RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

Indoor Voices Please

If you’ve ever been in earshot of a small person who has recently acquired language, you have no doubt heard (in your head or in your ears) the cry of; “indoor voices!” The ability to form complete sentences arrives prior to volume control; exemplifying Mother Nature’s sense of humor. There is a real reason for this of course. The awareness of the world around us comes incrementally. Babies begin to explore that world through their mouths (via milk or their own foot.) Others don’t exist beyond what they can do for the baby’s immediate needs. If you’ve ever seen two infants on a play date you can attest to this. Up until toddlerhood babies only engage in parallel play (def: playing side by side without direct interaction. ex: sharing a meal while both parties text others.) By preschool children have developed a sense of a world outside of their own home and needs. They understand that when they leave the zoo the animals don’t cease to exist. (This is why peek-a-boo is not such a mesmerizing game for this age group.) But it’s not until school-age that children have a fully formed sense of otherness.

At about 5 years old children are aware of others and how they differ from themselves. Gender becomes somewhat of a fascination as little boys and girls discover that some are fancy on the inside and some are fancy on the outside. (This is the age that is often cited as time to give different gendered children their own bedroom.) Children at this age learn to whisper and tell secrets (a clear indication of an awareness of others.) They learn, or are reminded, that there are behaviors that should remain private. Kindergarten teachers have spent more time than they care to consider telling little people to remove their fingers from noses, mouths or worse.

Historically, activities outside of school have existed to assist in socializing little people. Team sports, scouting, dance class and birthday parties traditionally began at this developmental stage. Beside the obvious life skills taught (how many times have you found yourself grateful for the skills of perfect turnout, bugling, or catching in your daily life?) what’s really being taught is group dynamics. Learning to work, play and live with others is the foundation of most structured activities. It is quite plausible that the average child spends thirteen years having these skills drummed reinforced on a daily basis. Some parents consider ‘socializing’ to be a top priority in their job description. You can see them guiding their little people in the ways of social graces and niceties. They are the ones dining out and instructing on how to sit, talk, order and eat. The child is learning that eating in the backseat of the car is not the same as eating in the presence of strangers. You can see these ‘lessons’ at museums, movies, theatres, libraries, or anywhere there are other people.

Whether it’s school, scouts or parents, or any combination thereof, there is consensus that childhood leads to adulthood, And with the right kind of guidance we hope to produce adults who will be; strong, confident, and kind. Yet with all these efforts to teach children how to interact with others, adults don’t always do such a gold star job in their own implementation. As you go through your day you will notice a lot of grown people using their outdoor voices (literally or figuratively.) Someone will have a conversation (with their phone or with a person in their physical presence) that will be loud and very personal. You will be subjected to gruesome details and possibly glared at for not having the ability to close your ears. (It’s as if by not wearing headphones you are now eschewing social mores.) You may be lucky enough to be enjoying a lovely meal in a beautiful restaurant. You are there not just for the food but for the specialness of it all. Then without warning there appears at the entrance a couple. The light shines from the open door behind them. You can see silhouettes only, wait they are stepping in, and there it is; baseball caps, shorts and sleeveless undershirts. Does the management have the right to refuse them? Probably. But only the snootiest of establishments feel they should/could. So you decide to start dining at home and save your money for the snootiest establishments. How about the theatre? Let’s try sitting up front in the most expensive seats. Surely people who have overpaid will have an appreciation of the specialness of the occasion? Unless by “specialness” you mean texting throughout the performance, or sipping a big gulp, then the answer would be no.

One explanation to at least the restaurant and theatre behavior is that we’ve all become terribly spoiled. We consider what was once “special” to be quite commonplace. We’ve had money or at least credit to spend and our definition of ‘bare essentials’ has expanded. But that doesn’t really explain wearing underwear as outerwear in places of worship or to stroll the streets. Increased standards of living don’t touch upon personal grooming in public or loud personal conversations in the presence of strangers. No doubt contagion and fashion is in play. As the volume around us increases, we are likely to raise our own voice. As style changes we are apt to discard and adopt accordingly. It can be exhausting to swim upstream day in and day out. It is risky to call out to strangers; “indoor voices, no touching, use your words, phones down, say; excuse me, thank you, please, you’re welcome.”   But there are times (more frequent than we possibly care to recognize) when we would relish a booming voice from above instructing us all to play well with others.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 10, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Life, Liberty And A Parade

Independence Day is so inherently celebratory and stress-free it seems odd to think of it as a holiday.  There are no cards or gifts; there is no real family obligation.  There is no food preparation or turning one’s home upside down.  What there is though are oodles of ways to celebrate (and zero societal expectation to really do so.)  Eat a hot dog, wear the colors, hold a sparkler and you’re part of the festivities.  Sit at home and read historical doctrines and you’re in.  Drive on the right side of the road and feel grateful & you’ve partied. Regardless of personal politics or religion, it’s hard to bristle at the substance of the holiday.  Declaration of Independence? Birthday Party? What’s not to like.

Fireworks are nice, though I prefer mine small, local and muted.  Barbecues and picnics are just an excuse for that berry flag cake for me.  What really makes me happy and filled with that 4th feeling is a small town parade.  I’m not sentimental enough to care whose small town or where.  I just want to see kids pulling wagons or riding their decorated bikes. I want my Uncle Sams and scouts of all ages and I want to be pelted with candy from fire trucks. Truth be told without the incentive of impending candy pelting, I’m not sure I would find some of the marchers so endearing. So this 4th, in pursuit of a parade I suited up and crossed a bridge for my slice of the patriotic pie.

At the first sight of re-enactors I knew I’d found the place.  I’m afraid I can’t get more specific than “re-enactor” as the men were dressed in Revolutionary garb, the women were dressed in 19th century dresses and they were all playing Dixie.  The local Republican Party and local Democratic Party were in modern dress and marched with their banner.  I’m accustomed to politicians (elected or running) marching, but these were just party members.  I know we think that there are only two political parties in this country but that doesn’t actually make it true.  They are of course recruiting for their locality and why not?  But what about the disproportionate representation of the military at the parade?  I am all for honoring those who serve but I find it difficult to consider the Fourth of July as a military holiday.  If the military marched to represent service to our country where was the contingent from Teach For America, Americorps and the Peace Corps?  If they were marching to represent our ‘freedoms’ how about a media float or marching judges and voting booths?

I know I was at a small town parade, but that’s the point isn’t it?  Our country is made up of these towns and on some level they really do represent how Americans feel and think.  I’ve no doubt that there were parades around this country that were broad and inclusive.  But the majority were probably more like my sample of one. I’m not convinced though that we need to forfeit quaint and charm to avoid reductionism.  Sitting in my shady spot, trying to blend into the fauna and flora, I learned about what mattered to my sample of one; a small suburban town 20 minutes outside of New York City.  To the naked untrained eye, the marchers and spectators seemed to be of the same ethnicity and perhaps religion.  They were not overly enthusiastic about children (the cars participating outnumbered the children participating 2:1) and they really liked bagpipes and kilts (not one, but two marching groups!)  They are a generous people, supplying spectators with; candy, flags, candy, pinwheels, candy & temporary flag tattoos.  And you did not need to be Jane Goodall to detect that they really like firetrucks.  At least 12 of them were wheeled out at the end (a la Santa Claus.)  One dozen firetrucks.  For a small town whose most popular form of architecture is brick colonial homes.

As the final four firetrucks made their way down the route, I put on my straw hat, grabbed my mini flag and headed cross the river.  No, I had no powdered wig, and yes I was technically headed in the wrong direction, but a little poetic license with one’s re-enacting can be festive.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 5, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

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

Everybody In The Pool

Teenagers attacked a lifeguard on opening day of the McCarren swimming pool.  The lifeguard had reprimanded the teens for reckless diving behavior. There was a bit of buzz about the event, but generally it seemed to be ignored.  There was a suggestion that lifeguards should be adults, as if teenagers respect adults. Teenagers push limits, it’s actually their job.  But there is more than a thin line that separates normal developmental boundary pushing and attacking another person.  The real issue in an attack on a public lifeguard (besides the guard’s safety) is the alarm bells it should be ringing.  If the only person(s) of authority at a public facility are shown no respect what are the other swimmers shown?  What kind of environment are these potential emotional terrorists creating for hundreds of other people.  The moment after this incident occurred was the time to initiate the ‘zero tolerance’ policy.  A pool is not a right nor is it the public education system.  One strike and you’re out.  The tone must be set from the very beginning that there are rules of civility in public spaces.  Clearly this tone hasn’t been set as three days after the lifeguard incident swimmers punched a police officer in the face.  The officer was assisting the lifeguard reprimanding the teenagers for diving.  A second officer was injured as well.

Now before I get all “what in tarnation is going on here” let’s remember that this is a very large pool!  About 1,500 people can fit into that pool at one time.  It stands to reason that a majority of those people are under 21.  That’s a lot of kids.  That’s the size of most high schools.  Add to that the fact that the pool has been closed for 28 years and you might have one or two generations who have never been to a public pool.  This is why you have clearly stated rules and zero tolerance policies.  However, even if you have never been to a public pool you know you’re in public.  What in fact does it say about us that regardless of pool experience our teenagers would even consider attacking anyone let alone a lifeguard or police officer?  None of the perpetrators were identified as a roving gang of thugs (it’s hard to imagine swimming gangs isn’t it?)  By all accounts these were just regular old teens looking to feel more important than they actually are.  But when exactly did that age-old bravado cross the line into borderline sociopathic behavior?  When did they get the idea that it is actually acceptable if not even cool to attack people?!

But for every good student who did show up on time and did complete their homework who has to sit and listen to the teacher’s tirade, I say focus on the kids playing by the rules.  McCarren (and every other public pool) should be a safe and enjoyable respite for all.  Let’s be clear, anyone who attacks a person of authority has no problem wreaking havoc on civilians.  It is intolerable that 1,400+ people should feel intimidated.  There is a very small window in setting a tone for a short season.  A little crackdown in the next couple of (steaming hot) days will go a very long way.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 3, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , ,

That Which We Call A Rose

No one is immune to the volcanic force of language.  An altered preposition, an inflection or a simple nuance can change the course of events if not our mood for the day. This awesome power is acknowledged before we even arrive on the planet. Our names will be labored over (sometimes literally.)  First names, middle names even last named will be constructed to pay respect or foretell character traits or ensure we’ll never have a seat on the supreme court. The words we are first taught, those we are allowed to hear and those we are punished for saying are all overseen with a scrutiny befitting a bank manager. Our legal system and our government are keen on the minutia of language and are poised to change and limit it all the time.  (Lest we think only of the dangers of limiting free speech, let us remember that screaming “fire” in a movie theater is simply not prudent.)  As a society we are continuously reexamining what words and terms are inflammatory or used to incite.

One of the most potent uses of language is that of branding.  There are words and phrases whose intent is spin.  Over the course of time we have found ways to passively (aggressively) brand people or things.  When a grown woman is continuously referred to as a girl, it just sounds more polite than repeating, “you are less than a man.”  Almost any person who’s affiliated with an underrepresented group could offer examples of this paradigm.  As groups become more visible and vocal, words and labels change.  People and groups are still labeled but with new words that have yet to ring as offensive to our ears.  No doubt there is a predictable timeframe of revision that is in play.  What sounds innocuous in 2012 will probably be horrifying in 2032.  We need only think back to what a compliment it was in the 1950s to be called a ‘housewife.’  In the 21st century it is considered an insult (to houses or wives, I’m not sure.)  People now stumble and scramble over terms such as: ‘stay at home mother’ (which suggests an ankle monitor) or “work in the home” (which could mean anything from novelist to parenting to piecework.)  Lots of awkward vague phrasing which rarely accurately communicates anything.

Of course where this less than graceful terminology stems from is the discomfort we’re currently experiencing around women, work, and parenting in the 21st century.   There is much anxiety around the freedom of choice that some women experience.  The anxiety is only exacerbated by the fishbowl we now inhabit.  Even a person 100% certain about his/her choices is barraged by confidence shaking messages.  Culturally we are reacting vigorously to the fact that women now do have choices (perhaps not enough but far more than any other time in recent history.)  If you were a Martian and found yourself at a magazine stand you would think it was in fact the 1950s.  Women are cautioned and coached on how to keep a man interested.  Fashion consists of girdles (with naughty names) sky-high heels, artificial hair (all the better to swish ‘round a pole) dark lacquered nails (requiring daily maintenance) and false eyelashes (forcing perfect posture so as not to inadvertently drop one onto someone’s lap or lunch.)  Now of course no one would confuse a fashion magazine for anything but a nicely bound advert delivery system.  But people are buying them and presumably reading them (which takes all of 10 minutes.)

Is it any wonder that in the midst of what can appear to be a pop culture feminist backlash we find ourselves peppered with the ‘man’ prefix?  It all probably started innocently enough with the first utterance of “male nurse.’  As if we are French and need gender defining articles preceding our nouns.  We now find ourselves in a sea of ‘man caves’ ‘man bags’ ‘bromance’ ‘manny’ ‘manscape’ and countless others I’ve been fortunate enough to ignore.  I’m not sure when a tote bag became feminine or why male friendships need a new name.  Having had male sitters as a child, I’ve no idea why nannies need gender identity.  Manscape?  Really?  It’s called grooming.  What really sticks in my craw however is the ‘man cave.’  If this was a real cave, one in which caped crusaders worked on mammoth computers and were served tea by stiff-upper-lipped British man-servants, I’d be all over it.  But alas, it’s not.  It is a reference to an abode or part of an abode that is reserved for a man.  You know, like how Ward Cleaver had his den and Don Draper had his office because the home was really the woman’s domain?  Look, I’m no Martian (or am I?) but it’s beginning to look a bit like the late 1950s.  Women molded into a Betty Boop silhouette (surgically or through the miracle of spandex) teetering on heels, men sequestered in their “he-man women hater no girls allowed’ space looks an awful lot like there is a yearning to get the genie back into the bottle.

Whether there is something worthwhile in this yearning for a time with clearly defined roles is an interesting concept.  It could be illuminating to tease apart our feelings and desires around equality and options.  But to do so, to have a discourse which goes beyond soundbite or 1000 word blog post we need to know what we’re actually saying.  Understanding ourselves, let alone each other is not facilitated by euphemism or trendy semantics.  There is a difference between using language that is respectful and using language to obfuscate.

 
 

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

The Ails Of Justice

Anyone with even a cursory (Law & Order watching) understanding of the legal system knows it is rarely a true arbiter of right and wrong.  There are endless shades of gray and bizarre roadblocks.  Most arbitrary of all is that verdicts are often rendered by juries.  Juries made up not of young Henry Fondas and Jack Klugmans, but of people who did not get out of serving.  Outside of the courtroom, media frenzy and/or public sentiment can’t help but find its way into the mix.  In the end, everyone involved in meting out justice is merely human.

None of this however prevents me from shaking my head in bewilderment with the news that the three ivy league college students who poisoned a 19 year old during a fraternity ritual were acquitted.  Even more disturbing is that they were charge with hazing, not with murder.  They filled a teenager with four times the legal limit of alcohol and left him to die.  Granted they are no longer attending the university and the fraternity in question was forced to close its chapter, but these young men are free.  They walk away from what they did without any tangible repercussions save their conscience.  The more you know about this case the more dark assumptions you can make about the wheels of justice.  But even a cursory glance strikes one as odd.

The news is made all the more jarring with the announcement that Peter Madoff is headed to jail.  Yes, it has taken three years, and no he hasn’t actually admitted to anything (but innocent people don’t usually agree to ten years time and $143 billion restitution.)  These cases have absolutely nothing in common except for a shared sense of entitlement.  They should not be compared at all.  That salient fact does not seem to be sinking in for me though.

Many many people’s financial security has been shattered by the Madoffs.  No one would dispute that.  For some people it was their retirement accounts that vanished, for others it was college funds.  There were not-for-profit organizations whose losses left them wondering if they would survive at all.  No doubt there were also people who suspected that investing in something pitched as private and exclusive and guaranteeing a high rate of return, sounded too good to be true, and only lost what they could afford.  But to my knowledge, no one involved in the bilking of billions actually killed anyone.

My rational, “da-dum” “no, you’re out of order” brain knows that there are no physics involved in the law.  There is no relation between what happens in one case and what happens in another (unless we’re actually talking about precedent.)  While our entire popular culture and consumer economy is based on trends, not everything else is.  Looking for patterns in justice is futile and disheartening.  However, humans are wired to understand the world through interpreting the behavior of others.  When we can’t do this, either organically (i.e., autism, brain injury) or because events are indisputably random and haphazard, we feel unease.  There is nothing to gain from looking for a universal logic or explanation for the disparity between two completely unrelated events.  However, I’m certain my brain will hurt for most of the day.

It would be easy to explain away the (perceived) disparity by claiming that money will always trump all else.  It might not even sound entirely heartless to suggest that the Madoff wrongdoings affected far more people than those of the fraternity brothers.  It would be accurate to point out that the country is captivated by the Madoffs (either in a schadenfreude way or in a celebrity way.)  It’s safe to assume that there are very well connected people who want to see the family pay for what they’ve done.  They want to see justice, and they have the power to see that is happens.

One could choose to see it that way I suppose.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 28, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

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