Showing posts with label difficult dialogues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label difficult dialogues. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Don't Feed the Trolls


I’m watching footage of the anti-Milo Yiannopoulos protest at Berkeley and wondering what the demonstrators hope to accomplish. Yiannopoulos is a troll; his words and ideas offend me. But even more offensive is the notion that some people would try to shut him down from speaking - in the birthplace of the 60s-era Free Speech Movement.

Some folks will surely disagree with me, perhaps retorting that “hate speech” is not protected speech. Yet I recall an even more odious demonstration of hate in 1977 when members of the Nazi Party of America planned to march through Skokie, a predominantly Jewish neighborhood north of Chicago. People in that community had every right to be outraged at this intrusion. But as the ACLU argued before the Supreme Court, even the most patently offensive speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.

There are, of course, reasonable limitations to free speech. Child pornography is not free speech. Libel is not free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not free speech. There are other entirely sound exceptions. But surely one should have the right to speak one’s piece in a public place - even as one must be willing to consider the words of others with whom one disagrees. This, not Donald Trump, is what makes America “great.”

Our institutions are threatened enough by Trump’s occupation of the presidency. Let’s not join him and his minions in efforts to tear down our cherished liberties. We must resist bad speech, yes, but not with coercion. We must fight Trump, Yiannopoulos, and other trolls with better ideas.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Professing in the Age of Trump

How should a professor respond to the Age of Trump?

Many of us are understandably frustrated by the bad ideas coming out of Washington D.C. these days, in the form of unqualified cabinet selections, impulsive policy statements, and unhinged late-night tweets. We recognize the danger of our current national mood and feel duty-bound to respond with every tool at our disposal. And, no doubt, to be a professor, whether during these troubled times or in more halcyon days, one must first and foremost profess. It is an obligation woven into the title. Yet, now more than ever, we must attempt a difficult balance.

On the one hand, the act of being a professor, hardly a passive privilege but rather an active responsibility, emerges from the Latin reference to working in the world: to “lay claim to, declare openly." It is a declaration of one’s expertise, measured against public standards; it is a statement that one knows. Yet there is another meaning, public, yes, but also much more personal: the “profession” that one believes.

Socrates, pious citizen and iconoclastic gadfly, understood the difficulties of straddling both positions when he was called before the Athenian assembly to answer charges that, among other crimes, he had confounded the youth of his city with his rhetorical wiles. To be fair, Socrates would retort that he was no sophist, that he was a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. Putting aside this argument for a moment, we may still yet recall that when he was threatened with fines, imprisonment, and ultimately death, Socrates knew that he could not rely on mere dialectic to save him. He knew that he could not be “saved” at all if he were to honor what he professed. He would speak, publicly and dangerously, to profess both what he knew and what he believed.

This ancient convergence of knowledge and belief calls to mind a contemporary conundrum facing the university professor. In our classrooms, we call upon our disciplinary knowledge to convey what is known in our fields. Of course, knowledge is fraught with debate. Fact-claims reside within and emerge from ongoing questions that remain to be settled, they are shaped by epistemological and paradigmatic filters, and, most importantly, they are subject to violent repudiation - though not by “alternative facts,” that absurdly flippant excuse offered by Trump Counselor Kellyanne Conway for administration hacks’ willingness to confuse fact with conjecture. No, facts are rightly repudiated by our merciless efforts to test them and reveal, not with passion but by method, that what is fact today may be falsehood tomorrow. Our willingness to submit our claims to peer review is a necessary standard that demonstrates the degree of our professionalism.


At the same time, abstract facts are used for concrete purposes, to build things, to formulate policy, to impact human lives. It is one thing, after all, to know the effect of carbon emissions on the planet; it is another thing entirely to advocate for their reduction because that kind of professing - that kind of advocacy - resides less in fact than in value (the comparative value of human life over corporate greed, for example). And values are not facts. Values emerge from that other manner of belief that called for Socrates to speak against the prevailing wisdom of the assembly, even at the risk of his life. And this is where the question becomes particularly thorny. Because values in a democracy (which is itself both a manner of government and an aspiration for human affairs) are not tested as facts; they are tested by our ability to persuade, to profess our beliefs not as facts but as ideal possibilities.

The professor’s dilemma, then, is the struggle between one’s identification of facts and one’s advocacy for beliefs. There are few other jobs where those terms blur so easily. Certainly, few of our students would confuse us with priests extolling holy writ from our lecterns. But our power to measure their educational outcomes through the act of grading makes for a grave responsibility. How we meet that responsibility - indeed, how we define it - can hardly be resolved to universal satisfaction. But we must try our best to define our terms and defend our stances, publicly, if only that we may benefit from hearing the perspectives of others.

Speaking therefore as one professor, I hold that the classroom, certainly one located in the humanities and social sciences, should as much as possible be treated as a microcosm of public life where each student is encouraged to craft meaningful articulations of the facts and beliefs as they understand them. As professors, we are called to introduce students to many of those facts, along with some of their more useful frameworks. But we should not abuse that power by encouraging students to confuse beliefs (neither ours nor theirs) with facts. No doubt we should share our beliefs, profess them without shame. But our students require first that we demonstrate a democratic tolerance for debate and an open-minded appreciation for contrasting opinion.

Some might say that this perspective demonstrates intellectual cowardice, that this day demands that we transform our classrooms into tools that may dismantle the creeping (and sometimes nakedly obvious) crisis of the Trump Age. I sympathize with that position. Indeed, I believe that Trump is not only ill-informed but that his occupation of the presidency is illegitimate. And I recognize that resistance to that which one both knows and believes to be wrong may take many forms. But for now I can imagine no better response to the anti-democratic impulses of his administration than a bravely democratic stance, to teach my students to listen to the opinions of others, to parse those opinions for the validity of stated facts and the utility of stated beliefs, and to debate them, publicly and with confidence. The story of our country, after all, is one of bad ideas holding sway for a while before ultimately being won over by good ones.

In response to an illegitimate president who mocks our values and fears our democracy, this is one professor who will speak out and push back. I will support allies in all sorts of public action to resist Trump and return our country to a positive, humane course. At the same time, I will attempt to live that difficult balance in my classroom, to encourage students to practice the principles that Trump repudiates. We will listen to each other, learn from each other, and inspire each other to speak authentically and honestly about what we believe, even at the risk of encountering opinions that strike us as wrong. We will practice that virtuous profession that counters falsity with fact while respecting the fundamental humanity of our interlocutors. No matter how wrong our opponents may be, as we define that term, we will engage them in the marketplace of ideas, not with force but with persuasion, not with hate but with love. And then, not easily, not without pain, but eventually, we will win.

Lectern image from Amazon

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Guest Post: Grow Heathrow

The following is a guest post from "Eddy," a friend I met while attending my fourth Salzburg Global Seminar. As you’ll shortly see, "Eddy" offers a practical, personal, and thoughtful form of engagement with the sometime overwhelmingly complex realities of global capitalism. When he shared these notes with me, I asked for permission to repost them here. 

Transition Heathrow
I’m currently staying/participating at a squatted site called Grow Heathrow. It is proving to be quite an important time for me. Politically affirming. I came here to learn skills, connect with others who have similar ideas about how we provide for ourselves, and give my support to a cause/project I’m passionate about. The squat originated from a need to confront the proposed plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The government in the UK has been looking at airport expansion for a while now – there’s still talk as to where this expansion will take place. If they opt for Heathrow, they’ll have to remove the squatters from this land and tarmac over the village of Sipson; one of the principal aims of the project is to instill community resistance in Sipson against Heathrow Airport Holdings (formerly British Airports Authority), if they come knocking.

The attitude here is great. People are focused. It's a working squat. People arrive for many reasons. I'm here to work. That’s where my head is at the moment - I want to be productive, to be useful. Other visitors are here to enjoy themselves, relax and talk with others. This is a haven for free thought - a space to breathe for those disillusioned with materialism.

Here there’s no room for the workings of capital - no pressure to work the 9 to 5. It is a kind of political expression that directly challenges labour, the 9 to 5 grind. It is this kind of political expression that interests me at the moment, as opposed to attending the monthly anti-war protest/demonstration. Protest is important, but we must also set the agenda. ‘If all we do is oppose what they are trying to do, then we simply follow in their footsteps’.[1] We need to carry on with our activity that isn’t determined by money. We must dedicate ourselves to what we consider necessary or desirable. We must live the world we want to create.[2] Besides, protesting wipes me out (as I recently experienced at the protest against Fracking at Balcome). Not sure I want to devote my time and energy to protests, where we shout, confront police etc. It's not in my nature to use physical force against other humans. Probably too middle class. It's not in my nature to shout about things, sing chants, etc. Perhaps if it's a cause that really riles me up, then I might reconsider.

At the squat there is a non-hierarchical, anarchistic set up. No one is instructed to work. People work when they feel ready to. There are always tasks to be done. People wake up, a group gets together, starts talking - momentum starts to build and we work on a project. And we work hard. But it doesn't feel like work. Because we’re there at our own will, because it’s a cause we believe in, there’s such camaraderie in our collective work. It’s fun and social. What great conversations emerge during work. Working together on something, where there’s a common goal, an objective, sometimes sparks more interesting conversations than assembling with the intention to socialise. During the summer there seems to be a huge flux of international travellers who have heard about the project. The squat reminds me of travelling in hostels – spaces to socialise, unwind and talk idealistically.

Transition Heathrow
A working mind is a healthy mind. People are happy when they're productive, when they're being useful. Their self-esteem grows, their self-confidence and sense of value to the group benefits. During this first month, I have easily forgiven those who have not managed to work and contribute fully.  There will be a long history of reasons as to why some are able to contribute more than others. Those that don't, we should have sympathy for and try to understand why, rather than resent them. I guess I am just grateful I have this working mind, this motivation. I've only been here for a month, and my feelings on this may change. Without special resolve and grit, I imagine it is easy to lose patience over time.

The experience thus far is fulfilling a personal need to experiment with new forms of social relations outside capitalism. Grow Heathrow is an open project with plenty space for people to join the site. Contrary to other squats, it is the project that brings the inhabitants of the site together, rather than a group of friends. This kind of experiment in communal living has its rewards and challenges. There are those that use this space as some kind of refuge from some torment in their lives outside the squat. Although they are often unable to contribute to the collective in a variety of ways, the space must try to accommodate their distress. The community must do its upmost to prevent looking inwards. One older lady, who was previously in a mental institution, has benefitted immensely from gardening, working outdoors and being with people. She tells me how lonely she gets in the evenings on her own in her flat. Living communally trumps any discomfort from sleeping without a mattress.

The squat relies on solar panels and a wind turbine for its electricity, has no running hot water from the tap (although an impressive warm shower wood burner has been built) and there’s a compost toilet on site, minimising water usage. Almost all the food consumed is either grown on site, taken from bins outside supermarkets, or from food wholesalers giving away waste food. I must say, I do get a sense of gladness as I walk about doing my daily activity without barely any ecological footprint.

After 5 months in Salzburg (or rather a lifetime) of talking about the problems of the world, and what needs to be done, I am finally in a living and working arrangement that satisfies my political need to get to grips with the ‘doing’. When I wake up in the morning I feel as though I’m in the right place. At least for now. We’ll see how it goes this autumn.

The land that the community is occupying is up for eviction. So there is that added insecurity that for some residents makes long term-commitment/planning difficult. Indeed, their innate instability and transitory nature is a key criticism of squatted social centres. I seem to forget that bailiffs could start breaking through the gate any minute. Part of me doesn’t believe it will happen: Who would break-up such a peaceful, well-meaning, environmental project? I come across as naïve to some of the old-time squatters, who tell me I’ll soon understand what we’re fighting against when I see the State use its might to destroy any dissenting activity. Property is king. I wonder where I’ll be, what I’ll do when we’re being evicted. I probably won’t know how I’ll react until it’s happening. Can physical force ever be successful against the State? History shows that violence and aggression is what it often does best. Why play them at their own game? But if someone is evicting you from your home - if I develop some emotional attachment to this place - there’s no knowing how one might react.

Transition Heathrow

[1] Holloway, J. 2010. Crack Capitalism. London: Pluto Press, p.3.

[2] Holloway, J. 2010. Crack Capitalism. London: Pluto Press, pp. 3-4.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Communicating with Millenials

I was just invited to submit an abstract for a potential panel about Millenials to be presented at our forthcoming National Communication Association conference. Here's the direction I might go:

Communicating with Millenials: Closing the Loop with the Always-On-But-Never-Quite-There Generation

This paper examines the pleasures and occasional frustrations of communicating with today's college students. The author begins with an analysis of how contemporary mobile media technologies intersect with the social needs of Millenial students, highlighting elements of anxiety and control that reflect broader cultural dimensions. The author continues by analyzing transcripts from a focus group of students invited to discuss and reflect upon their communication habits and expectations, especially those arising when they interact with faculty members. Finally the author proposes practical strategies for connecting with Millenials: an approach that starts with understanding and the presumption of mutual regard but also offers hope that some basic decorum need not become a lost art.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Don't like your review? It's time to sue!

I'm gobsmacked.

An Israeli lecturer named Karin N. Calvo-Goller is suing a German law professor named Thomas Weigend for his temerity to pen a less than glowing review of her book, The Trial Proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Calvo-Goller is also suing the book U.S. review editor for not taking down the offending evaluation.

Writing in the New York Times Adam Liptak crystalizes the craziness: "France is an odd place to adjudicate a claim concerning a review written in English by a German professor of a book written in English by an author living in Israel. The book was, moreover, published by a Dutch firm. The review was published on a Web site in New York. True, Ms. Calvo-Goller is a French citizen. But still."

The French court that accepted the case will announce its verdict on March 3.

Read the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22bar.html

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Tonight's State of the Union

Wary promises that some members of congress might break tradition and deign to organize themselves in groups not aligned solely to exacerbate our deep cultural divide do little to assuage the sense that the state of our union is anything but strong. No, we're not in Civil War-mode, not really. Heck, I imagine that folks who endured the 60s could point to even more profound fissures in our nation a mere four decades ago. Still, President Obama faces a large and rowdy contingent of lawmakers who seem more indebted to Tea Party bombthrowing than to managing the people's business.

Health care reform (remember that?) is getting wound up for a second serving of anything-goes partisanship. Threats of a government shutdown are echoing through the halls of Congress (as opposed to the plodding of tourists who are now safely isolated from much the Capital Building - another loss to our grim post-9/11 world). And then there are various wingnut committee chairs bent on raining two years of nonstop investigatory fury on a president they'd cheerfully send to a Guantanamo Bay if they could. They presume, I suppose, that all this poison will bleed dry once the other side takes over, that then they'll do half the things they promised their constituents ("Department of Education? Sold to the University of Phoenix. IRS? New headquarters for the Chamber of Commerce!"

Pundits will opine that tonight's State of the Union will mark a major milestone in the Obama presidency - maybe one of those "make or break moments." Yeah. Problem is, they all are. Each speech is a crisp, clear moment of clarity that somehow blurs into the muddy maw of legal wrangling, vicious brinksmanship, pious grandstanding, and guilty handwringing that defines American politics these days. Just how screwed up have things become? Here's a clue: Some people say that Ronald Reagan couldn't get the GOP nomination now; he'd be damned for being too liberal. If that's not a sign that the state of our union is really a mess, I don't know what is.

So good luck, Mr. President. We need it.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

If the facts don't fit the theory...

One of my favorite Simpsons lines comes from Kent Brockman, blow-dried anchor of Springfield's local news, who famously rants, " I've said it before and I'll say it again - Democracy simply doesn't work!" I'll hold off on the deeper political philosophy behind that statement and simply share an article that has been waiting on my to-read pile since last year: Joe Keochane's Boston Globe piece, "How Facts Backfire."

Summarizing research from the University of Michigan, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and other institutions, the article tackles the notion that a well informed citizenry produces good decisions. Current research, it seems, indicates an alternative vision, suggesting that facts can sometimes bolster falsehoods rather than challenge them. A pertinent quote:

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."

Keochane explains that this response - initially a redoubt against cognitive dissonance - is called "backfire," a mode in which a person measures the validity of a fact against a belief and either amends or ignores the fact in case of conflict [recalling a phrase often - likely incorrectly - attributed to Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."]. Backfire increases, Keochane says, in cases of information overload and with persons whose ideologies are especially connected to their senses of self. The result: "misinformed people often have some of the strongest political opinions."

One final sobering quotation: "In an ideal world, citizens would be able to maintain constant vigilance, monitoring both the information they receive and the way their brains are processing it. But keeping atop the news takes time and effort. And relentless self-questioning, as centuries of philosophers have shown, can be exhausting. Our brains are designed to create cognitive shortcuts -- inference, intuition, and so forth -- to avoid precisely that sort of discomfort while coping with the rush of information we receive on a daily basis. Without those shortcuts, few things would ever get done. Unfortunately, with them, we’re easily suckered by political falsehoods."

Read more How Facts Backfire

Thursday, February 18, 2010

You, Disconnected

That cheesy seventies flick Logan's Run is proving to be a pretty good predictor of the future. I'm not referring to tacky DayGlo mumus or that whole "death after thirty" thing. I'm talking about the film's depiction of The Circuit. Remember that scene?
"Imagine a world in which you need never be alone. You touch a switch, turn a dial, and the perfect lover steps into your arms" [film trailer link].
The fantasy of instant connection, with interactive vividness and editable boundaries, is Logan's Run's promise of the 23rd century. Certainly it'll be awhile before we can shop for real live humans, inviting strangers to step into our rooms. But at least there's Chatroulette.

Check out my video of Chatroulette encounters [select HD for best quality]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-JBOtyO4tQ

The wildly popular micro-social networking site, growing so rapidly that some analysts believe it's already passed the so cool-so lame threshold, has shimmered on my mental periphery for a few weeks, but I only had time last night to play.

In case you're unfamiliar with the site, Chatroulette is a bare bones webcam network, supposedly invented by a Moscow teenager [NYT story], that lets you hook up with random strangers worldwide for Single-Serving Friendships, lightly voyeuristic displays, or disturbingly kinky encounters.

Like the looks of this person? Stick around.

Feeling mildly freaked? Or annoyed? Or bored? Click to the next one.

I messed around with Chatroulette for a few hours last night. Jenny, of course, was not impressed. She looked over my shoulder for a few minutes and then marched off to bed, announcing that the whole idea creeps her out.

The next morning, I'm flipping through screen captures I surreptitiously grabbed with my laptop (it's amazing how easy it is to sexualize human-computer interaction). The screen-grabs are souvenirs of fellow-travelers willing to share after-hours microbursts of connection with me on the Circuit (one New York Magazine author citing the "Twitter-fication of face-to-face interaction" [link]). I can still see them.

Oh, and the penises. Lots of penises. I definitely remember a few of those. I'm writing this post now with the application open, occasionally peaking at the Chatroulette page for inspiration. About one in 20 clicks yields some guy's junk, usually being furiously yanked. Sometimes the scene is less overt though: maybe an underwear-covered crotch or a set of exposed abs, flexed, waiting...

Most Chatroulette clicks produce video-snapshots of grainy faced guys sitting alone in the dark, a hand stretched out of view. Wait long enough and one will stare intently into the camera. A two-tone chirp and then a red-text "Hi" pops up in the chat window.

Where's that "Next" button?
> You disconnected.
A brief wait as the next link is made. Then -
> Connected, feel free to talk now
A hipster surveys me and renders his judgment: "a big bushy beard." It takes me a while to connect the audio, but this dude's not in the mood for difficult dialogues. He's made his evaluation and there's nothing left to say. I decide to shave a bit later, realizing that I can't schlub my way around here. Most early adopters have already learned to frame themselves memorably. Not professionally in any sense, but with some style.

Next.

Kermit the Frog is masturbating to a video of plus-sized porn stars. A woman plops a mound of stomach flesh on a guy standing on all fours; Kermit gasps in amphibian pleasure. I've quickly learned why one author has described [link] Chatroulette as "like inviting pedophiles into your home."

While the site has been active for about three months, it's only crested public consciousness over the past few weeks. And I just know a hundred local television affiliates are racing to wrap up their newest iterations of "Do You Know What Your Kids Are Doing Online?" stories, with Chatroulette serving up the tangiest sweat of moral panic.

Next.

A photo this time: a bug-eyed infant. The sign reads "T**s for hungry baby." There are a lot of those actually, men and boys trolling for flashers. One guy writes, "I'll do ANYTHING for boobs." I come across a couple women who seem willing, but I don't care enough to ask. A Guardian writer opines [link]: "we seem to spend more time in our tribes and yet [are] happier than ever to let strangers glimpse our lives." No thanks. Not that kind of glimpse.

Next.

A teenage girl twirls her hair. She creases her brow, a nanosecond judgment, and the screen goes black.
> Your partner disconnected. Press "Next" to find a new person!
I get a lot of those, which is a little depressing. But I'm no better. Lots of folks suffer the indignity of my disconnects too, and sometimes for the silliest reasons. For example, I click-diss people who lack a sense of composition. That's right: new media demand new aesthetics. Position your head in a tiny quadrant of the screen? You won't last long with me. Too much negative space weirds me out.

Next.

Another penis. Oh, and this time he's going for a money shot.

Next.

A girl at a party. She smiles and lights a joint, blowing smoke in my video-screen face. This one's much cheerier than the girl who castigated me three or four clicks back. One look and she turned to her pal, pronouncing, "This one is quite elderly," before addressing me directly: "Why are you here with us? Think of your daughters." A few clicks later and I'm at another party of teenage twinks. One squeals, "Dad! I thought I told you to stay off this thing!"

Is it my -?

Next.

Chatroulette's night rhythm is a stream of eye-blink moments. Automate the next-click option and one stranger after another peers into my life. An Internet Tough Guy menaces, "What the f*** you lookin' at, man?" Click. A girl in panties lays next to her naked boyfriend. Click. A blurry, pixelated dude, his face eerily luminescent, like he's beamed in from a 60s'-era lunar broadcast, dangles a bag of weed from his fingers. Click. An older guy nods and offers a wan thumbs-up. Click. A hottie wearing a tight leather mini-skirt -
> You disconnected.
Ooops! What did I just miss? Oh well, no time for regrets. Now some guy is hoisting a squeeze-bottle. It's brimming with a thick green substance. He's about to squeeze. He smiles.
> You disconnected.
> Looking for a random stranger...

Thursday, January 28, 2010

2010 State of the Union

It's hard to react to last night's State of the Union speech, because it fulfilled its expectations so thoroughly and - I fear - so pointlessly.

Once more, President Obama delivered a broadly scoped, reasonably detailed, and occasionally artful address that said many of the things that must be said. I particularly appreciated the president's respectful yet direct engagement with the Supreme Court - some of whom were sitting feet away from him - just days after they handed down a singularly disastrous decision that further cedes our country to corporate control. The sum of Obama's speech was a reality-check for the nation and its new leader, a frozen moment of America's increasingly difficult dialogue about its future.

Last night's address introduced us to Obama chastened, a leader forced to profess empathy for fickle voters who seem perplexed that an economic crisis built over the past decade has not somehow vanished by the snap of his fingers. The government will cinch its belt, he promised. Better yet, bailout-banks will start paying the same late fees that cash-strapped Americans have long endured. And we will once again pledge to shrink the debt that has transformed our nation from powerhouse to poorhouse, like an alcoholic swearing off the juice when morning comes, just as we always promise.

Along the way, Obama admitted that comprehensive health care reform, that shimmering Brigadoon of the American imagination, will once again vanish into the mist. Abandoning hopes of universal coverage, the president ushered the nation down the well-groomed trail of compromised incrementalism. We may see a few improvements in health care delivery - apparently the First Lady is tackling childhood obesity - but the systemic faults that profit the insurance industry while plundering American budgets will almost surely remain.

You can bet that the wingnuts on both sides of the political spectrum will continue calling the president a fraud or a fascist, either because he does too little or too much. They didn't need to see the speech to know where they stand. Yet I imagine that most listeners recognized the president's efforts to define some kind of middle ground in American discourse. During the speech, Obama challenged the assembled Congress to think past its prejudices: "We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together."

Did his speech do any good? It's hard to say. But judging from reactions and broader political realities, I don't think so.

Republicans generally set on their hands whenever the president veered from generically popular themes such as tax reduction or troop appreciation, when they weren't otherwise smirking to themselves. And Democrats were little better. Yes, they stood and applauded. Glowingly, supportively. Still, I'm certain that members of the president's party mostly daydreamed about their own concerns. Even as they clapped and cheered, they seemed to peer past the peaks of Obama's oratory, fixing their eyes into the abyss of a suddenly vicious election cycle. Holding congress is the highest priority for a permanent political class.

Thinking back to the Massachusetts debacle, many Dems were thinking to themselves, even as the president called for a new national consensus, "Yeah, but when is the next former nude model who drives a pickup gonna appear on the scene? And will he come gunning for me?" Solving the problems of a generation means less to these folks than fundraising for 2010.

So President Obama delivered another fine speech. As usual, I watched and listened and marveled about how wonderful it is to have a national leader who reflects the complexity of our national aspirations: vision and practicality, confidence and humility, forbearance and courage. While many of my friends on the Right seem hellbent on transforming the president into a bumper sticker caricature, I still believe he's the best person for a lousy time.

Thus, to me it seems less a question of whether our nation can be saved. In an era of partisan bickering and popular disengagement, the question is more fundamental: Do we deserve to be saved?

Monday, January 25, 2010

Talking About Suicide

Warning: This post deals with the topic of suicide. It includes autobiographical narratives but does not offer any particular wisdom or advice. Suicide is a topic of personal interest to me, but it does not reflect my area of professional expertise. Nor does it reflect the opinions or attitudes of any other person or entity. These words, and any errors they may contain, are mine alone.

If you are troubled by the fact that I'm dedicating a post to this topic, you may wish to avoid reading it.

And if you feel suicidal, or if you know someone who does, I encourage you to contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline [link]: 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Their service is free and anonymous.

----

Occasionally when I'm teaching my course "Rhetoric and Public Life" I think about suicide.

Perhaps that last phrase requires some clarification.

What I mean to say is this: I reflect upon the impact of suicide, which is generally a solitary decision made through the miasma of personal despair, upon the lives of family, friends, neighbors, and even strangers who hear that a person has killed her/himself. In this sense, suicide is a topic suitable for any discussion that includes "public life."

And no, I don't ask incredulously, "why could a person do such a thing?"

I know why.

One of my earliest memories from childhood starts with me waking up in the apartment of two friendly neighbors. I was about seven, and I remember feeling odd about the sensation of lifting my head from fancy silk pillows in a room I didn't recognize.

Two men walked softly into the room. I vaguely recognized them as the couple who lived in the apartment at the end of our row (in the '70s, I suppose, these two guys were considered "confirmed bachelors" - how things have changed). I wondered: Where am I?

I don't remember how I wound up in their apartment. But soon I came to understand that my mother, who must have been about 27 at the time, swallowed a fistful of pills. Somehow that night I was moved to my neighbors' place, which was filled with flowers and fancy knickknacks, and I was placed in their warm and comforting bed.

I have no idea who found my mother. I have no idea how she survived. Was hers a serious attempt or simply a cry for help? I never asked her.

In the time that followed, I was intermittently angry at my mom for threatening to leave me like that, in the hands of people I barely knew. And yet for years at a time I managed to overlook that night altogether. Still, I never really forgot.

Once, in a pique of teenage rage over something inconsequential, I hurled my mother's suicide attempt at her as a verbal attack. I don't remember her literally smacking me across the face in response; she might have just yelled. But I do remember the palpable feeling that her suicide attempt was no trifling matter.

Her effort to kill herself affected me in an existential way, but it was hers. It was personal. My mom always kept part of herself locked up tight. Even a moment in happier times that she described as somewhat close to a mystical encounter, one night at the beach under the stars when something happened to her, would never be fully explained to me. As outgoing as she was, my mother guarded herself carefully. She had few possessions in those years, but her suicide attempt was her property, not mine.

I therefore recognize the potential disrespect that I may inadvertently demonstrate by telling this story. I imagine that even now, years since she passed away in a hospital after entering for a basic procedure, my mom might be angered at my writing this - if the dead concern themselves with the living at all. I promise her, and you: I mean no disrespect.

In fact, I look back upon my mother as a strong, confident, courageous woman who dealt with drunken parents, violent boyfriends, unstable employment, and periods of poverty and homelessness with remarkable optimism and foresight. She raised a troubled son as best she could, wrenching our little family into a world of relative happiness and security with sacrifices that are in some ways unspeakable.

Eventually my mother married a kind man, and together they built a wonderful life. They traveled frequently and they enjoyed years in homes earned through their shared labors. I look back on early days when my mother quoted Scarlett O'Hara, a heroine with whom she personally identified: "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again" (she remarried for love, I know, but Sandra was always a practical woman). And I remember Mom's justly earned happiness with a man who treated her with kindness and for whom she was a good friend and companion. My mother's death, when it came, surprised and saddened me. But her passing concluded a life she lived on her own terms, with as much dignity as she could muster.

Of my grandmother's reasons to kill herself some years ago, I know much less. Hers was a hard life; at least that's what I remember. I recall flipping through old albums filled with black and white photos. Most were marked with names of people I never met: friends, neighbors, co-workers. I imagine my grandparents with their two children, my mother and her sister, living in Dunedin in the fifties and sixties. They had a boat, they played games at home, they sometimes went out to nice restaurants, they seemed to have a rich social life.

But my mother's parents drank so constantly that I remember them as violent and scary more than anything else. We lived with them for a few years - I've described this elsewhere - when we had nowhere else to go. We moved to my grandparents' house after my mother freed us from living with some lunatic who slept on the couch in our St. Petersburg apartment, when he wasn't beating the hell out of both of us. Living afterward with my grandparents offered some respite but little improvement.

As I've said, I know little about my grandmother. My aunt tells me that Charlene lost her own mother at age 9 and her father when she was 15. She married my grandfather shortly thereafter and promptly assumed the role of stay-at-home mom. Charlene tackled that job with determination, insisting on keeping a clean and orderly house. I'm told that no holiday table was complete without a suitable flower arrangement. Her daughters, my mother and aunt, were well cared for but also reminded of their duties to assume adult responsibilities when the time came. Both were promised college educations, with the proviso that financial support would end at age 21 or marriage, whichever came first.

I'm certain though that Charlene hardly imagined how one of her daughters would return to the old house, divorced, drowning in debt, and dragging a frustratingly mixed-up kid in tow. When she was sober, my Nana tended the house and to the needs of my grandfather and her unexpected house guests. I remember few times in which she was happy. I can't envision what she sought out of life, what she dreamed for herself as a little girl, but I doubt she found her ideal world in Dunedin.

After granddaddy died of a heart attack, Nana found a life with another man. He was a drunk, too. He didn't work, and he contributed little to the house. All he needed was a bindle on a stick to complete my mother's assessment: this guy was a bum. Funny thing though, our new house guest stayed for years and years. He too was a practical guy, and my mom came to understand him a little. This man wasn't evil, and he never mistreated my grandmother. He understood his place in the grand scheme of things. Sure, he was a usurper who slept in my grandfather's bed (my mom could never tolerate that). But he was gentle, quiet, and kind. Again, he drank. But he never hurt us. And he helped fill the emptiness in Nana's life. In his later years, he suffered from a lingering illness. And when he died, my mother was genuinely sad to hear the news.

Only this time, Nana faced debts that had piled up over those last years. All her savings were gone and she was alone.

Looking back, I think I only knew Nana through the men in her life, men who each eventually left in their own ways. I remember her as the wife of my grandfather who seemed to rule our Dunedin ranch house with incontestable domination, the product of an era when men were lords over their castles. I also remember her as the companion of a stranger who lived in granddaddy's house for almost twenty years, who seemed to drift through the day in subservience to the memory of a man he never met. Nana ruled the place after granddaddy died, but she somehow deferred to guests who would never leave.

I also remember one day back when my mother and I were living in Clearwater, surviving on substitute teacher-pay that never seemed to arrive on time, and Nana came over to the apartment. I have no idea why, but she and I began to argue. I recall leaning out of my room upstairs, yelling at her about being a drunk, about being cruel to me as a child, and about her being unable to hurt me now. She was standing on the parking lot and I stood above her from my second-floor room, a ten-year old boy possessing a giddy but guilty sense of power over a woman who affected me so greatly, a woman I never really got to know.

I couldn't begin to tell you about Charlene's aspirations, her goals, her accomplishments. I just never got to know her except as a person who dealt with people around her with a sharp tongue. She did much to build a life for herself, but I don't know what she would have said of her choices or the consequences that followed.

Years later, I can't say I was surprised to receive the phone call. Nana had been alone for a while after her friend died. She, who had always insisted on order and sought to instill a sense of responsibility in her daughters, had been publicly humiliated by a bankruptcy judge. He said she'd have to sell practically everything to pay off her debts, even the furniture. That's when she made her final decision. My aunt recalls that Charlene cleaned the house, got dressed as she deemed most suitable, and wrote instructions on how to distribute household items. And then she killed herself.

My mom had called to tell me, and I handled the news with a certain equanimity. I heard the news and reported it to Jenny, who was sitting across from me in our living room. I did not cry, but I recall Jenny bursting into tears when I said the words. She wept, saying, "that poor, sad woman."

Honestly, as the years passed I never thought about my mother's attempt at suicide or my grandmother's completion of that final act. I'd done a tour with the Navy, finished college, and gotten a good job at a profession that seems suited for my abilities and limitations. With Jenny, I'd built a safe and satisfying life.

Always I remembered the fear that haunted those bad old days. I could never quite forget how everything can be taken away, violently, mercilessly, completely. No door lock is strong enough, especially when the threat abides inside, ordering up a highball, sleeping on the couch, knowing all your weaknesses and most of your secrets. I never rid myself of that nagging fear. But I felt more and more sure of my own security nonetheless.

That's why I was truly shocked for the first time some years ago when I found myself gushing tears in front of a stranger in a cramped office at local suicide prevention hotline center.

I'd applied to work as a phone counselor who could talk with folks contemplating suicide. The choice to work in that capacity seemed reasonable enough, a chance to bring my skills as a professor of communication studies to practical use. I knew I'd be asked to complete 40 hours of training, which seemed superfluous to me. How hard could it be? Answering the phone and helping people contemplate choices other than killing themselves must be like putting together a puzzle. You just have to fit the pieces together.

Naturally I had no idea how wrong I was. The hours of training introduced me to a practical application of communication theory and crisis psychology that I'd never encountered in grad school. I learned from people with far less formal schooling than I possessed, survivors who carried their own deep wounds, who quickly managed to puncture my self-assured objectivity and ludicrous detachment with a wisdom earned through pain and self-knowledge. I quickly ditched my smart-ass attitude; I was dealing with grownups.

And for a year I answered the phone. Every Saturday night from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m., I did my best to employ a protocol designed to help callers deal with crisis. I dealt with crank calls, bored teens, lonely shut-ins, and plenty of people who were considering suicide but who had no definite means or plan to kill themselves. I remember only a handful of calls in which I counseled people who seemed, as we said in that office, "highly lethal."

I felt that I did some good during that year, but it didn't take long to abandon the silly heroism of hoping that I, one disembodied voice, could literally save the life of the person on the other end of the phone. All I could do on most nights was try to help a sad and vulnerable person work out a plan to stay alive for another day. Sometimes one more day was all they could promise; one more day was all I could expect. I don't diminish the value of that service, but I don't wish to aggrandize it either.

Those memories follow me long after I completed my service. No, I don't "still hear the voices," as one might say in a movie. But I do remember the feelings of metaphorically walking in the dark with a stranger past an open window and relying on my ears and voice alone to say, "Let's keep going just a little bit more."

Even so I always return to that first meeting with the woman who ran the suicide hotline. She was interviewing me, I presumed, to gauge my interest and expertise in crisis counseling. As I said, I entered that room with confidence. I could foresee the year to follow as an interesting exercise in applied communication. Just show me the phone and I'll be just fine, thank you.

Following her own protocol, she asked if I'd attempted suicide or whether I had family members who had attempted to kill themselves or did in fact kill themselves. I'm not sure I even remembered at first. Then I began to rattle through my story. Well, yes, my mother tried to kill herself. And, as it turns out, my grandmother did kill herself not too long ago. And, well...

What happened afterward is hard for me to understand. I don't know why I began to cry, but I was quickly overwhelmed with tears. I was a little scared, actually. Where did this onslaught of feelings come from? I was embarrassed, too. No one in her right mind would let me near a phone to counsel people in crisis when I clearly had no grip on my own problems. I was shaken. This woman, who really had not impressed me, opened me up like a locked safe with the simplest combination. She simply asked. For some reason she allowed me to join the program anyway.

During my training, I learned that people who have had family members attempt suicide are themselves much more likely to do the same thing, and maybe kill themselves in the process. What's more, people whose family members have killed themselves face an even higher likelihood that they will also attempt the act and potentially take their own lives. So while I'm talking about the experiences of others, most importantly about family members who are no longer alive, I am compelled to answer the obvious question: Have I contemplated suicide, or even made an effort to kill myself?

I have never made the effort, but I have contemplated it twice with a fairly high degree of seriousness. In both cases, I faced struggles that seemed so profound and so unmanageable - crises that called into question my personal sense of security and the worth of my good name - that I did indeed think, "It'd just be easier to kill myself." That I'm still alive is no miracle. No heroes swept in to lift me from rocky shoals. It was just a matter of finding a reason to focus on the small but essential truth that my life, no matter how miserable it may be on rare occasion, is more valuable to those whom I love than any freedom from life's pain to be found in suicide.

I offer no assurance that my choices to reframe those problems are transferable to anyone else. Looking back, it's easy to say, "Hey, I have a family. I have a few friends. I have a job. I have a good thing going here. Nothing happening today is worth losing all of that." On most days, happily, that truth is blindingly obvious.

And for some people, it's easy to pitch forth some sanctimonious rebuke about the selfishness of suicide, even the risk that such an act merits being sent to hell. From a certain vantage point, it's easy to be blithe about the pain of strangers.

But even the most apparently fortunate among us confront obstacles from time to time that appear to be unmovable, crises for which there seem to be no resolutions. Anyone blessed with friends, coworkers, and loved ones can still face dark periods when perceptions are most easily skewed, when no person seems to possess strength or willingness for sacrifice sufficient to help us.

Anyone may be forgiven for thinking that the only control we have left in our lives is the time and method of our deaths. And, particularly in cases of grave and painful illness, many reasonable people hold that artificially induced death presents a compassionate response to prolonged suffering.

So there's no easy resolution from me on the topic of suicide.

I don't advocate it. I don't encourage it. And I don't anticipate it.

I merely state that we should not be ashamed to talk about it. As with any difficult dialogue, there's a time and a place for the topic of suicide (even if some readers argue that a blog post fails to meet that standard). Otherwise, we are left with the gnawing guilt that the contemplation of this act must be as solitary a moment as its commission, that we must face our fears and our most irreversible outcomes alone.

Such an attitude, inevitable if one assumes alienation to be the fundamental reality of public life, is nearly as sad to me as the lengths to which some people will go to be rid of their pain and simultaneously communicate their sadness and isolation to others. I reject the attitude that we must avoid discussing suicide in public. Talking about this subject may be awkward as hell. Not talking about it, though, is much, much worse.

At a minimum, suicide affects those who are left behind in ways that may not be apparent for years. The pain may at first be invisible, but it cannot be ignored. And those left behind must endure the sad litany of unanswerable questions. What could I have done? What could I have said? How could I have missed the signs? At once, we recognize the price of silence and the futility of our decision to value harmony over honesty.

Suicide touches all of us who feel connected in a web of human relationships, bound to each others' choices, pains, celebrations, and fears. All of us in some nearly imperceptible way feel the loss of one of us, particularly when that one's choice to die comes from perceived isolation. That's why I wrote this post: Our lives, our problems, and our potentials for communication are far more universal than initial appearances convey.

No one is alone when thinking about suicide. At least, no one has to be.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Should Roadside Memorials be Banned?

A few days ago, the New York Times featured the topic of roadside memorials, asking whether they should be banned. While few among us would blithely dismiss the desire of friends and family members of people killed along the highway or in some other shared environment to memorialize their loved ones, reasonable people may disagree about the acceptability of appropriating public places for private uses. For me, these memorials are a mostly positive phenomenon, but I agree with the title of the NYT blog that addressed this issue: there is room for debate.

In my book, City Ubiquitous, I briefly touch upon roadside memorials as examples of locales that can pierce the omnitopian bubble (I used the image above in chapter nine to illustrate the concept), yet I remain unsure about the appropriateness of these performances. Roadside memorials speak to larger issues of death, memory, and meaning; sometimes those topics must be thrust upon us, though we'd rather avoid them. Moreover, as with other kinds of folk art, they gain some of their power from their slightly unauthorized natures. At the same time, roadside memorials evoke awkward possibilities that some may exceed the bounds of good taste (ah... there's a phrase ripe with trouble), and that the privatization of the public sphere, no matter how partial or ephemeral or well-intended, leads to a slippery slope: Who decides?

That question certainly brings to mind hours of conversation with anyone who has ever taken my COMM 149 class. For me and many of my students, investigations into the nature of public life requires us to ask three questions: Who's In? Who's Out? Who decides? Responding to those queries, roadside memorials problematize some of our legal answers to debates about ownership, challenging our formal assumptions about the public-yet-anonymous nature of places like the highway or the street corner. Thinking about future versions of Rhetoric and Public Life (and reflecting on my recent post about street art), I thought I'd share this link with folks who may want to consider the issue as well.

Room for Debate: Should Roadside Memorials be Banned?

(Photograph by Andrew Wood)

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Professor-as-Model

One stressful component of teaching college students - teaching anyone, I suppose, regardless of learning environment - is the reality that professors must demonstrate, at a minimum, the standards of excellence they expect of their students. A reasonable presumption, yes? And yet many professors surely share my occasional anxiety about failing to live up to those standards. So much of our teaching, assessment, and evaluation activities are packed into tighter and tighter timelines, particularly as faculty duties include ever more non-classroom related tasks. It's hard to ensure that our responses to students are entirely and utterly free of error.

"Stop right there," a reasonable reader might warn. "Call the Whaaaaambulance! Tell me that you're not complaining about such an easy job!" No, on both counts. The job is hardly easy, believe me. But you'll never hear me complain (without earning rightful rebuke) about this job, either. For all the stresses that come with this profession, I know how lucky I am to enjoy the freedom and flexibility that come with this gig.

Still, I think it's fair to add that people who don't teach may not recognize how much of a professor's time is repurposed (not often by our choice) to activities that do not appear to affect the individual and time-sensitive needs of students in our classes right now. Later, maybe in a big picture way, our non-class work improves the lot of students. But that future date can seem mighty distant when we're faced with a stack of papers to grade and little time to read them carefully.

Such was the case today, and such was the demand for a predawn rise to tackle those papers with the infectious gusto and lofty goals demonstrated by my most outstanding students. And thus emerges the challenge that animates this post. As my own confidence and competence regarding the art of writing has grown, I feel it fair to expect a suitable degree of clarity and correctness in my students' writing efforts. I am not perfect, a lament I share with them perhaps once a day, and so I expect no similarly unrealistic standards of them. But if I provide a rubric, a model, or some other unambiguous statement of my expectations, should I not hold them at least somewhat close to those measures? As I jotted numerical references and comments in the marginalia of my students' efforts to summarize Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward this morning, such a question swam in and out of view.

Initially, I emphasize my tolerance for obviously unique and irregular errors, those that suggest mistakes closer to "acute typo" than "chronic problem." I make typos, you make typos, students make typos. A little forgiveness goes a long way when it's my turn to account for some silly error. And yet I still feel anxiety whenever I deduct a point, write a classwide letter, or upload a blog-post about the need to fix semicolon use or differentiate between "use" and "utilize," or some other writing topic that risks demonstration of a holier-than-thou attitude. All of my tolerance and attempts at gentle reminders mean nothing if my students or other readers sense that I am not willing to meet my own standards. Merely by posting this note, one that practically begs for some anonymous tweak, I am hardly freed of my responsibility to get it right.

I recognize that tension elsewhere in my teaching, too.

As a fairly frequent instructor of public speaking, I lay out a strict set of standards that are manageable, measurable, and verifiable. Students are expected to demonstrate coherent organization, correct oral citation, meaningful platform movement (no podiums in my class...), audience-appropriate language, and all the other necessities that come with informative and persuasive public address. I assign a textbook, I provide written examples, I show video demonstrations. But the day that matters most is our second meeting. That's when I give my gradesheet to the students and perform a speech exactly as I want them to craft and present their own speeches. I encourage students to ask about the criteria, clarify their roles as evaluators, and grade me with the same kind of precision that I promise to provide them. I swear I lose a pound of sweat on those days. With 19 years of competitive public speaking, coaching, and teaching experience, I still am terrified on those days of looking foolish in front of my students. And it's inevitable that once in a while I'll screw up. I remember one day in particular that did not reflect my best efforts and which haunts me even now. It wasn't a nightmare - I simply got a bit lost in stating my point for about seven seconds - but it was a fairly rough example for my students anyway. Oh, how I dread repeating those sorts of mistakes.

But the bottom line for me is the belief that students deserve for their professors to show them not just tell them, to illustrate by personal example how to meet classroom expectations, whether in public speaking (and no, classroom lectures and discussions hardly count as models for the formal rules of public address - at least not in my class) or in written work. The cost is anxiety and the real risk that we'll screw up and reduce our ethos, at least temporarily. The long-term benefit is that we humanize ourselves and open the opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Better yet, we can learn something along the way. On one illustrative occasion, I was graced with a student who pushed back on my negative assessment of one picky detail about her citation style. I deducted a point incorrectly due to my ignorance of the specific rules of that style pertaining to her cite. I was wrong, but I wasn't so detached from her that I couldn't gain new understanding about a writing tool necessary for my professional livelihood. Daring to reveal our limitations to our students, oddly enough by maintaining high standards, offers students and professors chances to improve.

Sharing this blog with a larger audience - the world? Heck, that's just a larger number of people who can say, "boy, you screwed that one up. Here's how you can get better."

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Cell Yell in Austria

Writing in the International Herald Tribute, Eric Sylvers provides another example of efforts to curtail the problem of "cell yell." Here's a snip:
Graz [Austria] last month issued a plea to its citizens not to use cellphones on public transportation. No fines are being given to transgressors, so Mayor Siegfried Nagl is counting on the civic sense or shame of his constituents to cut down on cellphone noise pollution.

Rather than send out ticket-writing noise police, the city has outfitted trams and buses with stickers that say "please don't use your mobile phone."
Read the whole article: Austrian city asking for polite cellphone use

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

A More Perfect Union

Speaking in Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama transformed the boiling controversy over Jeremiah Wright's excerpted speeches, those anguished and angry rebukes against a nation the minister appeared to paint as institutionally racist, into a call for America to confront the complexities of its historical and social cleavages. In this speech, Obama masterfully sidestepped insinuations against his integrity by forcing his critics to question their own.

The speech arose from the surprisingly fast-growing furor that followed YouTube-distributed snippets of Wright's impassioned oratory, most notably his call for God to "damn America" for its many injustices. Somewhat clumsily before the speech, Obama refuted those words, suggesting that he was surprised to hear them uttered by the minister who had wed him to his spouse, Michelle, and baptized his two children. Many members of the African-American community reacted with anger, accusing Obama of selling out his spiritual guide to placate the fears of so-called White America. Anticipating this speech, media prognosticators termed the moment a must-win challenge for a candidate who seems nearly impervious to losing the delegate count. Despite his success to this point, Obama had to do well.

At first, following a somewhat predictable development of the theme that America, like its citizens and candidates, is imperfect though perfectible, Obama tackled the issue directly, leaving no doubt that he rejects Wright's harsh words. His vigor suggested to me that Obama was replaying Bill Clinton's "Sister Souljah Moment," professing mortification before sacrificing a symbolic evil from the body politic (while ensuring his own political survival). Instead, however, Obama would sacrifice a beloved and respected spiritual adviser, not some third-rate rapper. I must say that I was not impressed.

Then Obama pivoted the conversation, reframing the debate to reaffirm his allegiance to the man, Jeremiah Wright, even as the candidate professed not to share his former pastor's range of anger. Wright's condemnations of institutional racism, hardly without some merit, cannot be viewed in isolation from the minister's generation-long work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, his undeniable affirmation of what is good about America, Obama said. Wright reflects the complexities of the black experience: the humor, the horror, the anger and the hope. Wright is an American, imperfect but striving, just as much as Obama's grandmother, he said, the woman who lovingly raised a black child even while occasionally uttering racist stereotypes. Obama could no more jettison his spiritual father than he could his maternal grandmother. And those who would seek advantage from this debate for political ends represent, he claimed, the kinds of race-mongering that continue to dog the country.

Obama affirmed that racial injustice does fester in the nation. And unmistakably, persons of color have born its brunt. Yet he added that all Americans suffer from deep wounds, that hunger is no respecter of persons. Perhaps in a subtle appeal to supporters of John Edwards, Obama reminded his audience that plenty of factory and mill workers have good reason to glare with anger as their jobs are shipped overseas, and they can hardly be blamed when they wonder how some folks manage to get ahead, particularly when some are presumed, rightly or wrongly, to benefit from favoritism based on race. Their rage is real and worthy of consideration, just as much as the vitriol heard in many places of worship around the nation. We cannot fear to engage in difficult dialogues of race and class, even though we must dig beneath painful sores to do so.

My memory does not serve to follow every thread of the speech; I heard it early this morning and promptly got on my bus for work. But I remember two things. First was Obama's conclusion, the story of the young white girl named Ashley who explained that she'd joined the senator's campaign in a desire to ensure that other children would not have to convince their parents that they crave only mustard and relish sandwiches rather than contribute to their families' economic struggles, as she did when her mother was ill and uninsured. Obama's telling of that narrative began by drawing attention to Ashley and her heartrending story. And then he switched attention to an elderly black man in the room who, when asked why he'd joined the Obama campaign, answered, "I'm here because of Ashley." That turn from the personal to the interpersonal is why Barack Obama represents something meaningful in American politics.

The second thing I remember, though, is entirely personal. Leaving my house after the speech, I arrived early enough to stand near the front of the line of folks waiting to board the Highway 17 bus. I chose to get to the station 20 minutes before departure so that I could have a sure chance of snagging one of the few seats remaining on what has become a frequently overloaded route. Boarding the bus, I was grateful to sit near a woman in the first row, even though she looked askance at my desire to occupy a seat where her bag had been strategically placed. Sure enough, many folks who arrived after me were forced to stand. Given that I sacrificed my time to get onto the bus early, I felt right with the universe - until at the last minute, late for our departure, an elderly woman run up to the bus, dragging a heavy suitcase behind her. The rules of courtesy, both posted and commonly understood, required that someone give up her or his seat to this woman. I sighed with barely quiet resignation, knowing that person would be me. Yet before I could stand, a person behind me offered his seat. I settled back into my hard-won privilege as we left the station for the last stop.

I hardly noticed that the final stop was occupied by one more elderly passenger. He boarded and asked the driver, "standing room only?" The driver replied in the affirmative. The man asked in a louder voice, "even for seniors?" Only then I noticed that he was looking directly at me. I was, to put it bluntly, pissed. Twenty minutes of standing at a bus station were wasted. I knew I had to abandon my seat. He offered thanks, but I was having none of it. I said what was polite, but I felt bitterness in my heart. A young college student offered her seat to me, but I knew I could not take it. I sat on the floor, placing my laptop on my knees and hoping that no one would spill their coffee this morning. I was angry. And then I was embarrassed. The Obama speech, which I so admired, was really about how we are all each other's brothers' and sisters' keepers, that we must decide in spirit - more than in law - to care for each other before we can proceed along the path to national reconciliation. I appreciated the speech on a rhetorical level, and I marveled at his astute turning of a political conundrum into a sharp elbow against his opponent. But I still have yet to fully digest the meaning of those words.

The reason why Obama's Philadelphia oration is a great speech is more than his ability to engage fully, honestly, and courageously with the racial divides that split us still. No, the reason why this speech matters is that it challenges us all to live up to our more perfect selves.

Read the entire speech, available from The New York Times.

See the video:



Follow-up: Some Responses to Obama's Speech

Monday, October 15, 2007

New Jersey Courtesy Campaign

New Jersey has developed an interesting way to deal with difficult dialogues regarding rude transit users who spread their stuff on multiple seats or yak loudly on their mobile phones. Rather than accosting the troublemaker directly, you simply point to a poster. Here's a snip:
As part of the campaign, the agency is putting up posters on all trains by the end of the month that feature pictures of people venting about many of the problems that commuters complain to NJ Transit about.

"The posters are a social safety valve," Doug Bown, president of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers told the Asbury Park Press for Sunday's newspapers. "Instead of having to initiate your case, you can point to the poster."

One poster shows a woman whose mouth is wide open, appearing to be screaming, under the words "How many seats do you need?" Another poster shows a man plugging his ears with his fingers under the words "I can't take the noise!"
Learn more with this AP article, Transit Launches Courtesy Campaign

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Don't tase me, bro!



By now, you've probably seen footage of University of Florida college student Andrew Meyer receiving a taser shock after being dragged away from a question-and-answer session with Senator John Kerry. And many observers have already leapt to the assumption that cops employed excessive force by trundling the kicking and howling kid away from the microphone and delivering an electric shock after he was on the ground, crying, "Don't tase me, bro!" Some may offer conspiracy theories about how the kid was removed only after he asked about the senator's affiliation with a Yale secret society. Clearly we have seen yet another example of authority run amok.

Believe me, I'm willing to accept that interpretation. I recall plenty of examples of cops and other "security personnel" abusing the public trust, particularly after forgetting the ubiquity of video cameras in our contemporary surveillance society. I remember citizens being barred from Bush campaign events simply because of t-shirts they wore or bumper stickers found on their cars. We're not talking about swear-words or the display of excessive flesh, merely the audacity to arrive at a political event with ideas not appearing on the talking points memo. I also remember seeing footage of presidential candidate Ralph Nader being told by police to leave a debate, even though he had been given a ticket to attend. In all of these cases, and in far more egregious and harrowing scenes, cops (both of the formal variety and the rent-a-type) were willing to back unconstitutional barriers to civic participation with potentially lethal force. Thus, I'm hardly surprised that a number of Meyer supporters are unfurling the banner of free speech and hurling epithets of police brutality.

But this incident, while shocking in a number of ways, can be boiled down to a far more basic issue, the obligation of forum organizers to balance the rights of individual speakers with the rights of the guest and the audience. Meyer had every opportunity to ask a challenging question and await a respectful reply. But instead, this kid harangued the group with a meandering lecture and overstepped any reasonable time limit that a participant to this sort of event should accept. The audience applauded the cutting of his microphone and Meyer received his moment of fame. Yet as he continued his stream of increasingly agitated speech, cops stepped in to remove him. And then he made his critical mistake, forsaking any sympathy he should earn.

When a cop steps up to arrest you, and I've had some experience in this matter, the time to talk, argue, and debate is over. Whether you're being taken to the back of a squad car or being removed from a public setting, the wisest response is to calm down and shut up. You may "resist" of course, if by resistance you decide to go limp and not participate in what you perceive to be an unjust act. You may lie down in front of a cop or a tank if you think it's the right thing to do. And you may use the judicial system and the media to seek redress. But shouting, cursing, and trying to escape a cop is only going to call for an overwhelming response. All too frequently, police officers have experienced moments in which peaceful interactions exploded into violent struggles, and with that possibility in mind, they don't mess around. Add the fact that this kid, while thrashing to elude the police, leapt in the general direction of a former presidential candidate who had probably received countless death threats, I can only conclude that Meyer deserved what he got.

What's most galling about this incident, however, is a sense that I can't shake, a belief that Meyer intended to scream his way into history, that he sought and enjoyed his notoriety. In an age when vapid celebutantes flash their privates for willing paparazzi, when sociopaths upload videos of themselves beating up homeless people, when "talk" and "reality television" shows demonstrate a steadily collapsing threshold of personal shame, I am no longer surprised to see some moron ignoring a cop's lawful commands, aggressively resisting arrest, and then being shocked, shocked when the taser comes out.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

iPod Noise Pollution

The Associated Press has distributed a story that describes iPod Noise Pollution as a product of two phenomena. The first is fairly typical, anonymity:
Like the cell phone, the iPod and other music players can foster a sense of apathy when the user is among strangers. It's easier to blow off social norms -- and channel Justin Timberlake during rush hour -- when you don't know who you're irritating. (para 16)
The other source for iPod Noise Pollution is perception. We imagine that these media devices are excessively loud because many of us have come to expect a much quieter aural environment. The article quotes Wired magazine's Leander Kahney:
Our world, he said, has become freakishly quiet. "It's not noise pollution -- it's noise absence. And I find it almost more disturbing and upsetting than I did loud noise. It's sort of unnatural." (para. 9)
The article concludes that a gentle tap on the shoulder generally serves as an effective request for strangers playing their iPods too loud to turn the volume down.

Of course, it might also be useful to anonymously slip these folks a Why Do You Do That Note, as in Why do you play loud music in public places?.

Read the whole story: Hey you, with the iPod...keep it down!

Saturday, July 21, 2007

High-Tech Manners

Earlier this month, CNN's Amy Cox wrote a piece called Where are your high-tech manners?, which explores generational differences in how people tolerate media-aided transformation of public spaces into private enclaves. Although she's citing research from last year, her article still resonates.

Cox cites a study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project that compares experiences with the "icy glare" warranted by inappropriate mobile phone use: "In the Pew study, about 14 percent of people ages 18-29 drew criticism or dirty looks for the way they used their cell phone in public, compared to the 8 percent of respondents of all ages" (para. 15).

Cox also quotes University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism and mass communication professor Lewis Friedland, who describes a high-tech "cone of silence," a placeless enclave created by personal entertainment and communications devices:
"People act as if they're walking through life in a cone of silence in which only they and the other person on the end of the line can hear them," he says. "They can talk quite loudly, and they can talk about things that people around them don't really want to hear about." (para. 8)
After reading this article, I hope that more people who talk loudly on mobile devices will consider posting their explanations for this behavior on Why Do You Do That?.

I also invite your comments about an entry I posted in May: Mobile Phone Etiquette.

Learn More

Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 3, 2006: How Americans use their cell phones. Here's an excerpt: 
It is now possible to be sitting on a train or walking through a park and hear some of the most intimate details of strangers' lives because of the way they are chatting on their cells. To a great many people, this comes as an unwelcome consequence of their use of a mobile phone. Cell phones are blurring the boundaries between what is public and what is private. (p. 11)

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Evading False Dichotomies

Watching television coverage of this weekend's attempted terrorist attacks in the UK, I was particularly interested in a CNN story that depicted an argument between Muslims and Catholics, in which one person asked another whether he shared a certain belief and then demanded, "yes or no?". The answer is less important to me than the strategy behind the question: false dichtomy, forcing a person to view the world in a binary manner.
"Do you want the U.S. to win the war in Iraq? Yes or no?"
"Do you support the troops? Yes or no?"
"Do you like freedom? Yes or no?"
Related to these questions is the broader strategy of limited options:
"You can have peace or security. Which one do you choose?"
"You're either for us or against us. Which one are you?"
"You're either pro-military or you're a cut-and-runner. Well?"
Thinking about questions like these, I remember an interesting line from George Lucas's most recent Star Wars movie: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes."

I should add that the tension of the question flows more from its paralinguistic force: a loud and challenging vocal delivery, perhaps a parallel hand gesture like a pointed finger directing attention one way and then another, and almost always a repetitious demand: "Yes or no?" "Yes or no?" "Pick, choose, decide!"

Accepting that I too risk committing the sin of oversimplification, I'll say it plainly: to demand false dichotomies is to employ the strategy of thugs. The false dichotomy does not invite clarity or precision. It does not invite at all. This strategy commands. And if you accept that command, if you distill your arguments through an opposing debater's filter, you will almost always lose the debate.

So how should you respond to the false dichotomy? I propose four types of response. Based upon the situation and your own temperament, one of these approaches should work.

Complicate Respond by collapsing your interlocutor's opposing sides into a complex whole. You might add, "It's a complex world, even though we'd like it to be simple." Employing this technique makes room for a more developed, more nuanced answer. And using the word "we" defuses tension.

Elevate Rather than answer the question, raise the debate to a higher-level question. Here's an example: "Why do you feel the need to distill a complex issue into a overly-simple question?" This kind of metacommunication -- communication about communication -- invites a shift from binary thinking to more open-ended dialogue.

Attack Push back against the interlocutor; call the bullying strategy what it is. You might say, "I will answer as I see fit. I will not be abused in this discussion." This tactic must be handled carefully, aided by a minimum range of nonverbal support. Remember: you're engaged in a debate, not preparing for a fight.

Abandon A final choice, perhaps the least palatable of the bunch, is simply to walk away. Bullying, whether it is physical or conversational, requires at least one interlocutor to abandon the golden rule, that we treat others as we would wish to be treated. Engaging in prolonged debate with a conversational bully may be initially stimulating but ultimately pointless.

I repeat that this final proposal is my least favorite. My own temperament leads me to accept verbal challenges even when I shouldn't. I would add that some debates are worth the effort, particularly when an audience may otherwise be swayed by a demagogue. So consider your options when faced with a false dichotomy and ready yourself. Slow your breathing, relax your muscles, and prepare your response. With luck (and some practice) you can transform a fight into a discussion.

Any other tactics for handling false dichotomies? Any experiences you want to share? Post a comment!

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Community in the Post-Newspaper Age - Follow-up

Yesterday I chatted a bit with San Jose Mercury News columnist L.A. Chung. She called about a piece I'd posted in May, entitled Community in the Post-Newspaper Age. But it's difficult to trace our conversation to its start. Let's see...

Technically I emailed her first, sharing a blog-post I'd written about her commencement address to the students of San José State University's Department of Communication Studies. That evening Chung offered a thought-provoking call for students to consider how their arts and sciences contribute to the public sphere, and I wanted to share my thoughts about her speech.

Perhaps this dialogue began with her speech, the first such address among many that made me want to write something in response. And yet Chung herself was surely responding to a lifetime of her own encounters with people, from family to school to work, not to mention the countless letters she'd received as a columnist for the Merc. So, who started all this talk?

It seems that "we've" been talking about public life for much longer than the existence of this internet blog or that newspaper column. And for good reason. As our individual range of rights and freedoms continues to grow, paralleled by our expanding frontier of mobility, job opportunity, and lifestyle choices, the common sphere of meaningful, consequential interactions and shared responsibilities seems to shrink. One's expansion does not lead to another's collapse, though the relationship between frontier and sphere are intimately linked.

We wonder about the permeability, indeed the viability, of public life because more of us may more easily abandon it than ever before. Indeed I've created a blog-project called Why Do You Do That? because so many of us suffer quietly amid troubling encounters with strangers (and sometimes with friends) that offer no scripts for meaningful discourse. We may ply the public highways with bumper stickers that announce our political affiliations or our opinions on controversial issues, but we are generally not trained to speak, to debate, or to engage in dialogue about the things that bother or inspire us, at least not beyond slogans.

I thought about this when I picked up the phone yesterday, because I was scared. Chung emailed earlier and said that she'd call. I replied that I'd be happy to chat, but that my family was seeing a movie that evening, so time was short for a call. I wondered: was she unhappy with my blog post? Certainly I must have taken unintentional liberties with the recitation of her ideas. No hastily written essay can accurately express the complexities of a person's public oration. Perhaps, I wondered, she might continue the dialogue with a column pointing out my numerous errors in exploring the thinning tendrils that connect newspapers and their publics. My blog has been read by a few hundred folks. Her column is read by many, many more people. Like I said, I was scared.

Her first question, her first words: "What movie are you seeing?" Chung was simply continuing the dialogue from our email, which started with my blog, which began with her speech, which...

Turns out, Chung wanted to chat in a more immediate and vivid way than can be found in electronic media. She'd planned to mention my blog in her column, and she wanted to know me before quoting me. She also wanted to have a conversation about our conversation about public life. I think that's pretty cool. So today, inspired by her column about the need to express thanks to strangers, I write an extended thank-you-note to L.A. Chung, and to you. Thank you for expressing some interest in my blog.

It is, after all, a kindness whenever a stranger writes another stranger with warm appreciation or illuminating critique. It's a kindness when strangers talk to each other with a reverence reserved for friends. It's a kindness to say, in effect, "I recognize you. I know that you have something to say. And I care." It's this kind of random, unexpected encounter that affirms the possibility of public life. We still have our frontiers, the open road alone with no congestion. And yet it's nice to return downtown, even to the traffic of ideas. Amid the cacophony of honking horns and rude whistles, we still can discover the joyful noise of conversation.