RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

The Epitome Of Class

etonboys1936

The BBC has taken it upon themselves to redefine class. ‘Well of course’ you say ‘and we do love Downton Abby, Call The Midwife and Mr. Selfridge.’ Yes, those decadent and indulgent shows are lavish examples of the British class system in play. But I refer instead to the questionnaire the BBC posted online that over 160,000 completed. Ignoring for a moment the completely unscientific method of this ‘survey’ and also putting aside the very stark reality of who completes online surveys, let us instead consider this tricky terrain.

The British have always been quite transparent about their views and demarcations of class. What (and where) one is born into is often where one stays. There are examples of upward mobility in British society (beyond that of Eliza Doolittle.) But for the most part, where you started is where you’ll stay. If for no other reason than the British are wonderfully observant of clues. (Hello? Sherlock, Miss Marple, Inspector Lewis, anyone?) The slightest hint of a flat ‘a’ or the improper wearing of wellies, and they’ve got you pegged. They have graciously exported this gift to previously colonized locales. You could probably travel the globe and identify where the United Kingdom has ruled simply by observing the (seemingly) arbitrary ‘you’re in’ you’re out’ class systems.

Americans have always prided themselves in eschewing this structure. We still like to fancy ourselves the little rebels who fled from the tyranny of such structure. The truth is that what we do is less honest and more destructive. We pretend that social class doesn’t exist. Oh, we’re happy to discuss real dollars and sense. We take great comfort (or distress) in determining if we economically fall into the middle-class. Politicians love to talk about the middle class. We don’t talk of the lower class or even working class anymore however. No, we call it ‘working families.’ It doesn’t matter if it’s just one person in that ‘family’ or twenty. It’s funny how liberal we can be discussing families in terms of poverty levels but not in terms of legal union.

Taking pains to never associate class with anything but money creates problems. To discuss class in terms of values and cultural proclivities is anathema to Americans. We discuss education and achievement in terms of poverty which is often a thin guise for race. We discuss poverty and race as if they have anything whatsoever to do with achievement, which of course they don’t. There is nothing about any race that impacts learning. There is nothing about how much money a household has which impacts learning. Underfunded and improperly staffed schools impact learning, as do households in which learning is not a priority. We avoid discussing public health and lifestyle behaviors in terms of class. We think nothing of imposing middle values on lower class people, but we’ll never admit that’s what we’re doing. Our entire social and child services structure is built on that very premise.

It’s important to Americans to ignore the real differences of class. But yet we’re wedded to creating a very us vs. them culture. We’re much more comfortable attributing our opposing outlooks and proclivities to religious or political ideals. Sociologists (versus online questionnaires) often explore the gravitation of like-peoples. (Think: lunchroom table configuration studies.) Much more often than not the ‘like-people’ means people of our own religious and ethnic group. But outside of laboratories and research studies what you’re most likely to find in the real world, is that people gravitate towards those of their own class. Being of the same racial/ethnic/religious group is less of an indicator of our shared values than that of class. Would the Rothschilds understand the seder at Sadie’s on Orchard Street? Of course, but after the seder (at 2:00 AM) what in the world would they talk about? If you take a look around at the people with whom you feel most connected they are those with similar values and cultural proclivities. They don’t have identical incomes, they don’t worship in the same way, and their complexions vary in hue. But you all share a similar outlook and a view of the world. That’s class.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 4, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The World Wide Living Room

Unknown

All modern etiquette can be boiled down to; the world is not your living room. There is a very thin (practically invisible) membrane between our public and private lives these days. For some situations this transparency is positive. Many topics that were once off limits for discussion in polite and even impolite society are now fair game. It’s challenging to view this as anything but on the whole a good thing. People are much more aware of the symptoms and treatment options for breast, colon and ovarian cancer in no small part because of our comfort level sharing intimacies. For every pee stick photo we’re subjected to, we know that more women (and perhaps men) have a better understanding of fertility and reproduction. It’s difficult to find fault with our newfound comfort level of what was once shrouded in secrecy.

However there’s sharing and then there’s sharing. No doubt we’ve all been subjected to one-side of a phone conversation that contained the most personal and gruesome details. Never again do I wish to share a commute with a woman describing; “the itching and burning but no bumps.” Nor do I want to enjoy my salad while a baby gets his diaper changed at the next table. (And yes, it happened in close enough proximity that I know for a fact it was a boy.) I’d like to ride on public transport without the fear of someone’s frappamachocino landing in my lap. I’d really like to never again sit through any performance at which the audience is; texting, updating their status, talking, eating, drinking, playing with plastic bags, or performing personal hygiene. And while we’re on the subject; hair is not a toy. It is not to be played with in public, especially over my dinner plate.

Truman Capote told us volumes about Miss Golightly when he described her as “idly, publicly combing her hair” at a table at “21”. It was a clue because it simply wasn’t (and shouldn’t be) done. It’s unsanitary, and in a world in which people clip hand santizer to themselves, you would think that went without saying. But if the world is your living room and there no longer is such a thing as public space then why not polish one’s nails on an airplane? Why not walk down a crowded city sidewalk while typing and assume the rest of the world will clear a path? Why wouldn’t you spend an hour in a Holocaust exhibit with a wailing baby strapped to your front? How could any of these behaviors affect anyone else? After all you’re in your living room.

But see the thing about the planet is that it’s finite. We’ve known this for some time and have maneuvered our social ways to fit that schema. We’ve always had a sense of personal space and of the personal. There was a time when proper people did not dine in public. The act of eating was seen as far too intimate to be done in front of strangers. Private dining rooms and draped banquets were created to ease the discomfort. It’s quite a leap to changing a dirty diaper on a restaurant table, no? This transition did not happen in a vacuum. As we’ve become more liberated in what we share, our lives have become more regimented. Most of us follow rules and procedures our ancestors couldn’t even dream/nightmare. Where they might summon a doctor to their home when feeling ill, we must perform an acrobatic act to rival the Karamazov Brothers to navigate healthcare and insurance. We spend more time pressing “0” in a vain attempt to speak to a human; a human not reading from a script. We fill out forms, choose passwords and codes, and follow follow follow the rules. We reboot, recharge and wait for installation to watch a television that used to just plug into the wall. Is it any wonder that we simply resist any more rules and constraints?

When we’ve had enough (and that occurs almost daily) we just want to break free. However it’s possible to feel free without being hostile. And make no mistake; ignoring the existence of others is a hostile act. Acting as if other people are not entitled to the same resources is a hostile act. Invading people’s physical, auditory, olfactory or visual space is a hostile act. Learning to share is the very first lesson we are taught. Sharing means acknowledging that others exist and we don’t in fact wear an invisibility cloak. The key is to differentiate our impulses from our conscious behavior. Is it easier for us to change a dirty diaper whenever and wherever we’d like? Yes in fact it is, but do we really want to be someone who (literally) poops on the world? Is that what we want to put out into the universe? Is that what we want our children to emulate?

Is daily life sometimes a wicked pain in the bum? Absolutely, but each time you leave your living room and step into the light step into the day, there’s potential for positive interaction. It would be silly to ignore that opportunity.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on April 1, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Outing DOMA

constitution
Everything I know about the law I’ve gleaned from a handful of undergraduate classes, To Kill A Mockingbird, In Cold Blood & every version (including the British) of Law & Order. In other words; I know very very little. But why should that get in the way? As the Supreme Court is considering equal marriage it occurs to me to question why? Why are we pinning our hopes on the Supremes?

The Supreme Court is rarely at the forefront (or even midway) in changing our nation’s narrative. There are few decisions (that come to mind) made that the populace had not already thoroughly considered. So why then is it the Supreme Court we look to to settle this matter once and for all? What would happen if the body that decided (in 1996) that marriage was only legal for couples of opposite genders did a do-over? Before the signing (by President Clinton) and the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) there were no gender specifications in regards to legal marriage.

What would prevent President Clinton from launching an enormous mea culpa campaign? He is an incredibly influential man who no doubt has favors to call in. What would prevent him from lobbying congresspeople and senators to overturn what he created? The benefits of clearing his conscience notwithstanding, it would be an efficient method of eradicating the illegality of equal marriage.

Would the Supreme Court (or any court) even need to be examining the legality of any marriage had DOMA not been signed into law? Does anyone want to put their basic civil liberties in the hands of nine appointed people? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for elected officials to make those decisions for their constituents? If the polls are even remotely accurate it would seem that the majority of Americans support equal marriage. The (seemingly) vocal minority is similar to most vocal minorities who value their personal beliefs/views more than the public good. It is in the best interest of the public to have the people we’ve elected represent us.

“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks.”
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 27, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Math/Science Divide

clothes
Why don’t girls excel in math science? Well, for one thing what does excel mean? I’m a (mature) girl and I’m good at math but don’t find it to be particularly compelling. I much prefer studies involving people and social behavior. I quite took to college Physics (as let’s face it, it explains the whole freaking universe) but never loved it enough to marry it. I do know female mathematicians, programmers and scientist (rocket and otherwise.) They exist in moderately significant numbers. Are there still a lot of lockers available in the lady scientist dressing room? Yes, and it’s a good thing attention is being paid. But what about boys?

If we’re going to engage in conversations that generalize gender why do we focus on girls’ deficits? Why is it we never discuss the gender discrepancies in the social sciences? Where are the boys in studies of philosophy, exposition, psychology, and sociology? Do they measure up? Why is it that the top (public) high schools in New York City are for math/science studies only? Do math and science concentrations lead to better paying jobs? Sometimes, but when did public high schools revert back to their roots of workplace preparation? I suspect that what’s really at the root of the exultation of math & science is the very fact that it has been a male-dominated field.

We have a long rich history of imbuing male centric endeavors or behaviors with positive attributes. It is immaterial for this argument, to dissect what gender behaviors are learned (aka socialized) and which are innate. Any parent of a baby will share with you their surprise when his/her yet to be socialized tyke exhibited gender stereotypes. Is it that the parents are looking for gender specific behavior in their child (and fail to be impressed by gender atypical or gender neutral behavior)? It doesn’t matter. Gender is very very important to people. It’s the first thing one asks when hearing about a new baby. It’s the first question on almost any form. We’ve decided it’s important and part of how you elevate a concept is to attribute it with certain characteristics.

Fine. But why are characteristics long associated with boys some how more desirable than characteristics attributed to girls? When did we decide that expressing emotion is a weakness? Was it at the same time we decided that an affinity with numbers is more admirable than an affinity with language? Why do we think that understanding machines is more valuable than understanding people? While it is true that as a cultural we are becoming slightly less rigid around gender issues. We have quite a ways to go. At the heart of much of our rigidity is our sense that boys are strong (which equals good) and girls are soft (which equals bad.) This core belief colors much of what we do as a society and traditionally has left little wiggle room for boys who enjoy a softer side and girls who enjoy a stronger side.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on March 23, 2013 in Childhood, Cultural Critique, Education

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Everybody’s Fancy*

YE6MG00Z

Everyone is entitled to be the person they wish to be; adults, teens, children; everyone. As long as you are not hurting anyone, you can live your life exactly as you see fit. Society does expect some level of conformity of course, mostly to avoid utter chaos. We can stomp our feet or roll our eyes at the notion of conformity, but we look rather adolescent doing so. The world is large and diverse; there are a lot of us living on this relatively small planet. We make certain accommodations to ensure a modicum of tranquility. Nobody enjoys waiting on line but as a society we’ve decided it’s efficient. We’d probably prefer if the bus took us directly to our front door, but that’s not how a public bus works.

Public education is just that; public. No one person’s rights are more important than that of anyone else. Yet recently there was a report of a public school being pressured to behave otherwise. A transgendered elementary school student’s parents wanted her to use the girls’ bathroom. This arrangement worked until it didn’t. As the student got older there were parents (and perhaps girl students) who grew uncomfortable. A gender neutral bathroom was provided by the school, but the parents found this option ostracizing. Teachers and administrators had always used the (adopted) female pronouns for the student, which would indicate efforts of inclusion.

On the surface one might think; “They’re kids! Let them use whatever bathroom they choose.” But there’s a reason that bathrooms are divided by gender. Sometime around age 5 (otherwise known as; school-age) children become aware of gender differences. If we asked the parents of the transgender student they would probably recall their child expressing frustration at having boy parts (versus girl parts) at around age 5. Children develop a (healthy) curiosity about gender (both physical and social) at this age. Role playing games start around this age (ex. house, office, etc.) They often explore their own and other’s bodies. There’s nothing perverse about the curiosity. But like all behavior in children, it needs to be monitored. Children have much of the same physical anatomy they will in adulthood, but that doesn’t mean they should be engaged in adult behavior. They also have the physical ability to smoke and tie one on. But even the most precocious child is not equipped for adult situations.

It is easy to think of a child (at any age) feeling coerced and/or frightened by situations. It is also easy to imagine a bathroom frequented by children of all grades and unmonitored by adults. All kinds of things happen unbeknownst to adults in a school bathroom. This in no way is to suggest that a transgendered student is any kind of aggressor. Far from it. But why should a girl child be exposed to a biological boy child in the most private of ways? What if that girl child is significantly younger than the transgendered child? What if the girl child has been victimized at home? In other words; how are the rights of one student more valid than that of another?

The fact is that they are not. No one person is entitled to anymore than anyone else. Equal opportunity means just that; equal. Sticking to the bathroom motif; anyone who has stood on line for a public restroom because the people in the front of the line avoid the handicapped accessible stall, know this to be true. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted so that people had equal opportunity, not so that there was a private unoccupied bathroom stall available at all times. Everybody’s fancy, everybody’s fine and everyone is equal. We need to accept (not tolerate) all people. We need to allow for all points of view. But we also all need to live together, and sometimes that means not getting every last thing one wants. Sometimes we need to consider how others are impacted by our behavior. Sometimes we need to use the private bathroom.

*Some are fancy on the outside.
Some are fancy on the inside.
Everybody’s fancy.
Everybody’s fine.
Your body’s fancy and so is mine.

Boys are boys from the beginning.
Girls are girls right from the start.
Everybody’s fancy.
Everybody’s fine.
Your body’s fancy and so is mine.

Girls grow up to be the mommies.
Boys grow up be the daddies.
Everybody’s fancy.
Everybody’s fine.
Your body’s fancy and so is mine.

I think you’re a special person
And I like your ins and outsides.
Everybody’s fancy.
Everybody’s fine.
Your body’s fancy and so is mine.

Fred M. Rogers (1967)

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 19, 2013 in Childhood, Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,