Lucky White Girl

Big ol' messy world

You know the opening scene in Blue Velvet where you see the beautiful idyllic scene of the "typical" middle class family in front of their house with the beautiful yard and then the man watering the grass has a heart attack and dies and the camera follows the arc of the water from the hose down to the grass and then into the grass and underneath the grass and you start to see all the stuff that's going on beneath the surface?

Some of you were wondering how long it'd be until I used that analogy to talk about DC!

I know it's kind of a cliche but I have two observations: one, today it dawned on me that it's not just a cliche, it's really true --I saw it! and two, it's a little more complicated than that.

Everyone knows the complicated messy underbelly of the city is there but I think people pretty much fall into one of the following two camps: those who think you should pretend it's not and those who are okay with it.  They're even (like me), more than okay with it, they relish it.  They like the complicatedness.  They like messiness.  That's the humanity of it.  Blurry lines may lead to much uncertainty and vulnerability but that's a delicious part of being human and it would be with much resistance that I get dragged over to the other side where I can neatly compartmentalize my life and pretend --and forget I'm pretending-- that it's all just an illusion.

"A melancholy that's a first cousin to loneliness"

Sometimes you run across something so well-written it makes you really appreciate the art of writing.  I don't know if it's because it's the holidays and I have time to notice or if it's the subject matter and my desire to learn more about my new city or if it's the author's tendency to, like me, be fascinated both the differences and the connections between people in this highly disparate world. 

Whatever it is, this article made me think the author wields language like a marionette.  You don't see that very often in a mainstream newspaper.  This is from the Washington Post Magazine.  It's about Pennsylvania Ave, one of the few streets I know so far because it's not too far from where I live.  It's an odd street, as they say, easy to get lost on.  The author describes it as emblematic of something uniquely "American":

It feels accidental, with its random grandeur, ironies and banality. Sometimes there's a melancholy that's a first cousin to loneliness, which is one of the conditions of being an American. It seems to harbor an on-going scheme for self-improvement, another American condition.

The Southeast end is the sort of America that tourists come from. The Northwest end is where tourists go to. One avenue, many paradoxes, many echoes.

(I'm never sure what to think when people talk about "Americans" or the "American condition"... Is there such a thing?  Do we have an "American condition"?  I know it's the warm fuzzy thing to say yes, that despite our differences and inequalities, there is something fundamental that we all share.  But every time I try to pin it down it seems it cannot be separated from what anyone anywhere in the world would also have experienced during their time on this planet.  Maybe that's true, but still, living in the world's only remaining super power has to have some kind of effect on those humans lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) to be born in it don't you think?   hmmm....)

Anyway, it was just a particularly nice piece --e.g. "a melancholy that's a first cousin to loneliness"!  I never would've written that such a phrase!  Just thought I'd share it with you language lovers out there.

Effects of postmodern philosophy pervasive in everyday life

I was listening to part of a radio program on NPR today (I think it was Talk of the Nation's Science Friday) and the show was about cognitive dissonance.  You know the idea that when you hold two conflicting beliefs in your head at the same time that this causes internal conflict and your mind does all sorts of things (such as coming up with "excuses" they said, and "justifications") to ease your conscience about being a hypocrit? 

So, in the beginning of the show, as they were defining what cognitive dissonance is, they used an example: You think you are a good, honest, virtuous person yet you "cheat" on your taxes.  You might experience some cognitive dissonance about this.  "Oh I paid more than I should have last year" or "I don't like what they do with my money anyway".  Stop.  Right there.  Hold on now, let's examine that.  What's the difference between an "excuse" or a "justification" and critical thought then?  Seems like the distinction is just subjective to me.  What if you are a citizen of Germany during the 1930s and you really do have a pretty good justification for not liking what your government was doing with your tax money?

So then it hit me.  Is that a problem with cognitive dissonance theory?  Or just a problem with the way they explained it?  Because the way they explained it, the theory sounds like it assumes that there exists out there an "objective, absolute" truth or morality of some sort or another (e.g. paying one's taxes) and if your behavior is in conflict with that universal absolute truth you're gonna have problems.

But what if you don't believe in universal, absolute truths?  Does that mean you have to throw out the cognitive dissonance theories?

It made me think that a postmodernist view really complicates a lot of things you'd never even think of.

Peace-making in Iraq: some musings

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said on Tuesday that Iraq is "a problem of the whole world” but stopped short of saying the UN should take over the US mess in that country.  Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Iraq, however is not so reticicent.  He has an editorial in the NY Times today saying yes, definitely the UN should take over.  What else can we do?

This is it.  This is how the US is gonna finally get out of Iraq.  Pretty soon Bush will start dropping hints here and there and his advisors and speechwriters will try to make it seem like this was their plan all along, the logical conclusion of their original impeccable argument for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign foreign country.

The reality is that ever since the UN refused to endorse the Iraq venture in the first place, the US was hoping just to ignore the international organization into oblivion.  Make them irrelevant.  Except for when we needed them to legitimize our puppet government there.  Then they could get involved.  But not too much.  The UN, for its part, has reciprocated and tried to steer clear of the whole mess.  No one wants to be associated with an immoral and illegal colonialist war on the part of the world's only remaining super power.

Now, after so much in Iraq has literally blown up in our faces, the UN might be our only way out.   Doesn't the irony of that just kill you??

Personally, I think sending the UN in is, maybe, less than ideal.  It might not be their fault, but they're not very strong and sometimes they are a tool of the US which limits their legitimacy.  It's just that it seems there may be no other options really. 

But wait, I wonder about something else though.  This is really crazy but hear me out.  One of the reasons the first Gulf War was "successful" was because so many Middle Eastern countries supported it.  They saw Saddam as a threat (and at that time he actually was.  Grown strong on US support during his war with Iran, he was not at all the embattled leader weakened by ten years of harsh economic sanctions that we found when we invaded the country in 2003 --though one has to wonder how much of a threat he was even then, after the Iran-Iraq war that lasted what? ten years?).  If a coalition peacekeeping force of Muslim countries in the Middle East were sent in instead, I wonder what the outcome would be?

I don't know enough about the region to hazard a guess to this question.  Would various countries try to influence the outcome to their own benefit?  Sure, that's only rational.  But could it be democratic and mutually beneficial to Iraqis and the rest of the region, even if --I imagine-- it wouldn't be at all in the U.S. interest and we would probably officially oppose such an idea.  (We probably would like to hang on to our hegemony).  I don't know.  But I do know who to ask: Dr. Juan Cole, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan!

Dear Professor Cole,
I read Zalmay Khalilzad's editorial in the NY Times today saying that the US supports letting the United Nations try to clean up our mess in Iraq.  Leaving aside the irony of that idea when we've ignored them ever since they didn't support the invasion in the first place, I have several questions for you.  One, do you think the U.N. would do it?  If so, do you think it would work, and how would a UN peacekeeping force be received in the country?  And three, most importantly, what if it were NOT the UN but rather some kind of coalition of Muslim countries in the Middle East?  Is anyone that you know of exploring or suggesting such an idea?  What do you think of it?

Thanks for your time in responding and sharing your views about this and for your information, I have posted this on my blog, www.luckywhitegirl.com, along with a note saying that I would ask for your input.  I'd like permission to either publish your answer there or link to a post on your blog that would answer this question.

thanks,
barb howe
gainesville, florida

His answer

Hi, Barb.  It seems likely the US will need to depend on the UN increasingly as it withdraws.  But Iraq is way beyond UN capabilities and would strain the organization's resources.  Cambodia is the last time it tried something like this 

cheers  Juan

I'm disappointed that he didn't say anything about the idea of a regional peacekeeping force going in.  Why not?  I know it sounds naive (I was anticipating a snarky comment by someone saying as much) but I still think it's an idea worth looking into.  First, let's not call it a "muslim peacekeeping force" --that would suggest it'd be based on religion and I don't mean that.  I mean a regional peacekeeping force, made up of countries in the region: Iran (according to some already there), Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (!!), the UAE, Syria, Lebanon (don't laugh)... well, okay some of these countries don't get along so well themselves (and can you imagine how well having Kuwait in there would go over?).... but the point is that you'd think one would want to inject some independence (i.e. autonomy from the US) into the process and if the U.N. is not independent enough who else would be?  Iran.  Jordan, Egypt, the Saudis and Kuwait are all US allies, Syria I don't know and Lebanon depends on if they are recovered enough from last year's war.  Sigh.

I admit I'm just thinking out loud now.  You're right.  This wouldn't work.  It's gotta be the UN then.  Who else is there?  OPEC?  (that was a joke)... Maybe it'd be easier to concentrate on how to make the UN better suited for the task.  The US should be forbidden to have any vote on the matter at all.  Maybe new rules could be written for the Security Council to say that in this particular case the US must step aside in the interests of humanity (I think the Security Council should be abolished completely. It's elitest.  The General Assembly is where all hope for peace and justice lies.  But as that's about as likely as a tranquil night in Baghdad.  For now it's enough to hope that maybe we could just get this one concession?)

So the UN sends in a peacekeeping force made up of countries agreed upon by all parties as being as objective and neutral as possible.  And the US sits down and shuts up.  After impeaching and then apologizing for our asshole president, of course.  Oh and financing the lion's share of the cost of the mission.  Cause we caused the mess in the first place. It's only fair.  So there ya go.  Peace in the Middle East!  Easy as pie!  lol....

 

Tea is better than water! says new "study" by Tea Companies

Ok first of all, let me say that I like tea and am trying to drink more of it, but it's not the subject of this article that bothers me so much as the format and whole premise behind the story.  Read the last sentence.  I think we should just say this: if a "study" was funded by a company with a clear interest in the result of the study then it's not a STUDY at all, it's a Public Relations promo.  Denigrates the whole idea of research, if you ask me.

And why should they get free advertising simply for framing it within the format of a news story?  You'd think the BBC would be smarter than this.  C'mon you're giving something away for free that you should be charging them for (ad space).  You're losing money on this deal while also contributing to the blurring of the line between news and advertising.  Shame on you.  I expect better of the BBC (but unfortunately I think this is quite common for them and many other news outlets).

Newsflash: New Study by PR industry says making ads appear like hard news increases profits! (duh!)

On language and society

The survey project is on hold until I get more frequent access to internet service.  In the meantime here are some thoughts on language and society because my friend Paul V sent me a link to this page about gender-neutral language and asked what I thought about it. 

I think that it's interesting because language is not a static thing (and thank goodness we don't have a regulatory body for the English language like I hear they have in France for French because then it'd really be a radical concept to conceive of language as something immensely democratic).  Language seems to be the ultimate democratic movement.  It is truly of the people and by the people.  It's always in flux and it reflects the society which created it.  Which makes sense until you think about how language shapes thought as well --as any good constructivist will tell you.  And then you get to realize that if society creates language then language equally creates society as well; they are mutually constitutive.  So it's a chicken and egg argument.

Which leads to the short answer: I think we will have a gender-neutral language when we have a gender-neutral society and vice versa.

So is it "worth it" to try to promote the use of gender neutral terms?  Honestly I don't really know.  I think it can't hurt.  I do it in some situations.  I say "they" a lot for a non-specific unknown person, even if that person is singular and not plural.  Technically it's currently incorrect grammatically but it didn't used to be a few hundred years ago.  (I learned that in a linguistics class and I'll try to get a citation for it soon).  That one change solves like 99% of everyday non-gender-neutral language I've found.  Letter carrier instead of mailman is another one I've used.

When I most run into non-gender-neutral language is in church.  They sing the doxology in the Mennonite church I go to.  I say "Creator, Son and Holy Ghost" instead of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" in the last line.  And I change the Hail Mary slightly when I pray the rosary (yes, I do that sometimes): Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you AND ALL women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus".  I think the orthodox version says blessed are you AMONG women.

My linguistics professor used to talk about prescriptive grammarians versus descriptive grammarians, the latter being those who describe the way people talk and the former being those who try to get people to talk a certain way.  She said prescriptive grammarians are kinda out of vogue right now and haven't been very successful in getting the unruly masses to "talk right".  Language evolves naturally; it's really hard to direct it.  With that in mind, I might argue that putting one's efforts into creating a feminist society is just as if not more useful than trying to get people to talk a certain way or use feminist or gender-neutral words.  But it's also nice to help things along a bit if you can.  But that's just my opinion.

Survey says!

I remember one time, not long after George Jr. stole the 2000 election (or maybe it was after he was elected in 2004) I was despairing about the state of the world and what would become of it with such a man put in charge of the most powerful country on the planet and a friend of mine said, "I remember when Reagan was elected we felt the same way".  Really, I said, what did you do? I asked him.  "We got through it".  Just that.  We got through it.  And I felt better.  I began to see that this wasn't the first time something absolutely horrible had happened.  Terrible things have happened before and people get through it.  Some individuals might give up, but social change, collective action does not stop.

Now the end of the reign of Bush is within sight.  I thought this day would never come.  His poll numbers are in the pits; for the first time in my life the majority of the US population appear to be against war (I just wish they coulda figured it out sooner; woulda saved so many lives).  I went to an anti-war vigil a few weeks ago and it was nice to be on the winning side for a change.  Most passersby supported us.

We got through it.  Two terms the worst president in US history (thanks bin Laden for making the second term possible!) and we got through it.

This is project is still in its formative stages, so nothing's set in stone yet.  The idea is to talk to a bunch of activists, especially older people or people who've been active for many years and collect their stories about how they got to where they are today, what they've learned over the years and what keeps them going through difficult times.  Because we could use that kind of long-term perspective.

So I've interviewed five people so far.  They're sorta like my trial run --you know the practice interviews you do while still working out the kinks-- but I've gotten such good stuff tonight I really want to use it somehow.  You might get a transcript here or at least some excerpts.

I've got about five or six questions depending on how the interview was going and the interviews take about 5-10 minutes.

I recorded the interviews on a digital tape recorder.

The Questions:

1.) If you'd like, you can state your name and maybe your age.
2.) Where are you from?
3.) What do you do?
4.) How long have you done it?
5.) What was the defining moment or moments in your life when you felt like you really understood the world in a way you hadn't before?  How did it change you or what was your response to this shift in perspective?
6.) From your own personal experience being a political activist, working for political change, what was the most unexpected thing that you learned?
7.)  What's your take on the world now?
8.)  What would you say to young activists today to help them get through difficult times?

I think I'd like to change number 6 to this:

"From your own personal experience working for political change, what was the most surprising thing that you discovered about the process of working in an organized movement?"

That should yield some interesting responses!  I can't wait to ask people that one!

Maybe I'll post my own answers to the questions tomorrow so watch this space and --please-- if anyone out there reading this wants to contribute feel free to put your answers in the comment section below.

Substandard housing makes me mad

This makes me mad.  North Central Florida is filled with many migrant farmworkers, many of whom are illegal and all of whom are extremely poor and vulnerable.  And you have assholes like this who prey on them:

"[Pierson Town Council] Chairman [Samuel] Bennett has been cited for persistent violations of state law during the past 15 years. His mobile homes, rented to farmworkers and inspected under the less-stringent state law governing all mobile home parks, have been cited for infractions ranging from raw sewage flowing around the mobile homes and exposed electrical wires to roach infestations, according to Volusia County Health Department records. He has never paid a fine, records show." (Daytona Beach News-Journal).

Sounds like Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life.

What we need is a Bailey Building and Loan to provide decent, safe, affordable housing for people.  What is a building and loan?  Why don't we have things like this today?  Or do we?... hmmm... a Google search for a CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution) revealed this from wikipedia:

"A CDFI may take one of several different forms: community development bank, community development credit union, community development loan fund (including microloan funds), or community development venture capital company.

One of the best illustrations of a CDFI is provided by the film, It's a Wonderful Life. The Bailey Brothers Building & Loan Association is shown as a vital source of financial services and loans to the working class and immigrants in Bedford Falls, helping them to graduate from being renters of Mr. Potter's slums to homeowners themselves."

I wonder if something like this exists in North Central Florida. 

Citizens are activists are citizens.

I was reading the last book of the semester this past week and having trouble getting into it for some reason even though it was a book called "Transnational Protest and Global Activism" and it was about the global justice movement.  (It even called it that "the global justice movement" not the "anti-globalization movement" which I appreciated immensely.  That "anti-globalization" term irks me to no end.  I think because it so effectively obscures both the phenomena and the popular reactions against it that it's hard to have a coherent debate about it!)

Anyway, it was a collection of essays by these various sorts of scholars who were all trying to understand/analyze/explain the (relatively) recent manifestations of the global justice movements (Seattle in '99, Prague, Cancun, Miami etc.).  Mostly it was pretty dull reading for my taste.  They didn't really tell me anything I didn't know and other than feeling a little weird for being (or having been) part of the social phenomena they were studying I didn't find the book useful at all. 

Now it's not readily apparent that the term "activist" is problematic.  I used to call myself an activist.  No big deal.  But reading this book and its descriptions of these sorts of people known as activists got me thinking.  Even though the authors were (relatively) sympathetic, they were unwittingly reproducing a conservative framework by using the terms and definitions they used, which were terms and definitions taken from the social movements literature.

To explain, we can examine volume editor Donatella della Porta’s definition of social movements as “composed of networks of groups and activists, with an emerging identity, involved in conflictual issues, using mainly unconventional forms of participation” (177) beginning with the term “activist”, which presumably refers to people who take political action.  Democracies theoretically are based upon political participation by the masses; they require such participation or they cease to be democracies.  Activists then, are citizens who participate in the democratic process.   Anyone who at least goes to the polls on election day is an “activist”.  The inclusion of the phrase  “involved in conflictual issues” is redundant.  Examining and debating issues is the job of the citizenry which is just another way of saying (again) that they are politically active, (not to mention that the term “conflictual” has negative connotations).

But she goes further to say “unconventional forms of participation”.  That creates a distinction between “activist” and “citizen”.  Activists aren’t just politically active they are “unconventionally” so.  But who decides what is a “conventional” way of being politically active and what is an “unconventional” way?  Is letter-writing unconventional?  How about organizing a sit-in?   Today's unconventional is tomorrow's convention.  It is irrelevant whether a mode of political participation is conventional or unconventional.  It’s all political phenomena.

The separation of the adjective “active” from the concept of “citizen” is political.  One is a passive noun with connotations of obedience, moderation and responsibility.  The other is active, with connotations of abnormality, aggression (or at least assertiveness), excess and irresponsibility.  Della Porta’s definition including the use of “unconventional forms of participation” reinforces this impression and privileges some forms of political action over others.  This is a mistake.  There's no empirical evidence to justify doing this.  It's purely arbitrary and it's immensely disempowering to divorce the notion of action from the concept of citizenship.  It's inherently undemocratic.

In contrast, if we look at understanding the popular uprisings against neoliberal economic globalization and its effects in terms of democratic participation on a global level, there are fewer conundrums to try to figure out.  It’s not hierarchical and organized because we wouldn’t expect the random reactions of a democratic populace to be hierarchical and organized.  If the people speak and act in a relatively unified way it’s not necessarily because there is a “social movement” but because they have similar interests --in this case, because all are hurt in some way by the globalization of capitalism.  So of course there are New York feminists in league with unionists in Michigan in league with environmentalists in Germany in league with campesinos in Chiapas.  They are all together not because they've suddenly figured out a new way to organize a global movement but because they are all are responding to the multi-faceted face of neoliberal economic liberalization (global capitalism).

In other words, globalized capitalism contains the seed of its own destruction and this is it!

So is this just some purely academic debate?  Who cares what a bunch of academics think?  What does this mean for us, for regular old people?  It means we have to normalize dissent.  We have to --by our own language-- bring action back into the concept of citizenry.  In a participatory democracy citizenship is inherently active!

We who take political action are not activists.  We are citizens.  We are not radicals disillusioned with "conventional" means of protest (voting) driven to politics by other means (street protests).  We are citizens doing exactly what citizens are supposed to do and whatever tool of political action we choose to use in a given situation (vote, write letters, organize a sit-in or commit civil disobedience, even stage an overthrow of the government) doesn't matter.  Political action is political action and human beings have used all sorts of means over the years; it's all political.  Doesn't mean there can't be disputes over which tactic is appropriate at any given time in any given situation.  Morality and strategical questions will come into consideration with each one.  But to make a distinction, to privilege some forms of political action over others --or worse to separate the connotation of action from the concept of citizen-- is erroneous, inaccurate and undemocratic.

The rest of the world has so much to teach us

I learn so much from other people.  Especially from people in other countries.  I was just talking to a friend of mine in Colombia and I was telling him about a dream I had the other night in which there was another terrorist attack and the affected area stretched from Bogota to Tulsa, Oklahoma (so yes, straight up through Central America and not affecting the east coast of the U.S.) and at the same time (or maybe it was part of the terrorist attack) the US invaded Cuba and Colombia both.  He laughed and said your country, always looking for enemies!  And I told him it makes sense that we'd invade Cuba but Colombia?? no way and he said he didn't think that the US would invade Cuba either and I said why not? He said like Iran and North Korea, it's not as weak as Iraq was and the US only invades very weak countries that won't put up much of a fight.  And I said yes, of course but why do you say Cuba is not an easy target?  And he said oh they have a good navy!  I laughed. 

Well that may be but we're talking about the military of the most powerful country in the world, the only remaining hegemon.  The US probably spends more on the military budget here than all of Cuba's GNP en total.  Venezuela would come to their defense, sure but Cuba alone wouldn't stand a chance.
And he said well it wouldn't be Cuba alone Venezuela would cut off the oil to the US and then they'd call in the rest of OPEC too and all together they'd compose a formidable front, [one that the US wouldn't want to take on, even if they weren't already bogged down in Irak, because the US likes easy targets].

And he's totally right of course (I have smart friends) but it made me realize something really interesting.  Or several interesting things actually that are all connected...

1.) that when you think about the power of countries individually, it's not the same as thinking about the power of countries in the context of the global comunity.  If we just look at the US it can knock us off our feet in terms of the overwhelming power they have militarily.  The world's only super power etc.  The amount of money we spend on our military to maintain our privileged position in the world that dwarfs what other countries spend in their entire budgets.  Now it's good not to be illusioned and to recognize that it is a very powerful country but I think the danger lies in the fact that when you only look at the US this way it can get very discouraging and lead to a sense of hopelessness and despair.  Hopelessness and despair are essentially conservative states of being because they lead to inaction.  That's why they say "hope is revolutionary".  Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. had a lot of hope in the face of some very despairing political situations.  Where would we be if they had despaired?

So I think we make a big mistake when we try to look at the power of countries individually without putting them into their contexts.  If you look at Cuba individually it is a David against our Goliath.  But if you look at Cuba with all their allies in the world suddenly that David grows very strong, and Goliath hesitates.

I think that during all my time studying international relations I have had a tendency to look at countries individually and with the exception of China I've despaired of any other country ever being a match for the US.  After that conversation with my friend I realized well, duh.  If the US really thought we could invade Cuba we'd have done so a long time ago.  And even after Castro dies we won't do it (that part of the dream reflected a real preocupation on my part).  There *are* limits to this hegemon's power.

2.) that even though I try to be progressive and think outside the box and not see the world only from the vantage point of being inside the Empire that I still have tendencies towards some very hegemonic ways of thinking like overlooking the power of collective action.

3.) what are hegemonic ways of thinking anyway?  It's the habit of viewing the world from a particular (hegemonic) vantage point.  So in that case, it makes me want to re-examine a discussion I had a long time ago on this blog about whether or not there is such a thing as white culture.  Maybe there is such a thing as hegemonic culture that affects all the members of a particular privileged group or ruling class. 

I'm not sure how much anyone who grows up within a particular Empire can ever completely purge themselves of hegemonic thinking but I think we can try and get close and one of the ways we can do it is by expanding our circles of input.  Meaning visiting or living in other countries, talking with friends or families members in other countries and reading on a regular basis foreign media.  Anything you can do to get non-hegemonic viewpoints will help.  That was a very long segueway into this: there is a website called WatchingAmerica.com that regularly scours the foreign press from all over the globe for articles related to the US and collects them in one place and translates them into English so that we can expand our circle of information a little bit farther than the domestic media.  There's a whole world out there that doesn't take the same things as givens that we do.  So check it out, see what the rest of the world is saying about us.  Here's an example