Academia is a world unlike any other that one will find in any other part of our culture. It is challenging, it is open, it chews up many a weak mind and spits it back out while taking other minds and brutally molding them into something strong and refined and worthy of a sophisticated life elsewhere in the world. The politics of academia are unequaled, and the personalities more interesting than what one will find in any day-to-day job or community organization. However, something happens to these individuals during this schooling process that both robs them of their humanity and gives them permission to leave social and cultural norms and responsibilities by the wayside. What is it?
I, like the majority of human beings living in the world today, did not come from a community of highly educated citizens. There were, of course, a handful of doctors, lawyers, and professionals who lived in and did work in my community, but they were often detached and more or less seen as role models for the rest of us. They interacted on the human level as little as possible with those whom they saw as beneath them and did their jobs, which for the most part allowed them to interact professionally and in a detached manner. Starting my life, as everyone does, as an uneducated person building on my experiences and studies to reach the level I have achieved today, I was very curious about what happened to a person once he or she left high school and began the world of higher education. I can remember as a younger person watching my older cousins go into college with an exuberance and excitement, a wantonness to make a difference and change the world, only to come out the other side better dressed, soft spoken, and seemingly incapable of communicating with the rest of the world. The excitement was gone. The enthusiasm was gone. The interest in other people disappeared and those social and cultural concerns were no more. It was as though they were superheros who had slipped away into a phonebooth for several years only to come out as Clark Kent instead of the other way around. People were no longer people, but clients, patients, and markets to be sold to. They were something to be polled and studied and manipulated for the sake of impressing a distinguished few standing outside the rat cage, poking and prodding at their experiments.
Now that I am older and have experienced this phonebooth for myself I can see that it is not so much like a secret place to change clothes as it is like walking into a hurricane and finding ways of seeming civilized and cordial while keeping from falling into a hundred mile-away stare that others might mistake as lunacy. Academia is the wardrobe that we walk through in anticipation of the snowy-white pleasantries of Narnia only to come out the other side in professional clothing, armed only with our wits, in the same caustic warzone we were a part of earlier in life. Suddenly we are responsible for other people's lives. They want to know what we know and what we plan to do about it and if we can not answer fast enough or with the appropriate conviction, we are tossed to the wolves; all of our hard work written off as insignificant and impractical. Furthermore, the wolves want to know why they should respect us when we don't even have any money. They want to know why the hell anyone would spend years of their life and tens of thousands of dollars on a wardrobe that just kicks them out on the other side with a head full of theories and statistics and an uppidy attitude on how to solve the world's problems. But they don't know what goes on in there.
Those who never enter the wardrobe, or who tried to enter the wardrobe and became overwhelmed with how different it was in there and how complicated the world is beneath the surface, don't seem to get that there never was a promise of riches or snowy-white pleasantries. This seems to be an urban myth of college that is told to young people so that they will stay focused on getting into this world. What we can't tell them is that they are actually choosing the lesser of two evils. If we truly wanted our kids to go to college we should take them out to work on construction sites and fishing boats. We should send them off to actual warzones or make them live in roach-infested apartments on food stamps. We should make them work thirty-five hours a week at a corporation that requires fulltime employment to receive healthcare benefits and remind them that the corporation will NEVER give them those extra five hours. We should show them how the rest of the country has to live who could not afford, or could not make it through collge.
What college offers is an education, nothing more, nothing less. It allows one to stay on par with those also getting an education so that they cannot be tricked or fooled or bamboozled into the projects of those less-ethical graduates who, feeling duped by the system as well, decide they will make up for those lost years and missing dollars by smooth-talking the uneducated into working for them for nothing or handing over their hard-earned cash for products and services nowhere worth what they will charge.
I now see that that far-away look and lack of exuberance I saw in my relatives was the look of knowing that now that they had this information about how the "real world" works, and now that they had spent their first ten year's salary on learning these tricks, they would not be off to solve the problems of the world and help the less-fortunate as their high school teachers had hoped, but instead would be tip-toeing the line of ethics for the rest of their days in an attempt to uphold the worthiness of their academic experience. They will scrimp and save and withdrawal themselves from everyday life to build fortresses that protect them and their family from the uneducated wolves, fighting to get by in the world. They will send their kids to private schools where they can learn how to get ahead without the distracting influence of the poor and uneducated. They will teach their kids philosophies that allow them to believe that the wolves are not struggling and oppressed people who need their help, but are lazy, good-for-nothing fools who don't care about their children's futures or about taking care of their families. They will build a world so neurotic and stress-filled that no one will ever be accepted in this world until they are AS neurotic and stress-filled as those already living there. And that's how they will know that you are hard-working and worthy. If you are relaxed and still able to communicate and still want to communicate with the general public, you must be one of THEM and thus you cannot play in this game. If you are not surrounded by only the most wealthy and highly educated, you are low-class yourself and unworthy of the time of those in the bourgeois and aristocracy. You had your chance, and you blew it so you could remain a "normal" lay person. Now you are out, until you can find the energy to get stressed out about things that don't ultimately matter and sink yourself into a debt that you will never pay off...then you will be "with the program" and the civilized world will include you in their reindeer games.
It's rather pathetic really and I don't know which side I should be more concerned with: the side that thinks college is so unimportant that they throw away an opportunity at living a rich and full life and passing on the information necessary for their kids to live an even better life so that they can make some fast cash and eat fast food the rest of their lives, or the side that after a couple generations of financial comfort completely forget that there is a whole world of people out there starving and dying and destroying eachother while we sip coffee and talk about high art. And the fact that both exist within the same country does not speak well to the systems we have created for ourselves that allow such a dicotomy of beliefs, both with enough money to have serious influence over other people. It is something that has been with me my entire life and something I'm sure others are experiencing or are working/ drinking extra hard to ignore. I don't know what the answer is. I only highlight the problems as I see them.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
CPAC-tastic and Obama Foreign Policy
The GOP recently had a conference to bitch and complain about how uneducated and irrational bigots and bible-thumpers are having their opinions marginalized. I couldn't quite stomach watching the entire thing as it was one angry white man after another coming to the podium to rant about guns and power and using one's inalienable rights for nothing but lowbrow fighting and the bullying of others in our society and the world at large. As I listened it struck me that these people just don't have any idea about what is going on in America. They don't understand its history, they misunderstand the forefather's intentions, they are virtually incapable of high-minded debate and discourse. In fact, if they were students in a college classroom I believe it is likely they would be asked to leave for disrupting class to rant about unfounded opinions and unresearched ideas.
So where does this stuff come from? It's absolutely baffling to me because they are so steadfast in their wrongness. I have to give it to them, if there was a prize for unfounded confidence and asserting oneself based on how much money one has accumulated rather than how many experiences one has had or how capable one is at articulating reality once broken down into its tangible parts, they win, hands down. What democrats and progressives do not have going for them is that it is nearly impossible to explain complicated realities in thirty second sound bites to a nation of people who have no idea how their government even works. On the contrary it is extremely easy to wage character assassinations, make fun of intelligent people, and conjure a sense of pride in one's country in thirty seconds. I believe this is where it starts and frankly why conservatives have been so successful at creating a leaning right nation over the last thirty years that values nationalistic pride, religious culture, and creating a dominating economic/ militaristic presence in the world--because it is easier to package and sell. Just as it is easier for a large bully to march out onto the playground with a big stick and go into circles of children minding their own business and enjoying themselves and take their money, it is also easier for Americans to remain ignorant of what is happening in the rest of the industrialized world and continue to intimidate everyone into doing what we want. Rather than showing them we are smarter, more innovative, respectful of our brightest minds and latest studies, and capable of leading by example, we have created a much less sophisticated, but none-the-less effective game that rises out of a philosophy of, "He who has the most guns runs the show." The new president of the NRA actually said at the CPAC convention that, "Our forefathers understood this principle." Rubbish. Our forefathers were brilliant secular men who believed in fairness and balance of power and high-minded logical debate and diplomacy. They were frankly disgusted by war and violence. In fact most of our constitution was written under the premise that when given the opportunity to not be under the thumb of the wealthy and oppressed by religious institutions, Americans would use their freedoms to rise up against these fat cats and rework their government to protect "the people." Instead we have devolved into a mass of unhealthy, uneducated citizens who are not even sure what our rights entail, and what rights we do understand we use mainly to get out of having to challenge ourselves or engage in confrontation with our oppressors.
I believe this is why we have become so concerned with Islamic radicalism: It is not far from what some in our country (mainly those speaking at the CPAC convention) believe philosophically about how America should be run. They believe we can get our way by bullying and intimidating and making our presence known militarily in the world. So do terrorists. The difference is they don't have the trading power that we do or the tools to create the nice shiny facade that America presents to the world. They have oil that we need or we (The industrialized nations of the world) would do what we should do with these countries: monitor their weapons programs, extend an olive branch to engage them in a peaceful exchange of ideas, trade, tourism, etc. and leave them alone.
In the past I have always, without exception, been against America expanding its borders to include other nations, but in recent years I have had to ask myself what the outcome would be if, as a group, the industrialized nations of the world split up some of the Middle Eastern nations that have become such a problem for the world and more or less offered them the opportunity at living in a more democratic and civilized society. I almost can't believe I am writing this and already I can hear the opposition being that this would be absolutely immoral and to suggest that they are uncivilized just because they aren't like us is insensitive. However, they have nothing in many of these places. Afghanistan in particular is the fourth poorest nation in the world. The people there are largely illiterate even with their own language. Meaning we are trying to teach sophisticated means of governance to a nation without the education necessary to understand how peace and diplomacy and education could possibly help keep them safe and get food in their stomachs tomorrow. The place is a wild west situation where the cowboy with the biggest posse and the largest guns gets control, which of course leaves it open as a training ground for any terrorist group that needs a home. So my question is, Why not offer Iraq and Afghanistan statehood in the United States? Why not go in and say, "We have bigger guns than all of these guys and we will happily protect you and help you build a prosperous nation, and in exchange you will pay taxes as a United States citizen, be required to follow all federal regulations, elect officials to sit in our congress, and maintain the same freedoms that states have in our country. They can always say, "No," but I feel this would be a good way to obviate the terrorists' interests while helping the civilians that just want to get on with their day-to-day lives. I actually feel this way about a lot of nations in the world today. We're letting our corporations go in and take over anyway with absolutely no oversight, why not extend the offer of statehood, receive more tax revenue, set higher expectations for these nations that are still functioning in agrarian societies and continue to allow them the freedom of electing state officials that could throw their ideas into the American melting pot. Everyone wins. Plus we and the people of these nations regain control of the corporate giants who are essentially running the world unfettered by a democratically elected government.
I would love to hear from people on this because I think it could work, but I'm sure there are things I am missing. I realize that cultural takeover would be one of the biggest counter-arguments and the potential uprisings, but wouldn't this still be better than military occupations and building a damn fence across our borders? Obama's foreign policy has been less than impressive to me thus far; in fact seems to be a continuation of the Bush policies in large part. I believe this is probably a nod to the right that he is trying to be bi-partisan (though I have no idea why he feels the need to please people who didn't elect him and whose ideas those of us who did vote for him would like to marginalize as much as possible), but to me it seems like a brilliant man is getting wrapped up in a stagnant ideology of how we do things here in America. I fear his creativity is going to diminish year by year as he tries to please conservatives who are reluctant to change. My feeling: people will understand when they see how much better progressive ideas work (if they are even paying enough attention to notice something changed), much in the same way that one learns to trust professors upon seeing how much smarter they are than students. One cannot teach people who think they know everything or feel empowered by their "personal freedoms" to not listen to those who have data on what is going on. Obama and his cabinet are more educated than 99% of the world population. In fact those smarter than Obama's cabinet are most likely teaching in our universities. Thus, I believe that the citizens would be best suited to give the president some slack and let him show us what he knows. Instead he is walking the line trying not to upset conservatives by showing them how much smarter he is than they are. Makes no sense to me, but then, democracy is not a very efficient way to run a country. It's sloppy and expensive and unruly because a person who is educated has only one vote and one voice like everyone else. This to me says that we should be trying to educate more people so the voices are more informed and discussion is possible, but apparently as long as they're self-reliant financially they can yell their little heads off. Anyway, that's my piece.
So where does this stuff come from? It's absolutely baffling to me because they are so steadfast in their wrongness. I have to give it to them, if there was a prize for unfounded confidence and asserting oneself based on how much money one has accumulated rather than how many experiences one has had or how capable one is at articulating reality once broken down into its tangible parts, they win, hands down. What democrats and progressives do not have going for them is that it is nearly impossible to explain complicated realities in thirty second sound bites to a nation of people who have no idea how their government even works. On the contrary it is extremely easy to wage character assassinations, make fun of intelligent people, and conjure a sense of pride in one's country in thirty seconds. I believe this is where it starts and frankly why conservatives have been so successful at creating a leaning right nation over the last thirty years that values nationalistic pride, religious culture, and creating a dominating economic/ militaristic presence in the world--because it is easier to package and sell. Just as it is easier for a large bully to march out onto the playground with a big stick and go into circles of children minding their own business and enjoying themselves and take their money, it is also easier for Americans to remain ignorant of what is happening in the rest of the industrialized world and continue to intimidate everyone into doing what we want. Rather than showing them we are smarter, more innovative, respectful of our brightest minds and latest studies, and capable of leading by example, we have created a much less sophisticated, but none-the-less effective game that rises out of a philosophy of, "He who has the most guns runs the show." The new president of the NRA actually said at the CPAC convention that, "Our forefathers understood this principle." Rubbish. Our forefathers were brilliant secular men who believed in fairness and balance of power and high-minded logical debate and diplomacy. They were frankly disgusted by war and violence. In fact most of our constitution was written under the premise that when given the opportunity to not be under the thumb of the wealthy and oppressed by religious institutions, Americans would use their freedoms to rise up against these fat cats and rework their government to protect "the people." Instead we have devolved into a mass of unhealthy, uneducated citizens who are not even sure what our rights entail, and what rights we do understand we use mainly to get out of having to challenge ourselves or engage in confrontation with our oppressors.
I believe this is why we have become so concerned with Islamic radicalism: It is not far from what some in our country (mainly those speaking at the CPAC convention) believe philosophically about how America should be run. They believe we can get our way by bullying and intimidating and making our presence known militarily in the world. So do terrorists. The difference is they don't have the trading power that we do or the tools to create the nice shiny facade that America presents to the world. They have oil that we need or we (The industrialized nations of the world) would do what we should do with these countries: monitor their weapons programs, extend an olive branch to engage them in a peaceful exchange of ideas, trade, tourism, etc. and leave them alone.
In the past I have always, without exception, been against America expanding its borders to include other nations, but in recent years I have had to ask myself what the outcome would be if, as a group, the industrialized nations of the world split up some of the Middle Eastern nations that have become such a problem for the world and more or less offered them the opportunity at living in a more democratic and civilized society. I almost can't believe I am writing this and already I can hear the opposition being that this would be absolutely immoral and to suggest that they are uncivilized just because they aren't like us is insensitive. However, they have nothing in many of these places. Afghanistan in particular is the fourth poorest nation in the world. The people there are largely illiterate even with their own language. Meaning we are trying to teach sophisticated means of governance to a nation without the education necessary to understand how peace and diplomacy and education could possibly help keep them safe and get food in their stomachs tomorrow. The place is a wild west situation where the cowboy with the biggest posse and the largest guns gets control, which of course leaves it open as a training ground for any terrorist group that needs a home. So my question is, Why not offer Iraq and Afghanistan statehood in the United States? Why not go in and say, "We have bigger guns than all of these guys and we will happily protect you and help you build a prosperous nation, and in exchange you will pay taxes as a United States citizen, be required to follow all federal regulations, elect officials to sit in our congress, and maintain the same freedoms that states have in our country. They can always say, "No," but I feel this would be a good way to obviate the terrorists' interests while helping the civilians that just want to get on with their day-to-day lives. I actually feel this way about a lot of nations in the world today. We're letting our corporations go in and take over anyway with absolutely no oversight, why not extend the offer of statehood, receive more tax revenue, set higher expectations for these nations that are still functioning in agrarian societies and continue to allow them the freedom of electing state officials that could throw their ideas into the American melting pot. Everyone wins. Plus we and the people of these nations regain control of the corporate giants who are essentially running the world unfettered by a democratically elected government.
I would love to hear from people on this because I think it could work, but I'm sure there are things I am missing. I realize that cultural takeover would be one of the biggest counter-arguments and the potential uprisings, but wouldn't this still be better than military occupations and building a damn fence across our borders? Obama's foreign policy has been less than impressive to me thus far; in fact seems to be a continuation of the Bush policies in large part. I believe this is probably a nod to the right that he is trying to be bi-partisan (though I have no idea why he feels the need to please people who didn't elect him and whose ideas those of us who did vote for him would like to marginalize as much as possible), but to me it seems like a brilliant man is getting wrapped up in a stagnant ideology of how we do things here in America. I fear his creativity is going to diminish year by year as he tries to please conservatives who are reluctant to change. My feeling: people will understand when they see how much better progressive ideas work (if they are even paying enough attention to notice something changed), much in the same way that one learns to trust professors upon seeing how much smarter they are than students. One cannot teach people who think they know everything or feel empowered by their "personal freedoms" to not listen to those who have data on what is going on. Obama and his cabinet are more educated than 99% of the world population. In fact those smarter than Obama's cabinet are most likely teaching in our universities. Thus, I believe that the citizens would be best suited to give the president some slack and let him show us what he knows. Instead he is walking the line trying not to upset conservatives by showing them how much smarter he is than they are. Makes no sense to me, but then, democracy is not a very efficient way to run a country. It's sloppy and expensive and unruly because a person who is educated has only one vote and one voice like everyone else. This to me says that we should be trying to educate more people so the voices are more informed and discussion is possible, but apparently as long as they're self-reliant financially they can yell their little heads off. Anyway, that's my piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
