of the human cultural conditions. Both of these women contributed heavily in establishing the foundations of anthropology, Ruth Benedict in setting up the early school of culture and personality and Margaret Mead in providing the structure for cross cultural comparative analysis. And, not unlike science fiction, these alternative views of the world provided by anthropology and public access to those worlds, allowed for the human imagination to recreate those worlds within their minds.

In her paper, Jane Donawerth makes the case for the continual encouragement for women to be involved in not only the genre of science fiction (heretofore referred to as the genre), but also in the field of science as well. By involving and encouraging women to write science fiction, and seeing the genre being written by women, she says “Using women writers in a science fiction unit also allows female students (not just males) to see themselves as potential writers.” Thus, giving a place at the table for the other to be represented in their world view, instead of being invisible[3] they can be part of the simulated world as an “active agent.” Donawerth continues,

Women’s experiences in our culture naturally produce different emphases in their writing. Teaching science fiction by women writers will add to discussions not only the possibilities of women becoming scientists but also the awareness of important contemporary issues, such as changes in gender roles, alternative methods of childcare, and the importance of empathy and communication, rather than aggression, for resolving problems (p 41).

Therefore, from Donawerth’s perspective then, the mental construct of the genre enables the potentialities of feminine point of view to be brought into simulation; and, this is in turn, allows for, as Dan Sperber (1984) may put forth, a kind of “epidemiological representation” that could and has become viral within the attitude of the hegemonic culture. Essentially, a feminine perspective becomes part of the psychological makeup that may have been simply ignored or discounted as unimportant to the contribution of the culture writ-large, except for limited and assigned “representations” or conceived “roles.”

Tying all this altogether, the genre, anthropology, Sperber and Donawerth, and the representation of feminism being more active, is another illustrative point of how science fiction can examine culture—and be adaptive to a simulation or projection of observed reality.

***

The sun came up. Its light illuminated a new world. The people of the Sorrows had been transmogrified into something that they thought that could never happen. They now knew different. Heads were held high, eyes shined with life, and Death’s odor had dissipated. The world had changed—and Johnny’s words—his horror’s name had become the representation of choice. The world changed once it had been taken, transmitted into the minds of those who had feared it, its power had been subversive, its truth had been enlightened, and its vision undeterred. The name that had found a place—a moniker that enveloped change—and brought the potentiality of acceptance—the word that feared if spoken aloud—and referred to as the horror—was the word to be known as Hope. The world of Sorrows changed its name—to the Land of Reveries.

***

Science fiction, Folk Tales, Emotions

Early in anthropology, one of the examining questions,was the quality of human intelligence the same among “different races,” or “ethnic groups.” Franz Boas, considered the father of anthropology, provided his answer in a paper, “The Mind of Primitive Man”; he says

… If we compare civilized people of any race with uncivilized people of the same race, we do not find any anatomical differences which justify us in assuming any fundamental differences in mental constitution… [And] when we consider the same question from a purely psychological point of view, we recognize that one of the most fundamental traits which distinguish the human mind from the animal mind is common to all races. It is doubtful if any animal us able to form an abstract conception such as that of number, or any conception of the abstract relations of phenomena. We sfind that this is done by all races of man (p 3-4)…

I reference Boas, by way of introduction, to set the stage, if you will, to illustrate a point in regards to how attitudes change over time. In this paper he wants to make the case that the assumptions about race are incorrect; and, that more information is needed to either refute or support certain cultural assumptions that were prevalent in his era, circa 1901, in regards to human development as a species. But this paper also has an interpretation of folklore which I find useful, Boas says

When we define as folk-lore the total mass of traditional matter present in the mind of a given time, we recognize that this matter must influence the opinions and activities of the people more or less according to its quantitative and qualitative value, and also that the actions of each individual must be influenced to a greater or lesser extent by the mass of traditional material present to his [or her] mind (p 3).

In other words, folklore is a vehicle, similar to the genre, in which cultural (traditional) matters are transmitted to the individual as well as the group. In the Western cultural mind set, folklore is used to establish values, ideals, beliefs, and emotions in order to facilitate boundaries for group and individual behavior, but one of the main differences between folklore and science fiction is that while both do and can retransmit the cultural messages, folklore is the celebration of the past—look backwards in time and can stagnate the “evolution” of culture. In the case of science fiction, it looks forward and sets itself aside into the future, giving the potentiality of resolution or correction within the extrapolation of the simulated world.

Folklore then is a vehicle that imbues cultural transmissions from without to be “embodied” within the individual and reformed, later to be deployed back into the culture writ-large. The embodied deployment passes on the emotional association of what has been imbued from without, therefore creating a didactic relationship with the sensory environment[4] from outside the personal “self.” This embodiment of one’s environment with the later redeployment creates what Bourdieu refers to as “habitus” entangling the folkloric tradition in the conditioning of the person, but also the aspect of the “self.” This is the other aspect of folklore, the psychological conditioning of the individual nuances of the person’s engagement in relation to one’s cultural transmissions socialization are realized.

This socialization in aspect of habitus, embodiment, and physical conditioning are part of the mental potentialities of the person and the identity of the “self.” And in turn, the creations of the cultural and individual narrative of the folklore are diffused throughout the body and mind of the society. From a cross-cultural perspective it could be argued that folklore, the human narrative, is the one universal that can be consistently illustrated as a necessity for the human agent. As Michelle Scalise Sugiyama puts it,

World folklore is also strikingly consistent in its subject matter. Studies of worldwide variants of particular folktales (e. g. ‘Cinderella’) and the classification of folktales by plot units (i.e. ‘motif’) show that certain topics recur across widely divergent cultures: cosmology, topography, animal characteristics and behavior, birth and death, and a wide array of topics that may be loosely categorized as ‘human social behavior’—for example, sex, marriage, religion, prohibitions, punishments, deceptions, and violence. In sum, all peoples tell stories, and the stories of all people exhibit similar concerns (p 235).

Those concerns being the basic travails and trails of life, and the interaction of the other, in telling our narrative of what we perceive to be true of our human experience within our surrounding environment and of others. This is how the genre interconnects Western culture set attitudes in modernity, in that science fiction is the modern expression of the storytelling narrative and provides a vehicle in which social mores can be vetted in totality.

In the totality of the storytelling narratives, there can be certainty that these are interactive in creating emotions within active participants (that being the reader, the listener, or the viewer). However, in the science fiction narrative, emotion is often portrayed as lacking, or better put, cold. Catherine Lutz says,

Science-fiction films and novels often present threatening aliens as characterized by lack of emotion. The Body Snatchers, extraterrestrials take over human bodies, leaving their victims altered in only one fundamental way—they cannot feel. The ‘cold fish’ and the ‘cold hearted’ are cultural types whose most important failing is a lack of warmth. A metaphor for emotionality, warmth is generated by action and feeling. The warm, live person has the heat of emotions; the cold, dead one feel nothing on either side of the grave (p 57).

In essence, the science fiction narrative is often portrayed as being technical, mechanical, cold, sterile, and emotionless. This is due, in part, to the fact science fiction is seen as a rational, logical, empiric system, and perceived to be extension of the natural sciences. But, this is counter to what narratives are suppose to be, they are, if anything, to elicit a particular emotion and create a response for one to take action. Science fiction then, takes on the other roll of the storytelling narrative, that is, to be instructive, a teaching tool for the perceived future, in which, the participant (the observer) is learning something of value that can be later applied into action; or, to be used as a cognitive moment of recognition for later formulation of potential reasoning, an adaptive strategy for modifying behavior or philosophy.

Philosophy and Cultural Myths

One of the more fascinating aspects of science fiction is how it is situated as a “touchstone” in many areas of Western thought. How science fiction is used to convey not only the moral lessons for the future, but also of the past. Moreover, science fiction is rooted in the foundation concepts of the Enlightenment, meaning that it is used often to explore the human relationship, in regards to potentiality and the enlightened spirit, if you will excuse the metaphor. In fact, science fiction, in the Western tradition, is another form of an explanatory and exploratory metaphor, in which the cultural milieu can be observed, explained, and examined with rational, logistical, and logical perspectives.

For instance, a book edited by Jason T. Eberl, Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, takes a critical analysis of the 21^st century version of the television show that is currently running on a cable channel, known of as, of all things, the Sci-fi Channel, which runs on a weekly basis. Battlestar Galactica, the actual name of the show, is actually a remake of an older television show of the same name, in the late 1970s. The 21^st century version of Battlestar Galactica, of course, has been updated, and reset to the latest cultural and geopolitics of today. What is most interesting is how the television series seems to go out of its way to challenge the status quo and the cultural hegemony.

In the original series of the 1970s, there were two primary metaphors being put on display, the geopolitics of the cold war between Russia, China, and the West, such as the United States and Europe, and the technological, the machine—cyborg—relationship between humanity and the human condition. These themes have somewhat changed geopolitically, of course, but the machine—cyborg—human relationship and human condition remains in the 21^st century version. This aspect of the show, to keep it rooted in the human condition, was not only a necessity but also has to be grounded in the function of the narrative. In so being that, the storytelling narrative, whether it is with the oral tradition or told in the fashion of a scientific fantasy, must be embodied within the human form of expression in order to be diffused or deployed to the larger cultural mores of the group or individual agents. Or, put simply, it is the necessary psychological component, the human “self,” that must always be expressed and essential for the creation of new simulated worlds.

In an essay by Robert Sharp, “When Machines Get Souls: Nietzsche on the Cylon Uprising,” in the show, Battlestar Galactica, the Cylons are machine robots who have been installed with an artificial intelligence program, and eventually rise up against their human masters. Sharp begins the essay with the statement, “Picture yourself as a slave” (2008, 15). This is to draw you into his hypothetical world and provide a basis, a launching point, in garnering a perspective that a machine can be human too. Throughout the essay he uses a variety of situations, where he discourses on the morality of slavery, argues for sentient beings and their rights, and implies whether sentient being’s behavior can create a spiritual soul, and ask by inference does self-awareness come from only human beings? This question has all kinds of implications in the realm of science fiction, from cloning to artificially intelligent machinery, then finally the essay explores the Cylons from the perspective of Nietzsche’s grand discussion in regards to how slavery’s morality interplays with the Cylons, the machines, having a “soul” and believing in a god—a single god, “the one true God,” and does a comparison of the Jews exodus, and wandering through the desert for 40 years, and only to return for vengeance against your enslavers—humanity. Sharp draws reference of several episodes that have been aired to build his case.

Another essay by the editor Jason T. Eberl, and his wife Jennifer A. Vines, “I Am an Instrument of God”: Religious Belief, Atheism, and Meaning, examines the nature of belief, and how humans, and also in this case, Cylons, the machines, create a world of meaning through belief, and through the rationality of the empirical—what can I prove? Again, the authors use several episodes to lay the foundation in regards to how the show philosophically scrutinizes the ideology of faith, beliefs, and meaning. This science fiction episodic series tries to extrapolate why humans feel the need to create something greater than themselves—a structure or an agency—that has to be not themselves, but something that has a narrative meaning and morality that imparts the values or ideals to be imbued, instilled to the individual and extended into the culture for a code of conduct. They end the essay with the following,

The recognition that human beings are essentially rational animals motivates many religious believers to engage in secular, and not merely faith-based, discourse. At the same time, however, religious believers hold that there are limits to pure rational inquiry, and so faith must take over at those junctures to further our knowledge.

Hence, the litmus test for the validity of religious beliefs may be, as Roslin asserts, whether they ‘hold real-world relevance’ (‘Lay Down Your Burden, Part 2’). To the degree that religious believers acknowledge rational, scientific inquiry can deliver to answer some of the ultimate questions of human concern, the ground is fertile for mutually respectable and fruitful dialogue as humanity continues its ‘lonely question’ on this ‘shining planet, known as Earth’ (p 167).

On the contrary, the importance of meaning and any belief is that, what is important for the human condition is that we find it necessary to justify our existence. To look for the unattainable, and search for meaning in the ineffable questions of, why are we here? What matters most is the journey and the story we create for ourselves along the way; the creation of the stories we bring to the observable world.

Orientation

A paper by David Samuels, “These Are the Stories That Dogs Tell”: Discourses of Identity and Difference in Ethnography and Science Fiction, discourses on the similarity of ethnography and science fiction. He lays out the narrative nature of both anthropology and science fiction illustrating their psychological tools in establishing rapport with the reader in a description of the Other from another culture or another world. He says of anthropology and science fiction,

In both genres, the alien is often constructed along fairly conventional lines of Western psychologism. It is the revelation of ‘underlying psychology’ that helps the reader identity with the alien subject in both ethnography and science fiction, by constituting a space of common universal humanity within, and simultaneous with, the constitution of alienation. By this orchestration of the reader’s desire, the manipulation of the form and placement of such psychological revelations, the author can make the reader feel greater or lesser identification with the other (p 97).

Samuels quotes Daniel Cottom in referring to these constructions as enchantments; some refer to them as estrangements (Suvin, 1972), while still others may refer to it as form of displacement (Stewart, 2006, unpublished). No matter how they are referred to, these constructions allow for the reader to be absorbed into the world of ethnography or science fiction wielding their “literary power” (Samuels, 1996).

David Samuels negotiates through several ethnographies to demonstrate how ethnography and science fiction use “underlying psychology” to create the simulated textual worlds to engage the reader. Through identification and alienation, and the examination of the “self”, he refers to this as Western cultural poetics, extrapolating both of the genres in trying to discern their commonalities. He then speaks to how each deals with Otherness and how science fiction conveys “cultural poetics” in revealing “underlying psychology motivations.” He uses one of the gold standards of science fiction, Star Trek, a television series of the late 1960s, as way to promulgate his theory. One of the main characters, Mr. Spock, who is half-Vulcan, and half-human, is used as the example of identification and alienation (Samuels, 1996:98).

The character of Mr. Spock is used as a metaphor of the Other along with him being a juxtaposition of emotion and rationality. In addition, the series itself interplays the theme of “us versus “them” to communicate how the alien cultures behave differently. He then puts forward the argument for naturalization he says, “Science fiction and ethnography, as modern discourses, share common narrative techniques and practices in the naturalization [process] … in order to produce empathy for the other (p 101).”

David Samuels further elaborates the textual construction of both genres in how they orientate the viewer/reader in relation to the other. He says of this,

To put it reductively for a moment, it could be said that science is more interested in disorientation, and ethnography reorientation, of the reader. That is, science fiction is more comfortable with presenting to the reader a disorienting lived enactment of a different social formation. Ethnography, other the hand, tend to be uncomfortable, and to pull back quickly disorienting move, inserting the distance of an explicitly reorienting explanation. Ethnographic writing sometimes falls back on a sort of covert prestige adhering to the ability to present an authoritative and coherent of the other (p 102-103).

Thus, science fiction and ethnography gives us a sense of orientation, one from examining the spatial anomalies of disorientation, and other through the structure of agency of “authority and coherency.” In anthropology then, psychological motivation is to recapitulate the familiar and co-opt the message of the hegemony of their own cultural biases. Understand I am not inferring that the modern anthropologists are ethnocentric, but I am implicating them, at times, as being restricted to their own cultural lens of academic authority of prestige.

With that stated, the ethnography and science fiction, from the Western construct can demonstrate, cross culturally, that humans need to tell stories, and that this need is innate, if not entwined with our human evolution development. Going back to the paper of Michelle Scalise Sugiyama, in which she lays out the potentialities of the evolutionary narrative, she states “Indeed, a growing number of evolution-minded anthropologists and psychologists have reached the conclusion that many patterned cultural means of exchanging information relevant to the pursuit of fitness in local habitats (p 238).”[5] In other words, the construction of the narrative has been born into our genes, if you will, and science fiction and ethnography provides and fills the psychological need in understanding those things that are different from us.

Final Thought

Woven into my paper was a short story, a narrative of a community, that let fear and hopelessness rule their psychological nature and the creation of their world. I attempted to illustrate in my short story, how the textual construction of narration can be simulated within the minds of you, the reader, and thus, are observable—and therefore objectified. It is this objectification, in which the narrative storytelling begins, because it is set aside, at first, within the individual’s mind, validated, narrated with the person’s filters and interpretations from personal experiences and enculturation, and then redeployed to the next observer for objectification. My short story was to illustrate this to you, the reader, how narration can be the creator of worlds, and new personal experiences within the individual—and redeployed those experiences into the culture writ-large. Science fiction and anthropology, through ethnography, can create, do, and promote the vision of new worlds—and hopefully bring a better understanding of the world we all live in.

Bibliography

Bascom, William R.

1953 Folklore and Anthropology, The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 66, No. 262 (Oct-Dec., 1953), pp. 283-290.

Basso, Keith H.

1995 Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache, University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque (1995).

Blanton, Richard E.; Feinman, Gary M.; Kowelewski, Stephen A.; Peregrine, Peter N.

1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization, Current Anthropology, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-14.

Boas, Franz

1901 The Mind of Primitive Man, The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 14, No. 52 (Jan.- Mar., 1901), pp. 1-11.

Donawerth, Jane

1990 Teaching Science Fiction by Women, The English Journal, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Mar., 1990), pp. 39-46.

Eberl, Jason T.

2008 Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Knowledge Begins Out There, Blackwell Publishing, edited by Jason T. Eberl, 2008: Chelsea, MI.

Kroeber, A. L.

1917 The Super Organic, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr.-Jun., 1917), pp 163-213.

Lutz, Catherine

1998 Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll & Their Challenge to Western Theory, University of Chicago Press, 1998: London

Samuels, David

1996 “These Are the Stories the Dogs Tell”; Discourse of Identity and Difference in Ethnography and Science Fiction, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 88-118.

Sperber, Dan

1984 Anthropological and Psychology Towards an Epidemiology Representation, Man (N. S.), Vol. 20, pp. 73-89.

Stewart, Gregory K.

2006 Just Another Day in Paradise in Day: Science Fiction America—The Signs and Symbols of the American Life Mythology, editor J. David Eller, Ph. D., (unpublished).

Sugiyama, Michelle Scalise

2001 Narrative theory and Function: Why Evolution Matters, Philosophy and Literature, Vol. 25 (2001), pp 233-250.

Suvin, Darko

1972 On the Poetics of the Science, College English, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Dec., 1972), pp. 372-382.

[1] This a term I am borrowing from a fellow classmate Jonathan Cornwall, this term is to mean, humans variability in adaptation, but also on an epistemological level. The “potentiality” of the human condition on whether it is mental, physical, other such variables allow humans to adapt and shape their environment unlike any other species.

[2] In another private discussion with a fellow classmate Jonathan Cornwall and Professor David Eller led to a perspective that all human interaction is mediated, whether it is internal or external.

[3] This was a term used in a discussion between me and my professor—Dr. Jean Scandlyn—in relation to how women are perceived within the hegemony of culture.

[4] When I speak of the sensory environment I am not only speaking of the naturalized environment, but all that makes up a person, including the senses that are used on daily basis, I am also referring to the engagement of the self and person has interact with others outside of themselves. The didactic or greater potentialities of encompassing the whole sensory experiences creates unique individual in any situational moment at hand.

[5] Sugiyama details how this evolutionary narrative within Homo sapiens sapiens works, she says “Firstly, because narrative processing requires no physical exertion, it involves minimal energy expenditures. Secondly, because narrative compresses time (ellipses), the audience gets more information for its investment relative to time and energy spent than it would through direct experience. Thirdly, because narrative is a representation of experience, its participants need not undertake the physical and social risks of firsthand experience. And, finally, narrative may be easily tailored to meet the specific information needs of local habitats.” In other words, those capable of speech were naturally more “fit”, because of it was more efficient in adapting to the “local habitat.”

Power and Knowledge: The Role of Anthropology

2008-01-08T00:52:00.000-07:00

by Gregory Stewart

Editor’s note: This is my final paper for my Foundation of Cultural Anthropology. It has been revised from its final version given to the professor, I would to thank her for her input and comments.

I have a confession. I have been stuck for over three weeks in how to describe how anthropology plays a role as an “intellectual discipline.” How do I convey the role that anthropology plays through the “power and knowledge” of institutions, such as Marxism, Modernism, Colonialism, Capitalism[1], and every other neo or post “ism” of the last 150 years or so. Of course, I can bind the ties of such abstraction of thought through the eyes of its advocates, such as Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz, Pierre Bourdieu, Michael Taussig, Renalto Rosado, Roy D’Andrade, and Sandra Bartky. I regurgitate their essence of meaning and thought into some form of coherency, and only to have it dismantled by the critics of agency and habitus (Bourdieu). In other words, to have the signs and symbols re-evaluated and redefined into something other than what is stated or written.

Nevertheless, I stand or sit here pondering what is the role of anthropology plays in co-opting, dispensing, as well articulating the use of power and knowledge, I am lost in a cliché that has been rattling in my brain for the past weeks—“Knowledge is Power .” A second cliché rattles the brain as well—“Ignorance is Bliss.” Further images come into my mind and I wonder what disconnection of thought they are related to. The image of innocence rolls into another disconnected moment, as the thoughts of Adam and Eve and the “apple” from the “Tree of Knowledge” fill my brain.

Another image fills my brain, an old science fiction television show known as “Star Trek,” where the captain of a starship has challenges the “status quo” by usurping authority of an artificially intelligent computer, which has its citizenry living in fear and ignorance. The images come by the dozen, one after the other. I then think of Benedict Anderson and what he calls “imagined communities.” I realize I am lost in a menagerie of images, cultural roots, and interconnected “disjunctive” moments (Appaduri, 1990), which ramble aimlessly in dark corners of my mind, only to have the light of revelation reveal their inconsistency. Even now, I have taken notice of the natural dualism of my words: light, dark and the continuity of what they mean and don’t mean. Ideas are new and fresh as I take an accounting of what it all means.

Clifford Geertz in the opening paragraph of the “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” with regards to new ideas, he says “Everyone snaps them up as the open sesame of some new positive science, the conceptual centerpoint around which a comprehensive system of analysis can be built,” in other words, for me at this moment, power and knowledge can be found in the “imagined communities” of disconnection. I am a product of my culture. I have multiple “imagined communities” that have ties that bind, which have been subverted, truncated, emboldened, and embraced all at once. One may ask, how does my diatribe of words put on display “power and knowledge” and the role of anthropology? I will answer in the form of a narrative.

The other day, I was listening to the radio, a late night talk show, where the discussion of politics of the day has been reified to a rare art form. The issue of the moment was the words of Andrew Young, a onetime UN ambassador, political activist, and “leader” of the black community whom proclaimed that “Barack Obama was too young to be president,” and he needed to “wait his turn.” Two points of order: Barack Obama is black and he is the same age as John F. Kennedy was when he was elected as president: 43. In the form of multiple “imagined communities,” Andrew Young’s comment had power and relevance. This is what I mean. In terms of equity and equality the United States has failed miserably when it comes to the election of women and minorities in the positions of “power.” One of the reasons for this is for the popular “stereotypical” image of how women and minorities are viewed within the American cultural construct.

For instance, one of those precepts is that certain dues have to be paid in order to be qualified—such as experience. How that experience is viewed is in the eye of the beholder, but there is another overlay for women and minorities. Some of it has to do with education, some of it has to do with political capital, and some of it has to do with perception of being “rational.” Meaning, women and minorities are viewed as “emotional” or, at the least, seen “unqualified logically,” because of lack of training due, in part, to social economic factors. Another aspect of the “imagined community” construct has to do with hegemonic culture perception of power in the American ethos sense (that those in power): they are to be white, male, heterosexual, and educated at a high power university—such as Harvard or Yale. Now tie in a Clifford Geertz’s view from “Thick Description,” the “winks, twitches” in which culture is on display, in so being that those who broker power and cultivate it, retain it through co-option and inversion, in which, the subversion of masses perceives that they are valued and heard by those in power.

Instead, through the use of knowledge, history, and exploitation, those in power take advantage of those who are ignorant of the system and in the “archaeology of knowledge,” (Michel Foucault). In other words, by understanding the roots of the past and the origins of why things are and where they come from, one can control not only the access of knowledge, but the distribution of it. Therefore, by knowing the source of one’s past (having an “archaeology of knowledge” of where a movement or idea began) with overlaying habitus of its culture, its agency, and belief (Bourdieu), the “hegemonic culture” has a method to usurp the power from the minorities and women—by dividing and conquering. For instance, when obtaining small business loans, minorities and women are first divided into categories of sexes, race, and financial need. This sets one against the other for what is to believe to be “limited” resources. By setting up classifications, categories, and “tracking” areas of those who are considered disenfranchised by the “establishment” the perception of scarcity is ingrained within the “imagined communities” as being insufficient and therefore must be separated from one another in order to obtain resources. The scarcity of resources is thus used as a component to “institutionalize” certain beliefs, ideals, and stereotypes of oppression through the artifice of “imagined communities.”One instance of this institutionalized “imagined communities” can be seen with Andrew Young, to return to point, when he proclaims, Barack Obama’s youth as a “problem” he was signaling to the black community, which has been stereotyped and disenfranchised, to believe that “there is one way” to obtain power, that dues have to be paid (by Obama) to the old guard (those who laid the path before Obama, whether they be black or white benefactors), and that certain “tributes” have to be paid to the “hegemonic” culture. Young was “coding” to those within the “imagined community” that he is not “our man,” and he is not ready. Therefore, for Barack Obama, if the old guard of cronyism feels that one has not paid sufficient dues, then the passing of the torch is denied. This aspect of black culture, like a “wink or twitch” is in full display, but unwritten and unspoken. This is in turn leads to self-esteem being lowered, as an individual and as a group, because one’s worth is tied to the acceptance to one’s community-at-large. In this case, an influential black leader, like Andrew Young, has denied acceptance of Barack Obama. Instead of empowering Senator Obama for achieving a worthy aspiration (but also inspirational) for the presidency, the former UN ambassador, undercuts his achievement. The “imagined community” of unspoken rules and rituals has, in effect, chastised Barack Obama for being “too” ambitious and not “knowing his place” is a layer that seems to run as a “core element” within the black community; and, once again disenfranchising an able, capable, and qualified individual by shaming him openly and publicly.

However, as I view my narrative and interpretation of my community, I realized I have performed an ethnographic moment, an emic view, of which I explained the “winks or twitch” that are on display within my community. My ethnographic interpretation is objectified by my willingness to examine what the “winks and twitches” mean, but to some, it is skewed, because of my “closeness” to the group and the community writ-large that I am observing. Therefore, “I cannot be objective,” because I am part of the group that I am reporting on. I am blinded by the machination of my community, its habitus, its rituals, and its performances that encapsulates my worldview. I must be “told” from an outsider, who has “authoritative” etic view of omniscience of how my cultural insight is to be interpreted. Geertz says, however, “The ethnographer ‘inscribes’ social discourse; he writes it down. In so doing, he turns it from a passing event, which exists only in its own moment of occurrence, which exists in its inscription and can be reconsulted” (Geertz, 19). Thus, this is what I have done. What I have tried to do is to convey in my account, by writing it down, sprinkled with the language of the arbiter, the observer, and the authority of anthropology and to share a narrative of inferred “social consciousness” of the implicit that cannot necessarily be understood solely through interviews with informants and observations.

Essentially, I have tried to use the role of anthropology to be the empiric observer; looking objectively at the small morsels of culture that are obtained in my momentary representations of individual acts. However, I often observe the role that anthropology has sometime plays has not always been that of the sideline viewer, it has at times, been used to manipulate or assuage a population in order to facilitate a viewpoint of the hegemony. Often written in the language of the obscurity, only to be understood in pomp bombastic erudite triteness and in the language of the academic, therefore, anthropology role has been used to obfuscate the message of a culture or ethnicity or gender.

One example of this is Sandra Lee Bartky’s criticism of Michel Foucault for not speaking up for the oppression of women; she feels that he has undervalued one half of the population. She says:

Foucault’s account in Discipline and Punish of the disciplinary practices that produce the ‘docile bodies’ of modernity is a genuine tour de force, incorporating a rich theoretical account of the ways in which instrumental reason takes hold of the body with a mass of historical detail. But Foucault treats the body as if it were one, as if the bodily experiences of men and women bore the same relationship to the characteristic institution of modern life. Where is the account of the disciplinary practices that engender the ‘docile bodies’ of women, bodies more docile than the bodies of men? Women, like men, are subject to many of the same disciplinary practices Foucault describes (Bartky, p. 65)

In other words, why didn’t Foucault show the unjust treatment of women? Simple, he didn’t have to. It was understood implicitly that body has dualism of its own. Both male and female are entwined in its rationality and irrationality of emotion, of expression, and of affection for its genders. This is what I mean. In Discipline and Punish, Foucault is writing about a period of transition, when the power of religion was being transformed by the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Individual feudal states, which partitioned territories, are becoming nation-states and centralizing. It is a time for defining national borders and individual boundaries; a time for not only redefining the hegemony, but the value of personhood and personhood itself. It is the establishment of the individual and the certitude of a new form of social contract. It is the establishment of “order” versus “chaos,” structure versus ambiguity, justice versus vengeance. This period of which Foucault writes is a response to “absolutism” and the demarcation of compassion. In a sense, it was a rebirthing of civility, a new age of rationality, a reawakening of the possible, and a period, if you will, of individual enlightenment. Foucault says:

This need for punishment without torture was first formulated as a cry from the heart or from an outraged nature. In the worst of murderers, there is one thing, at least, to be respected when one punishes: his ‘humanity.’ The day was to come, in the nineteenth century, when this ‘man’, discovered in the criminal, would become the target of penal intervention, the object that it claimed to correct and transform the domain of a whole series of ‘criminological’ sciences and strange ‘penitentiary’ practices. But, at the time of Enlightenment, it was not as a theme of positive knowledge that man was opposed to the barbarity of the public execution, but as a legal limit; the legitimate frontier of the power to punish.

In essence, when the only form of punishment is death even for the most trivial form of indiscretion, what is the point of civility? Foucault continues,

Not that which must be reached in order to alter him, but that which must be left intact in order to respect him. Noli me tangere. It marks the end of the sovereign’s vengeance [my emphasis]. The ‘man’ the reformers set up against the despotism of the scaffold has become a ‘man-measure’: not of things, but of power.

Thus, the authority of punishment has been taken away from the individual despot, but given to the state, which is made of its people, and the redefining of the “social contract” is determinate upon the supplication of its citizenry and how they define themselves as a people by the “rule of law.” Foucault does not have to pay tribute to the women he already has in the voice vernacular of the day, when he say ‘man’ he means the body whole—male and female. Nonetheless, Bartky misses the point Foucault does not have to vilify the system of punishment for the case of women. He is reporting on the transformation of “discipline” and “punishment” of the social body. It as if there was only one cure for a simple scratch or any injury to one’s arm—and the solution was to cut it off, only to find out that a simple scrape need not be so treated radically, but simply to put a bandage on the cut with a bit of cleaning will cure it, this changes one’s perspective. This is how the reformation of punishment and discipline changed the social body of European thought and the nature of power.[2]

This nature of power can be seen later in the works of Pierre Bourdieu, Benedict Anderson, and in Sandra Bartky, but it is Roy D’Andrade who brings the discussion to the forefront. What is the role of anthropology? What is its power? How does one use it to influence the social body? D’Andrade defines the differences of objectivity and subjectivity along with trend of a new model that was “morality” based. He says, in the beginning of his essay, Moral Models in Anthropology:

Originally, I thought these attacks came from people who had the same agenda I did, just different assumptions about how to accomplish that agenda. Now realize than an entirely different agenda is being proposed—that anthropology be transformed from a discipline based upon objective model of the world to a discipline based upon moral model of the world (D’Andrade, p 562).

D’Andrade realizes the transformation that anthropology is about to go under is questioning its very foundation to its core, what does “the other” see and is it the same as what I see? This question asks do you share the same values as I do? Do we have something in common? If so, aren’t you as “upset” as I am about in how “power” oppresses those without it? What action will you take? Will you join me in my outrage? So on and so forth. This shift in anthropology has D’Andrade concerned and believes it is a step in the “wrong” direction. Moving away from the “objective” view of the world, to some, at least, as a subjective view, and moral oversimplification of the modern world, has set, in his opinion, on an unnecessary track of collision and collusion with the hegemony at large. [3]

Years of anthropology have dealt with the necessity of creating the “grand theory” and the dominating effect of its own discourse on the public forum (see Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Marvin Harris as examples). Anthropology has also tried to explain the nature of the human condition, which has brought more understanding more about that condition, but even more questions to why humans behave the way they do. It is this agency, as Bourdieu defines it, “witting or unwittingly, willy nilly, [as] a producer or reproducer of objective meaning.” In other words, anthropology’s role is malleable just as the people who study it. Ideas, models, theories, as well as perception of the worldview, are ever changing.

Earlier, in the paper, I said I had a “confession.” This was a true statement, but it was also a “disjunctive” one as well (Appaduri, 1990). In a way, it was short hand for you, the reader, to understand my confusion, and it also connected us to each other within an “imagined community.” I understood, more likely than not, you, the reader, would form some sort of connection to me, on the basis, in the likelihood that, “you,” the reader, might be a Christian, that, “you” come from a community that shares the same values that I do, and that, more than likely, was from the same western-American culture set.[4] It bounded us together, after fashion, and we had an understated emotional tie to one another—and “we” might have had the same shared vision at one time. Images of the Virgin Mary, crosses, and priests, come to my mind. Churches, bells, rosaries, and confessionals rattle the brain as the certitude of these images implies a sacred trust. By inference, for those in the know, the First Church, or at least, that is imparted, the Catholic Church symbols prevails throughout the “imagined communities.”

The words, “I have a confession” is multi-vocal, multilayered, and in multiple reality. It is secular. It is religious. It is Baudrillard, in that, the simulacra of religion can be a metaphor for life, death, future, past, present, redemption, betrayal, power, knowledge, ignorance, and by extension anthropology. By understanding the yet to be, and the unknown, the confession is a nexus of power, in which, all can be understood and denied all at once. But, there is another component, to my “I have a confession” statement—contrition. You, the reader, know that, I am about take “responsibility,” for an unknown act, and with this confession, will impart a piece of knowledge, in which you believe will give you “power” over me. This power is in the form of perception. The confession statement, at the least, places those, in observance of it, the ability to “judge” the knowledge that is being imparted. However, there are other aspects of the “confession,” the sincerity and how much of the knowledge I reveal. The “confession” makes me accountable only to the extent I wish to make my act of contrition credible. It is my apology. An act of defense, in which, my role as the offender I can be “absolved,” my confession provides an opportunity for knowledge. This is a role an anthropologist should covet. This is what I mean. It is not the role of anthropologist to be the moralist, but the informer, who shares his observations—and acknowledges their cultural biases—in the form of cultural capital. For the role of the anthropologist then, is not to curry power, but to provide knowledge. The anthropologist role is to “un-spin” the web of entanglement, to “confess,” if you will, and to sift through the makings of “plans within plans.”[5] The anthropologist true power lies in their observations, writing them down, and reporting their findings to the public—not just for academia. The anthropologist is to be the servant of the people and to provide a bridge to the others “imagined communities.” Which leads me to one final admission, the earlier inference of religion, by stating, “I have a confession” implied to “you,” the reader, that we may share the same “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983) and was used as a tool to create a common ground. However, when that it is not possible, and the “other” is different, finding a common ground can be most difficult.

For instance, Renalto Rosaldo uses his anthropology to illustrate from a personal view of how it took the death of his wife to understand the “rage” he felt. He was the etic observer of a tribe of headhunters, who must adapt to outside forces of Christianity and the Philippine government. To the tribe he was an outsider, who observe, tried to understand them, but simply could not be one of them. In Rosaldo opening remarks, he conveys the illusory connection to the “other,” he says:

If you ask and older Ilongot man of northern Luzon, Phillipines, why he cuts off human heads, his answer is brief, and one on which no anthropologist can readily elaborate: He says, that rage born of grief, impel him to kill his fellow human beings. He claims that he needs a place “to carry his anger.”

And, then he states simply, “Either you understand it or you don’t. And, in fact, for the longest time, I simply did not.” It is this personal touch, or attention, that is imparted from the article, Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage. In Rosaldo’s anthropology, he tries cultivate a connection of personal familiarity with his audience, which he says goes against the tradition. He does this to simplify the experience for the reader, and is contrary to what “traditional anthropology” expects. He says of this, “My effort to show the force of a simple statement,” referring to the headhunter, “taken literally goes against anthropology’s classic norms,” implying that there is a set of rules that must be followed, “which prefer to explicate culture through the gradual thickening of symbolic webs of meaning.” The last reference by Rosaldo, “webs of meaning” is to punctuate his point that he is against type, but a simple man and anthropologist; in addition, to this simplicity that he is accessible to one and all. This type of anthropology is more personable and less on the objectification of those being studied. It is more reflective and actualized, in the sense that, the studying of a different culture provides a mirror to our own culture; and, in this role anthropology is most useful and most powerful. It is the personal narrative of observation that transcends differences, criticism, and expectations. Anthropology breathes truth in that there is a connection and a history to us, as individuals and also among us as group, in which, one can, universally belong. Anthropologists, such as Nigel Barley, Clifford Geertz, and Renalto Rosaldo, are storytellers. Their ability to synthesize the histories, ideas, notions, and complexities of the human condition of the other is the most powerful asset to anthropology, in my opinion—and it can also be most exploitive.

The exploitation of resources, people, and technology takes the “knowledge” to utilize the “power” of the tools that embrace the differences through subversion and inversion. It is the co-option and machination, in which, anthropologist has sometimes being accused of. Failing to take into context mitigating factors (see E.E Evans-Pritchard on the Nuer), or by including mitigating factors for one group, but not for another (see McGee and Warms—Margaret Mead). But, they both have one thing in common, the context of which they display history.

Franz Boas discusses the role of anthropology in terms of how history is viewed by the participants, and as anthropologists, we are not only participants, but active performers as well.[6] Boas says, “First of all, the whole problem of cultural history appears to us an historical problem. In order to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things are, but how they come to be.” Consequently, this leads me to a point of multivocality and Michael Taussig. In his treatise of historical events, Taussig takes note of how Sidney Mintz and Eric Wolf treat the use of power and knowledge through their view of history. In terms of multivocality, I refer to the numerous views of history that can be accessed not only on television, books, newspapers, and magazines, but through the explosion of the Internet—the world wide web.

Like a spider, the Net, if you will, entangles the participants with current information of today, but of the past, and of the future as well. This web of context, out of time, out of space, out of fluidity, creates its own “webs of meaning,” that are not only “disjunctive,” and dysfunctional, but at times, disconnected from reality. Worlds of simulation, stimulation, and titillation provide excitement to the rich, the heartbroken, and the poor soul lost without hope and searching for meaning. This is the sense that is conveyed by Taussig as he tries to wrap trivial meaning around Mintz’s idealism of the historical, in regard to history, he bellows,

I keep coming back to the question What is history? What is historical explanation? What is historical understanding? The answer seems to be taken for granted in the text. I must be the only one who doesn’t understand. Surely, ‘history,’ like religion, is here endowed with the moral authority of the past? (p 503)

Of course, as anthropologists, meaning is assigned, and although often portrayed as an objective, it, meaning, is filtered through the filter of not only the observer, but through the observers culture set values—as hard one tries not to do so—one is a product of one’s environment. In other words, Taussig is attacking Mintz as well as Wolf, for their commoditizing of history. They have fetishized it. We have given it reification. By linking history as an entity, they have given it a life—its own “imagined community.” But, this is true of any product, in which, people are the source of the creation. After all, it is Taussig who is giving the words of Mintz and Wolf validation by simply acknowledging their existence. How else does one reify an entity’s reality?

Taussig is concerned with what is real; and, what is viscerally real. He too plays on the images of the culture through the subtitling of his essay, such as Marlboro Man, Lifesaver, Slipperiness and Power—to name a few. These titles carry weight, they have meaning to the reader, and they curry images and make a point for the reader. They bring their own sense of agency, meaning, and color. When Taussig, in his brief subtitled section speaks on History and Difference, he is setting the stage for not only what it means to him, but for those, who are being taken into reality by his words. He says of Mintz:

What most anthropologists think about meaning can be summed up, Mintz says, by paraphrasing Clifford Geertz: human beings are caught in webs of significance they themselves have spun. Mintz strongly objects. Not only is meaning historical, it is also determined by differences between groups is society (in an older earthier discourse, by class struggle). ‘The assumption of a homogenous web,’ he writes, ‘may mask, instead of reveal, how meanings are generated and transmitted. This is perhaps the point where meaning and power touch most clearly’ (p 499)

Thus, for the anthropologists, meaning is the core, it shape us, and frames us, in which structure can evolve or envelope the identity of “self.” As a result, meaning is one of the creative elements of reality. It “touches” us. It invades our dreams. Meaning provides the balance that sets the course of history, the future, and the present. As anthropologists, we understand this, and in fact, we ourselves infect[7] it, with our knowledge. Thus, this gives us the power to affect our surroundings both inside academia and out of it. The question remains then, has anthropology compass for the culture-at-large? And, I will answer this way, “With great power comes great responsibility…,”[8] but we have heard this narrative beginning before! They begin with words, “I have a confession….”

Citations

Anderson, Benedict1983 Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Pp 9-36: Verso: New York and

LondonAppaduri, Arjun1990 Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. Pp. 582-601. New York: McGraw-HillBartky, Sandra Lee1990 Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression. Pp. 63-82: Routledge: New York and LondonBourdieu, Pierre1977 Structure, Habitus, and Practices. In Outline of a Theory of Practice. Pierre Bourdieu. Richard Nice, trans. Pp. 78-87. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.D’Andrade, Roy1995a Moral Models in Anthropology. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. Pp. 562-579.

New York: McGraw-Hill

Evans-Pritchard, E.E.2003 The Nuer of Southern Sudan. In Anthropological Theory: An Introduction History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. 3^rd ed. Pp 184-202.

Boston: McGraw-Hill

Foucault, Michel1995 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. Pp. 73-103. New York: Vintage Books, A Random House Division

Geertz, Clifford1973 Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretations of Cultures. Clifford Geertz. Pp. 3-30. New York: Basic Books

McGee, R. J. and Richard L. Warms2008 Culture and Personality. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. Pp. 204-209. New York: McGraw-Hill Marcus, George E., and Michael M.J. Fischer1986 A Crisis of Representation in the Human Sciences. In Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. George E. Marcus and Michael M.J. Fischer, eds. Pp. 7-16. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Mead, Margaret1935 Introduction to Sex and Temperament. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. Pp. 219-225. New York: McGraw-HillRosaldo, Renalto1989 Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, eds. Pp. 537-551. New York: McGraw-HillTaussig, Michael2001 History as Commodity in Some Recent American (Anthological) Literature. In Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory. Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, eds. Pp. 490-506.

Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.

[1] This footnote is in response to Professor Jean Scandlyn, Ph. D. comment –are these institutions? Referring to the Marxism, Modernism, etc., as institutions. I refer to these as institutions because they are now part of the everyday western lexicon in not only tone, but also in the view of how power is perceived. In addition, the naming of the “perceived” power systems gives it structure and tangibility.

[2] Professor Scandlyn feels that I have missed the point in Bartkey’s criticism. She says, “Full archaeology… needs to include a discussion of gender—of its invisibility as well as its visibility. The invisibility is evidence of power and control.”

[3] Professor Scandlyn disagrees not with my assertion. She does not see D’Andrade seeing post modernism as colluding with hegemony at large but with, especially in the case of Nancy Scheper-Huughes, the liberal voice, which maybe hegemonic.

[4] Professor Scandlyn does not see this as much as sharing the same knowledge through reading text for the course of anthropological theory and history. And, would further argue that the link is common our “reading” versus personal experience (religion).

[5] This quote is from a movie, which was made from a science fiction theme book, called “Dune.”

[6] Professor Scandlyn points out that “Boas assumed that anthropologists could be, if well trained, be objective. So, he didn’t see us as much as active performers as later anthropologists do.”

[7] Anthropologists are like a virus. Once the culture has been exposed to the influence of an outsider, it cannot be taken back. The community will either inoculate itself from “the other” exposure or it will try “take in” or modify it as if it were its own.

[8] This quote is from and is part of the Spiderman comic book lore.

Obama’s Message Unbounded

2008-01-08T00:21:00.001-07:00

I have been trying to stay rather neutral to the run-up to Iowa caucuses, but the vitriol of the past few weeks has left me rather on “edge.” Essentially, the rhetoric of who most qualified and most experienced has been lost on me for quite a while. Simply, because none of them other than Bill Richardson, on the democratic side, has any experience of being the executive and having foreign policy knowledge. On the republican side, the candidates are trying to outdo “Bush” on policy, Rudy Giuliani every other word, practically, is in regards to 9/11, while Mitt Romney tries to deflect the arbiters of hate regarding his religion.

Nevertheless, the theatrics of politics has propelled the obfuscation of meaningless dribble of he said, and now, she said in who is best qualified for the presidency. Admittedly, experience is a factor, but so is character, and authenticity. Therefore, the question becomes, how do we evaluate the next president of the United States of America?

In the age of political spin, commercialization, and propaganda, the imagery of the heir apparent for the presidency, of the greatest democracy on the planet, has already wore hard on the electorate, but it also has been apparent for quite a while that the voting public has no true idea of who their candidates are; or, for that matter know themselves. This is what I mean. In a recent article by George Will (link here), allays the myth by Shelby Steele that, although Barack Obama may be a viable black candidate, he cannot win because he has not paid certain “umbrage” to the old school guard, meaning black “power brokers” and tribute to the politicos of the democratic party.

In other words, he has to pay “dues” or “tribute” to the cronyism of the party “power elite.” Furthermore, since Barack Obama is not displaying the angst of the downtrodden black man, who should be railing against the injustice of black disenfranchisement, he is not “black enough” to radiate the emotional desperation of the oppressed minority. Essentially, he is not blaming the “white man” for all his woes. Shocking! This is unacceptable to many of the old guard, who wish to continue to tether the transgressions of blame to the past failures of the black community, in lieu of propelling itself with the tools of empowerment both economically and educationally.

Instead of blaming, Barack Obama message is that of, transcendence. In so being that, from a literature perspective, he is the Horatio Alger story. The narrative of a hard working individual, trying pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, and taking on the everyday challenges of life, and moving upwardly with one’s: intelligence, merit, and ambition, has reminded Americans of its greatest mythos of hope. The American Dream is attainable.

Barack Obama has shown the youth and the 13^th generation (under 50) of America that they can make a difference. He has shown that his message of change and hope and that America has moved beyond the trivialities of race and is maturing beyond its adolescence into adulthood. Shelby Steele’s condemnation of Barack Obama shows the desperation of the old guard trying to hang onto its power and credibility through the dissemination of angst, bitterness, and victimization. Instead of empowerment, they (the old guard) cultivate fatalism. The message of Obama is of empowerment, hope, and change.

This message to the electorate transcends the typical convention of the political pessimism, it is inspirational, and fortifies the words of Martin Luther King of “not judging a person by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.” The Iowa electorate divisively showed that they were examining qualities of the candidate, not the color of their skin. Now, in New Hampshire, the independent minded citizenry, whose state motto is, “Live Free or Die,” are about to vote—and Obama’s message seems to be resonating: authenticity, hope, unity, which transcends, reflects, and reaffirms the beacon of liberty that so proudly became the American ethos.

I AM LEGEND: A MOVIE REVIEW

2007-12-31T05:28:00.001-07:00

It is not often I find myself in a state of confusion after watching a movie. I would like to think that I am a pretty smart “cookie,” in this case, however, I am dumbfounded. I understood that the Will Smith character was “suppose” to be the last man on Earth except when he wasn’t, the viral zombies and dogs being the only vestiges of life left. I understood that he was supposed to be finding a cure. I even understood that the Will Smith was suppose to be kind of nuts, due to his loneliness, and the fact that he believed that “may” be some actual survivors left on Earth.

However, after watching the performance of Will Smith carrying two-thirds of the movie, I am confused on why they chose so abruptly to end the movie. Why not show the development of the relationship between the new characters. Why not show the progress of the cure, or even, the establishment of the villain within movie, the zombie viral leader. I AM LEGEND has too many flaws for me to list or to go through without me getting a migraine. The movie overall was pretty good until the last third, therefore I cannot recommend it as a “go see,” but only as a “discounted” DVD recommend. Hmmm, well, even my review seems to cut to the quick….

Post Modernism Post

2007-12-04T05:32:00.002-07:00

In general, I tend to agree with Warms and McGee that postmodernism is no threat to anthropology; however, I do have some concern that those who advocate postmodernism are allowing themselves to be lost in nihilism. The problem I have with Warms’ and McGee’s overall assessment, however, is that it tends to forget the transgression that postmodernism causes to the narrative of the ethnography. Granted, post modernism drives for the deconstruction to the infinite, which there seems to be no end. It is this aspect of postmodernist theory that tries to subvert anthropology’s legitimacy.

Early in their introduction, Warms and McGee try to differentiate Modernism and Post Modernism. They say,

Modernism is a term drawn from the study of literature and art as well as the history of science….it reflects the epistemological notion that the world is knowable… [through] the techniques of science, philosophy, and rational inquiry to analyze to understand the world…. (2008:532)

While postmodernism, “challenges the assertion” that the world is knowable and that Western American cultures distort the perception that are not of its own (2008:532). In essence, in Post Modern thought each culture has its own world view of reality, and moreover, that anthropology has tried “setting” itself up as the authority; thus, anthropology has failed to recognize their own creation. Warms and McGee quote Martin Heidegger “that humans cannot have knowledge about the world that is not tinged by a particular perspective or bias” (2008:532)

Fair enough, but I contend if it was not Western American culture’s desire to examine beyond what was knowable and what was not, the world of Modernism may not have occurred even for the postmodernism to exist. Therefore, for the Post Modernism to exist the world of Modernism had to occur to first. Admittedly, a bit of circular thinking, but it will do for the moment. Yes, it granted that anthropology has tried to define, elucidate, “enlighten,” understand and bring meaning to the context of what the “observable world”means. Nevertheless, it is understood that this “interpretation of meaning,” hermeneutics, plays a role of not only how “we” the individual sees the world but ours and other cultures as well.

Throughout their essay, Warms and McGee try to demonstrate balance. In trying to elucidate their view of what postmodernism means to anthropology, and how cultures are examined, and how through postmodernism deconstructs, interprets, and tries to illustrate the distortion of anthropology through its implied authority (2008:533). In fieldwork, and ethnography, anthropology had to learn to apply itself as more of a science. This process, like any science, has learned through its suffrage how to write its objective narratives. At times, anthropology has been its own worst enemy by writing composite features and generalized these interpretations as authoritative. For instance, Warms and McGee give the example of how authors of ethnographies will use “literary tricks.” One of the most obvious characteristics of ethnographic writing is that rather than, ‘I am writing my interpretation of what the natives were doing,’ authors claim to represent the native point of view. Of course, an anthropologist cannot possibly present the point of view of everyone in a society; he or she works with selected informants… (2008:533).

And, this is also the other aspect postmodernists use to deconstruct anthropology authority and its declaration that the world is not knowable. In that, since the anthropologist cannot be an omniscient viewer of the entire society, because the informant/s one works with is only a reflection of the society in part, and, the observation of rituals, or acts, are truly a slice of that society and how it works. Thus, this leaves subjective perspective of the anthropologist prominent and “delicenses” other viewpoints and ideas.

Essentially, Post Modernism proclaims that anthropology has in its various forms, at times, “delicensed,” or “silenced” the voices of the “other,” the culture that it has examined and taken away its power to define its own reality. Again, admittedly anthropology has done this in the past, but that is why it remains more of a science than a subjective art, because of its ability to view itself critically. The fact that criticism of Postmodernism challenges the anthropological narrative and the textual contexts in language and literature demonstrates how anthropology has allowed for its corrective force to be “reflexive.” This has allowed, as Warms and McGee say, “Cultures, instead of being read as texts, can be viewed as performances in which the anthropologist participates” (2008:535). This is in turn has made anthropology more objective and therefore created more “science” oriented study of culture and humanity in turn.

Gender Card

2007-11-26T01:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, let me get this straight! For almost a year, the Hillary Clinton campaign has sought to show that her nomination for the presidency was “inevitable.” In fact, this position was taken prior to 2004 election, when they did their fact finding mission in regards to her candidacy viability. But no matter, the Hillary Clinton campaign has emphasized that their candidate has the “most experience” and the “most qualified,” and has been the front runners since the doors of the 2006 election had closed. Her sheer name recognition alone placed in first place.

Nevertheless, the Hillary Clinton political machine has whined lately that the boys are picking on her. Admittedly, there have been some sound bites that this is natural because she is the front runner. But, polling has shown that the electorate is sensitive to the gender issue, especially among women. Fair enough. The problem, of course, is that she is the only woman in the campaign seeking the highest office in the land. In a way, this is very sad. To think that in the last 47 years, only one woman candidate has been viable for the candidacy of the presidency. This is shocking for a nation that proclaims itself as the beacon of liberty. But no matter, I digress.

This issue here; is that her campaign has cried foul, and is playing gender politics. They are playing on the double standard of how we treat “our” women in the US, yet at the same time proclaim their equality. On the one hand, we celebrate the diversity of the democratic field, including having a Hispanic and Black, while the republican field seems wanting. Yet, on the hand, the derision of the critical “female” decision has been an underlying current of this campaign.

This, in part, of the frontrunner status of Hillary Clinton, but it is also has to do with our perception of woman in powerful positions. With that said, for the Hillary Clinton campaign to use the gender card is not only disingenuous, but it hurts future female candidates, whether they are republican or democrat, or any other party for that matter. Furthermore, the campaign disvalues the substance of not only the other candidates, but hers as well.

This is a candidate that has high negatives and has polled continuously as being divisive. One would think that, with these factors already in play, that the Hillary Clinton handlers would be more focus on her positives than adding another negative issue to be reflected. But no, Hillary Clinton campaign has been using the gender card as a wedge issue. Cleverly playing the “poor me” card, “The boys are being mean to me…boo hoo…” Give me a break! The real issue for Clinton is that some of the criticism has begun to stick. So, the tactic of diversion and deflection has been the play to obfuscate and confuse the public with the gender rhetoric. It is unfortunate that Hillary Clinton is the choice for women to make the bid for the presidency, if there was another qualified woman in the field, it might be more interesting. It is too bad that no one could convince Condoleezza Rice to run, or for that matter, any other qualified republican or democratic woman. Oy! I am getting a migraine. It is going to be a long campaign season….

In Search of the Grand Narrative

2007-11-11T00:57:00.001-07:00

In George Marcus’s and Michael Fischer’s opening dialogue, it is apparent that the authors are in search of new dynamic to explain the trend toward which anthropology was headed in the 1980’s. The “grand theory” had dissolved into fragmentary representations, and was being besieged by the over interpretation of ethnographic data.

Simply, the discourse of the human experience was being marginalized and saturated with political and social agendas of the abstract, instead of the essentialism[1] of the inductive data analysis of collected data so that a more deductive process of testing empirically of culture paradigm could be obtained. In so being that, the fragmentation of theoretical perspective led to the disarray, or more aptly put, the chaos of “post” knowledge designations in its wake, such as “post-modernism, post-structuralism, or post-Marxism,” to name a few (Marcus and Fischer, 1986).

Marcus and Fischer refer to this as a “crisis of representation,” in that there seems to be “no certainty,” or lack of better term, direction to the course of the social sciences. Everything is “suspect” and the viewing of post-World War II paradigms have failed. One can say that the dynamics of post-war colonialism played a role in the fragmentation of theoretical and led to the shifting of the “grand theory” to the more problematic representation of individualized ethnography. One of those problematic theoretical was that of Talcott Parsons, which took hold, in part, in the 1960’s, but later was decimated due to the political upheaval of the time. They say in reference to Talcott Parsons’s influence and politicization,

…Those times were sufficiently dominated by the hopes for (or reactions to) images of massive, revolutionary transformations of society that grand, abstract theoretical visions themselves remained in vogue. While retaining its politicized dimension as a legacy of the 1960’s, social thought in the years since has grown more suspicious of the ability of encompassing paradigms… Consequently, the most interesting theoretical debates in a number of fields have shifted to the level of method, to problems of epistemology, interpretation, and discursive forms of representation themselves, employed by social thinkers (p 9).

In other words, the fragmentation of theory led to the inculcation of disillusionment from reality encompassing the “grand theory” to the individualized paradigms. Thus, the “crisis of representation” has been the fragmentation of the narrative. Instead of finding a pathway to the archetype of existence, there has been an overemphasis of blame on the structure of how culture has recapitulated and revitalized (Wallace, 1962) itself versus simply the understanding of culture.

The understanding of culture should be the primary dynamic within anthropology instead of the politicization of it. With that stated, it seemed as if Marcus and Fischer opening treatment was trying to make sense of this fragmentation within anthropology and move beyond the “post” dramatic hypersensitivity of the political extremes of blame and political correctness. Thus, this crisis in representation has eventuated in that “everything” has to be deconstructed to it elemental components; and, the reductionist viewing of culture has contributed to this fragmentation. Therefore, the narrative of the individual has supplanted the greater universal archetypes, and have the authors searching for a replacement of the “grand theory,” they say

Within anthropology itself, the current absence of paradigmatic authority is registered by the fact that there are presently many anthropologies: efforts to revitalize old programs such as ethnosemantics, British functionalism, French structuralism, cultural ecology, and psychological anthropology; efforts to synthesize Marxist approach to structuralism, semiotics, and other forms of symbolic analysis; efforts to establish more encompassing frameworks of explanation such as sociobiology to achieve the aim of a more fully ‘scientific’ anthropology; efforts to merge the influential study of language with the concerns of social theory. All of these have merits and problems in different measures; yet, all are inspired by and inspire the practice of ethnography as a common denominator in a very fragmented period (p 16).

Thus, “anthropological writing” and the crisis of representation has been affecting other disciplines, and this in turn, has “transform[ed] the way cultural diversity is displayed.”

This display in itself has led to public backlash, just view the last two election cycles within the United States in regards to what has been called the “culture wars,” and one begins to understand the frustration of the discourse. But, putting that aside for the moment, Marcus and Fischer are simply reporting the fragmentary discourse that has led anthropology away from “grand theory” to the eventuation of interpretative individualistic ethnographies—or what they call “interpretative anthropology” and again, are looking for a unifying dialectic to supplant the chaos of individualism, or at the very least, the uncertainty of it. The variability of the individual psyche within anthropology has disrupted its overall purpose—and that is the studying of culture.

Culture (as a collective phenomenon) is en masse, made up of individuals certainly, but measured as a group that is shared and is sharing with one another to form a consensus of societal rules that are learned and distributed. This does not mean that individual has no role within overriding culture at large, but the examination of the individual aspects of it is like a dog chasing after its tail and unable to catch it, or asking which came first the chicken or the egg, it is ineffable[2] to apply individualism to culture at large. Because the infrastructure, structure, superstructure (Harris) in which the individual influences the societal narrative cannot be measured to a certainty. And, there are those who believe that the individual[3] are not part of the nexus of history, but are part of its greater currents of the historical narrative (Marx) of which they take hold of. Nevertheless, dynamic nature of individualism, interpretative anthropology, which has been expressed by way of the ethnography, by such greats as Clifford Geertz, has created or had created post-modernistic malaise in which one’s culture has become shunted to the realm of relativistic obscurity and the “irony of history.”

[1] Some would not equate essentialism with inductive or deductive reasoning but more with reductionistic grand theory.

[2] Some would disagree with this perspective, and argue that culture is less ineffable when viewed as a phenomenon of its order (Durkheim) versus a collection of individual acts or behavior.

A Roseberry Future

2007-11-07T01:27:00.001-07:00

by Gregory Stewart

Recently, I was looking at William Roseberry’s musing in how Clifford Geertz transformed anthropology away from a cultural materialism towards the “textual” narrative of idealism, one would think that he believes that Geertz’s as a starry-eyed idealist. And, his critical tone of Geertz is one of sarcasm as he critiques various perspectives, from Marvin Harris, Raymond Williams, and Peter Taylor and Hermann Rebel, as proof of Geertz’s perspective. Where in the case of Marvin Harris, Geertz’s idealism, opposes Harris’s materialism, but drive to the same end of how culture is viewed. Although, Raymond Williams sees Harris’s culture as not being “materialistic enough”, and Taylor and Rebel are extension of Geertz’s textual analysis as being representative of culture. They are in antimony of each other, but Roseberry believes that Geertz’s and Harris’s work has reduced culture as a “product” and not as “production.” Meaning for Roseberry culture is produced and is producing. Roseberry says,

Both treat, [Harris and Geertz], culture as product and not as production…[in which] both have removed culture from the process of cultural creation and have therefore made possible the constant reproduction of an antimony between the material and the ideal.

Essentially, Roseberry believes that Geertz himself has reduced culture into a narrowing view of textual analysis—and “deep plays.” And, that Harris’s cultural materialism is too reliant on outside “social forces” that are swelled up from the infrastructure, structure, and superstructure of culture, he quotes Harris:

The starting point of all sociocultural analysis for cultural materialism is simply the existence of an etic human population located in etic time and space. A society for us is a maximal social group consisting of both sexes and all ages and exhibiting a wide range of interactive behavior. Culture, on the other hand, refers to the learned repertory of thoughts and actions exhibited by the members of social groups (p. 19).

Therefore culture is a by product of production that has been reduced to, as he says, “Set of ideas, or less imaginatively, ‘a learned repertory of thoughts and actions.’” And, not “simultaneously see as production.” Roseberry perspective believes that Geertz has done this as well, but from the aspect of textual idealism. He accuses Geertz as being “elegant and elusive” in his “prose.” In essence, Roseberry is criticizing Geertz’s ability to write. In so being that, Geertz’s ability to convey the narrative of a culture at large draws in the reader to his brand of idealism. Roseberry says of Geertz that

Unfortunately, at no point does he say what he means as clearly and rigorously as does Harris. Instead he places his definitions in more elegant and elusive prose. For example: ‘Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs….’

This is apparently too “flowery” for Roseberry, and not firm enough in science as a definition of what culture is and how one view its production of the culture at large. Geertz’s view then for Roseberry is too much of the emic viewing of culture and too little objectiveness. Thus, for Geertz he sees culture as expansive and not reductionist, in which he says:

Culture of a people is an ensemble of texts, themselves ensembles, which the anthropologist strains to read over the shoulder of those whom they properly belong (p 531).

In other words, the viewing of culture has been primarily viewed from the etic view of the anthropologist trying to explain how humans behave in various environments, relationships, kinships, and adaptations of their perception of their viewing of the world. This “over the shoulder” perspectives limits anthropologist’s viewing. It is similar to a person seating in the backseat of a car telling the driver how to drive, when their view of the roadway is restricted. Therefore anthropology for Geertz must be seen through emic perspective, first through the eyes of the anthropologist acknowledging his own biases and introspections; and, then from the native viewer, through the guise of compilation and testimony. It is thus function of the anthropologist to bare witness, in a sense of a local historian, to incorporate themselves into the community that they are viewing. For instance, when Geertz went to study the Balinese, he writes of his and his wife’s experience the first few weeks there. How they felt like non-entities and “did not exist” to the people of Bali. It was until they behaved like natives, if you will, that they are seen as “human.” He recounts his adventure of him and his wife running away, like the natives, and behaving “gracefully,” when authority came to question them and their benefactors, who they were having “tea” with, of what they were doing there, after a cockfight had been raided up the road.

The natives found it quite amusing, but it also gave him away to be accepted within the community, he says:
In Bali, to be teased is to be accepted. It was the turning point so far as our relationship to the community was concerned, and we were quite literally “in.” The whole village opened up to us….Getting caught, almost caught, in a vice raid is perhaps not a very generalizable recipe for achieving that mysterious necessity of anthropological fieldwork, rapport, but for me it worked very well (p. 513).

Geertz continues, as he concludes his, “Deep Play: Notes in the Balinese Cockfight”

Functionalism lives, and so does psychologism. But to regard such forms as “saying something of something” and saying it to somebody, is at least to open up the possibility of analysis which attends to their subsistence rather than to reductive formulas professing to account for them (p 531).

In other words, culture is a narrative that runs deep; it is “shared” and is “sharing.” It is on the reflection, in which, the individual and individuals tempers reality into focus. To borrow a term from Victor Turner, it is the liminal moment when reality catches up to reality and crosses over. And, this is where Roseberry’s overall focus on Geertz’s textual analysis misses the point.

Admittedly, Geertz did not include all members of the society, such as women and children, this makes for a valid point. However, in describing Balinese cockfighting, what Geertz has done is tell the story of the adult males and how they view their culture. Albeit, a bit sexist, it is instructive in how the Balinese adapted to colonization by the Dutch in order to continue their “traditions” of cultural symbols and perceptions of how they viewed themselves in regards to material world; and, how that adaptation placed another layer of cultural text within the “ensemble” of the culture itself. For instance, “the enthusiasts” (of the cockfight) understands the rational of cockfighting. In that, like his description in “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory,” where winks and blinks can be conspiratorial, the “enthusiast” of cockfighting understands the structural sense of the cockfight; they intuit the melodrama, of the prestige, of the status, and use of gambling (and its role it plays) as opposed to the “addictive gambler.” In the cultural aspect of the cockfight class status seems to play a similar role in separating the have’s—and—the have—not’s in the sense of the cultural materialism, Geertz says:

Like any art form… the cockfight renders ordinary, everyday experience comprehensible by presenting it in terms of acts and objects which have their practical consequences removed and been reduced (or, if you prefer, raised) to the level of sheer appearances, where their meaning can be more powerfully articulated and more exactly perceived (p. 526).

Nevertheless, materialism is not the driving for the Balinese culture, according to Geertz, it the cockfight that achieves form of status. “Status gambling” and “money gambling,” which are not the same in Balinese culture, are adjoined as sociomoral code within the Balinese culture in how they view their perception of power that resides within their culture and community.

This is another criticism of Roseberry, via Raymond Williams, where he espouses that power is reflected in the “hegemony” of a class structure, but the antimony of materialism and idealism draws out these differences in how they view the overall template of their societies. Roseberry then infers that, “Dominant and emergent cultures are formed in a class-based social world, but they are not necessarily congruent with class division.” Or put another way, different strokes for different folks. It is as if Roseberry is trying to find a balance between idealism and materialism, and he dislikes the narrative in which Geertz’s textual analysis is deployed, and the coldness of materialism which is reliant too reliant of abject objectivity. And, this is the point of Geertz’s textual analysis, and the point that Roseberry misses, and which Taylor and Rebel expand upon that cultures are multifaceted, multidimensional, and multi-narrative, in which cultures reveal themselves and it is the purpose of the anthropologist to reveal as many layers or levels as possible, and in truth the seduction and future of anthropology

A Leap of a Coward

2007-11-04T05:44:00.002-07:00

It has been quite apparent for some time now that there is a multi-tiered justice system in America. One for the elites, celebrities, very rich, and then there is the rest of us. In the category of the very rich, Ed Mattar leapt to his death after smashing out his window on the 27^th floor of one of Denver’s few “tall” buildings (link). A result that was far too easy. And, for those who waited for justice, his conviction, his sentencing for nearly ten years, a bitter taste is left in their mouths.

Anyway, I keep thinking that if I click my heels together long enough that everything will be equitable, that the America Justice is blind, that somehow a criminal, a deadbeat, a pariah of the people, can and will be sentenced and serve their time. In many case of white collar crime, this is not the case. I look at recent events from Ken Lay to Ed Mattar they simply fall off the grid and no longer heard about again. This was the case of Ed Mattar, his story dates back to the late part of 1990’s (well, earlier than that but for brevity sake), when it was initially that he had cooked the books of BestBank in Boulder, Colorado, but he was notcharged until 2003. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) had to bail out the depositors to the tune of 200 million dollars, yet some depositors lost another 27 million dollars of their monies.

The travesty of this case was his ability to delay justice. To pay himself nearly nine million dollars in bonuses and live off the assets of depositors, and then, as he is facing sentencing, cheat his victims seeing him behind bars by leaping to his death as his cowardice met the concrete. Most of Ed Mattar life was about avoiding responsibility and being accountable for his actions, once again he showed his true colors. Unfortunately, the red soaked stain that he left on concrete does not show the yellow streak that ran within him.

Perspective—Marvin the Cannibal

2007-10-25T05:55:00.001-06:00

Is it my imagination or did I just read the treatise of neo-Marxism from Marvin Harris? I ask this because, he does not acknowledge Marx, or pay tribute to him, but one gets the sense that he certainly adheres to the philosophy of Marxism in terms of ecological determinism. This is what I mean. It is Marvin Harris’s perspective that the failure of any culture can be found in its modes of production adjoin to its ability to keep its population in check.

This failure he says is tied to its inability to transcend[1]their cultures and technologies. He implies that every civilization or culture, if you will, will eventuate failure no matter how successful its modes of production and reproduction. It is apparent from his introduction within Cannibals and Kings that he is laying out a case for cultural materialism, he says

Limits of growth have been reached and transcended only to be reached and transcended again. Much of what we think of as contemporary progress is actually a regaining of standards that were widely enjoyed during prehistoric times.
It is this attitude that Marshall Sahlins criticizes. The cultural materialist is too dependent on the etic perspective, relying too much on the “objective” analysis, though the hard data (through census and observation) presents an overall view of cultures-at-large. Sahlins sees Harris’s view of cultural materialism as lacking, referring to the materialist theory, “I take it up in detail because it epitomizes the kind of social analysis Harris advocates. Especially it is typical for what it leaves out, since the practical function of institutions is never adequate to explain cultural structure.” [2] In other words, it certainly useful to take the empirical data into account to help define a society’s overall personality, but to leave it strictly to empiricism, leaves out the intangible elements that forward a culture-at-large to reproduce itself and evolve.

Jonathan Friedman accused Marvin Harris of “vulgar materialism,” but I think he missed the overall assertion of Harris that the dialectic exist within modes of production and modes of reproduction along with the “state’s” infrastructure, structure, and suprastructure. One can see this with Harris over stressing the need for protein in cultures both ancient and modern (see his work Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture and his essay on “The Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle”). The dialectic of which he advocates, Harris that is, is to demonstrate how cultures are contradictory and conflicted within their own religious beliefs. And, as a matter of pragmatism find ways around cultural and religious taboos. He writes this in regards to slaughter of cattle by Hindus:

But to assert that they do not kill their animals when it is economically important for them to do so may be equally false. This interpretation escapes the notice of so many observers because slaughtering process receives recognition only in euphemisms.
Essentially, those who are reliant on the emic perspectives of the native in sharing the true violation of their taboos have missed the point, when it is necessary for a society to produce more in terms of resources and reproduction, it will find ways around them. All one has to do is look at the products it produces and the reproduction of its population. Although Harris lumps modes of production and modes of reproduction together they are in conflict with each other, and in conflict within themselves, he infers that the creation of which continues the dialectic and is to be in opposition in and of itself. Therefore, the struggle and contradiction that may not be apparent to Friedman is resolved in the materialism needs of the culture. But it is also what Sahlins finds offensive, he says

The idea that Aztec sacrifice was designed to supply human meat has little economic cogency. Indeed, of all peoples of the Hemisphere who practiced intensive agriculture, the Aztecs probably had the greatest natural protein resources: the lakes of the Valley of Mexico, teeming animalitos and algae process food, as well as fish, and in the winter, millions of ducks….
Essentially, Sahlins find Harris’s selective use of the etic information by “Spanish conquerors” and priests disingenuous. In a sense, Harris is cannibalizing his facts to fit his own ideology of cultural materialism. Furthermore, Harris’s ethnological studies are no better than Morgan’s, Spencer’s, or Benedict’s, in that he is using the information of others to illustrate through analogy and comparative analysis to demonstrate etic of Boasian process of induction as valid. However, he has violated one of its core principles and that is to relay all information good and bad.[3] As Dr. David Eller, of Metropolitan State of Colorado, says “Harris is a one trick pony…” His view of cultural materialism can be summed up in his closing words of introduction of Cannibals and Kings, he says

I am convinced that one of the greatest existing obstacles to the exercise of free choice on behalf of achieving the improbable goals of peaces, equality, and affluence is the failure to recognize the material evolutionary processes that account for the prevalence of wars, inequality, and poverty (p xiv).
And, this revelation actually gives away Harris’s true motivation. He has politicized his anthropology to push that the modes of production and reproduction are corrupted, and the individual is locked into the repetitive structure and function of their culture-at-large; therefore remaining trapped by the old Victorian model of onwards-and-upwards progress of evolutionary culture. It is not until we cannibalize these practices that we will be free, Harris says,

To change social life for the better, one must begin with the knowledge of why it usually changes for the worse. That is why I consider ignorance of the casual factors in cultural evolution and disregard of the odds against a desired outcome to be forms of moral duplicity.
One can respect that view point, but his failure to understand the emic perspective of why people do the things they do can subvert any idea of freedom, or free will as well. Ultimately, it is the individuals who make up the institutions, the structure, infrastructure, and superstructure of a culture, and it is the individual that can destroy it.

[1] Cannibals and Kings, p 10.
[2] Quote from Marshal Sahlins review of Cannibals and Kings.
[3] There is nothing wrong with using the comparative data of others, and there is certainly nothing wrong in analyzing the data to create a theoretical model. Spencer, Morgan, and other aforementioned certainly did, but I find it troubling that the data is being used to forward a political agenda. The data is what the data is and to “massage” the data for one’s “message” is not only disingenuous, it speaks against the work of the anthropologist—to be revealer of truth and enhance the beauty of humanity through its diversity.

Social Workers of America—Unite!

2007-10-15T06:04:00.001-06:00

In a column by George Will titled, “Indoctrination in the Ivory Tower,” (see link here) lays out a case of how liberty of the individual social worker student is being restricted. He uses the example of three students; Emily Brooker, who attended Missouri State University; William Felkner, who attended Rhode Island Colleges of Social Work; and, Sandra Fuiten, who attended the University of Illinois at Springfield. Each of these students had stories of their mistreatment by the schools culture of political correctness.

Political correctness which embodies intolerance for the others that do not believe way they are “supposed to.” There is no room for a differing opinion—and “encoded” with the values of hyperbole and victimization. This is George Will’s inference. But, I could not help to think in the telling of these student stories, he was using the same tactic that university’s had been accused of implicitly. George Will frames his story with the US Supreme Court 1943 decision regarding the Jehovah’s Witnesses right to refuse to “pledge allegiance” in schools. What he failed to mention was during the 1950’s several states had “loyalty oaths” for teachers and university professors during the Senator McCarthy red menace communist scare.

Admittedly, George Will’s stories are tainted in banality. Nevertheless, George Will point is well taken. Those who advocate the person’s right to choice allows no choice at all. True liberty comes if all are able to choose freely and equitably. This is our American mythos; this is our beacon of light to illuminate humanity to a more perfect state of civility. After all, it is another a day in paradise and every waking moment is a blessed one…

Absence

2007-10-13T06:15:00.001-06:00

Okay, I know have not attended to my blog in quite some time. This is unfortunate. I enjoy writing, but of late, between school and work. I have not been able to attend to this blog, as much as I want. I get lost in doing the mundane things of life, and usually too tired to rehash, or create for that matter, a nuanced thought, except for school.

Speaking of which, school has become brain damaging, in the sense that, every week I have to write a paper for my classes. just about one a week, along with reading several chapters of material. At any rate, I do this wile working full time. Happy happy joy joy. With that said, however, I have been trudging along, only to realize I have only one semester left to complete my bachelors. So now, I have to decide, what do I finish in one or two, and where do I want to do my masters work, or the work for my doctorate.

Well, that is it for now. I will catch up with y’all later….