RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

A Duty-Free Fable

NYTimes

We’ve all played the Monday morning quarterback game (or in my case the “still in previews, there’s time to fix this show” game.) The impetus for second guessing decisions is not as thoroughly obnoxious as it seems. Analyzing how others behave helps us to assess our own behavior and inform future acts. As we go through life we learn more about people and about the land mines of life that can lead to curious behavior. Most of us have a fertile enough imagination to explain most exhibited behaviors. And in a pinch; most anything can be explained away with; “They must be having a bad day.” Even when we see something bordering on the unexplainable we can piece together the mother of all soap opera story lines to make sense of our world. (Ex., That older woman throwing cantaloupes at the 16-year-old cashier just found out that she’s lost every penny of her savings, her only child just called to tell her she wants nothing to do with her, her husband just left her after 40 years of marriage, but not before telling her about his other family, and her doctor just called with the test results.)

We can empathize when we see people in large groups behaving oddly as well. When reading about passengers fleeing a crashed and burning airplane we (hopefully) can only imagine what was going through their minds. We can only guess what exactly would compel someone to carry his or her luggage onto an escape slide. We’ve all been on stationary and stable airplanes and can attest to the narrow and awkward aisles. Moving from or toward the exit with your luggage is never easy or graceful and usually involves banging into several people. Now picture those aisles filled with unhinged seats, smoke, debris and burning metal. People are literally on top of each other making their way to the exits. Taking up valuable space and time with one’s luggage during an emergency is hard to fathom. But if we give it a moment we can. What if some passengers are not just carrying a change of clothes? What if their journey was one of retrieval or discovery and in their bag are the results? What if there is a document proving or disproving a grievous crime? What if there is an heirloom or token that will give peace to a dying loved one? What if there are medications that can not be replaced in a timely manner? There are explanations that would help us make sense of a seemingly odd decision. Anything we can come up with is more pleasant than the thought of putting other lives in jeopardy for the sake of an iPad or change of underwear. It does not hurt to be generous in our imaginings as these fleeing people most surely were in a state of shock. But even the most imaginative or even compassionate of us might be challenged by the sight of two boxes of duty-free alcohol on the tarmac. What kind of impulse would drive someone to rescue their booze? It couldn’t have been unconscious; two boxes of liquor are very heavy. Even someone not terribly concerned with the well being of his/her fellow man would sense the danger to themselves. Making one’s way through a jungle gym of seats and debris with an unwieldy, heavy flammable box filled with glass can’t feel even remotely self-preserving. We could chalk it up to shock but that not one stopped him/her weakens that argument. Flight attendants cannot be everywhere policing everyone, but no other passenger stopped the human saloon? Did this person actually jump onto the slide with the boxes on his/her lap or did he/she send them down on their own? This is where my imagination sputters a bit.

We’ve all done things of which we’re not particularly proud and we all respond in our own way in moments of crisis. There are just as many people who are “good” in an emergency as there are those who falter. There are also just as many people who see the world (and humanity) as bigger than themselves. It stands to reason that the liquor courier was decidedly not in the “the problem of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world” camp. But I think it’s safe to say that he/she was surrounded by at least some people whose impulse was to consider those around them. I’ve no doubt that some passengers and crew attempted to disarm him/her. I refuse to think otherwise. I also believe that most of us will remember this tale and will conjure it in moments of split-decisions. Outside of disaster and emergency it is still a useful fable. We all face decisions (big and small) every single day; most of them affect no one but ourselves. But when we are faced with decision that could affect others; at work, at home, in the world; it’s best to err on the side of generosity and compassion and to leave the box of booze.

 
 

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

A Rose Is A Rose Is A Rose*

for hire

The French are looking to Germany and Switzerland for sex. No, really. The French who are known for their romance and liberal sexual appetite, are turning to countries known more for precision for the messy imprecise act of love. This isn’t some sort of cultural rebellion or irony like Le Big Mac; it is instead a response to France’s laws regarding prostitution. Prostitution is legal in France, but third-party procurement is not. Ordinarily most people can go out and fetch themselves some company, but the issue here is that of the disabled. People with physical and/or mental disabilities who want to hire people for sexual interaction need to do so over the phone or through a service, which is not legal in France. The issue of disability and sex workers is becoming more (internationally) popular these days and brings up many interesting questions.

It’s not possible to discuss any of them without addressing the legalization of prostitution. It’s a bizarre law that offers little if any protection to whom it claims to protect. If we really cared about the victimization of women, men, boys & girls they wouldn’t be working the streets in the first place. And speaking of working the streets…dropping the euphemisms would be helpful as well. Using words such as; escort, surrogate, and call girl creates a meaningless hierarchy. Does the teenager working a corner deserve less protection than the 35-year old with business cards and connections? We can’t really believe that an hourly worker is less deserving than a salaried worker? So let’s start with calling it what it is: prostitution. It is what it is, and if you find it repugnant you probably should not be one or hire one.

Now back to the issue of the disabled and sex workers. If prostitution were legal we’d be done with this chat. But seeing as it’s not, and there seems to be the beginning of a disabilities movement brewing, let’s discuss. At the heart of much of the rising outcry is that disabled people are entitled to a sex life. No one would argue with that. But the giant leap from “sex life” to paying for the sex life is worth noting. The underlying sentiment is that the only way for a disabled person to have sex is to purchase it. This is not only inaccurate but also a bit frightening. Who is determining this? How physically or mentally disabled does one have to be to forgo any chance of a romantic relationship? What is the cut-of? Does a woman who thinks she’s too big qualify? What of a man who considers himself too small? What about those with speech impediments, scars, skin diseases, disfigurements?

It’s not that much of a leap that legalized prostitution will go the way of legalized marijuana. With the right connections/doctors some people will be able to avail themselves of something, which is illegal to others. If you believe that this path is the one of least resistance to get these laws off the books than this is good news. If you believe that making judgements of people’s worthiness is nasty business, than it’s not. All men are created equal. Searching for exceptions or classifying groups is something we do when we cannot embrace the enormity of that concept.

*Gertrude Stein

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 5, 2013 in Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

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

What Comes After DOMA?

images

On June 26th, seventeen years of national legalized bigotry ended. The United Sates Supreme Court ruled the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, unconstitutional. This is a monumental development on both a political and personal level. Politically, we haven’t had a President (in any living person’s memory) who legalized discrimination. On a personal level, the repeal of DOMA means that it is no longer legal for only some people to have the full rights and privileges afforded to all Americans. Nationally, that is. It is still very legal for states to discriminate against an entire group of people.

Currently only 13 states* allow equal marriage. A couple who have married in these states and remain in these states for their entire lives have their marriages recognized on both a federal and state level. For anyone living or moving to any of the other states their rights are still greatly reduced. It is pretty clear by now that the SCOTUS and administration are happy to have the states figure this all out on their own. While there is no doubt that momentum is building across the country, and the numbers of states abolishing discrimination will continue to grow; this is no time to rest on our laurels. We know that there are many regions in this country that are not going to embrace this civil right. We know that there are states that have a very conservative and/or religious political agenda. We also know that money talks.

Boycotting states with legalized discrimination will fast track this movement. We can do this individually at varying levels of personal sacrifice. We can choose not to vacation in these states (perhaps the easiest form of boycott), we can choose not to move to or live in these states (perhaps the more challenging form of boycott) and we can do many things in between. We can refuse to do business with companies that choose to have their headquarters in these states. We can boycott corporations who donate money to politicians in these states. Companies can do more than issue press releases about their support of equality. They too can boycott these states; refusing to open offices, retail outlets or hold events. Once cleansing themselves of these affiliations, they can launch campaigns in which they brand themselves as ethical partners (it’s like being “green” but with many more colors of the rainbow.)

We know from experience that money is as powerful an influencer as public sentiment. When we shine the spotlight on these states, and (fairly) equate their stance to that of Jim Crow, we will make a difference. It’s Pride Week and there’s much to celebrate. It’s okay to bask in this victory for a bit. But when social media users switch back to their profile pics, relegating the red marriage equality symbol to a pop-art fixture, it’s time to put our money where are mouths (or avatars) are. It is a wonderful time to be living in these 13 states, but what of our brothers and sisters and our own sense of pride? Yes, many of us identify ourselves (geographically) by our state, but the world does not. The world sees us as Americans and rightly so. We are only as free as the next guy or gal. If there is anywhere in this country in which people are not treated equally under the law, we are all tainted. Think of this country as a meringue; one drop of egg yolk and we all fold.

*California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington (and the District of Columbia)

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 29, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

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

Step Right Up And See The Show!

tent

Is there anyone so decent as to not enjoy watching the mighty slip and fall? Schadenfreude; it’s not just fun to say! There is nothing shameful in experience just the tiniest thrill when celebrities’ true colors are flown in full view. It’s not that we’ve been campaigning for their demise or even giving it a moment’s thought. It’s just that sooner or later we grow tired of the monsters we’ve created.

A celebrity is nothing more than someone who has orchestrated our interest. They could not exist were it not for our buy-in. Playing a sport well does not make you a celebrity (as anyone who’s played an obscure sport in the Olympics) nor does proficiency in the arts (quick: who’s the ‘2013 Face of Oboists’?) Being a celebrity means we know who you are. That’s all. Sometimes the phenomenon is accidental; say, the result of landing an airplane safely in the Hudson River. But statistically speaking far more celebrities are self-created.

Most of us, even while queuing up to see the latest blockbuster or buying the latest gizmo or gadget, mildly resent being manipulated. We don’t mind it enough to stop buying what’s being sold but on some level it rankles just a tad. Which is why it makes things a bit entertaining when they go awry. Our pleasure is less distasteful due to the fact that these people will rise from the (artfully placed) ashes. Anyone who has come from a blue-collar New Jersey town, or sold sandwiches or window treatments door to door is going to bounce back just fine. These are scrappy and ingenious self-promoters who will not go gently into obscurity. Sure they might put a Kmart contract at risk while in the slammer, but don’t you shed a tear. They will figure out how to get the biggest publicity bang out of the experience. That’s the beauty of celebrity. Who you are and what you can do are immaterial; it’s all about your barker skills. Placing gourds around your home in the fall, adding mayonnaise to every meal or using ‘really good vanilla’ are not unique or even mildly interesting techniques. But describing these endeavors with proper lighting, condescending tone or good-ole girl twang, is a great gimmick. (And you know, it really is best to get a gimmick.)

So when these celebrities who have cultivated a brand of ‘don’t you wish you were me?” have their underbelly exposed it’s just a tiny bit satisfying. We are not disappointed and distressed as we are when elected officials or society folks show their worst selves. Instead we have just a nanosecond of ‘no, I really don’t wish I were you.’ We still buy the junk they’re selling of course. But for at least a moment we will be aware of the ingredients. And being aware of what we consume, even if it’s only for a moment, is never a bad thing.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 22, 2013 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

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

Talking About A Revolution

boss

Flextime, telecommuting and consulting are no longer the new kids on the block. Twenty years or so ago they were exhibits a, b and c in the revolution of the workplace. Flexible time was to address the fact that few people live in social isolation. Telecommuting took advantage of technology and reduced overhead costs. Consulting was (in theory) to offer flexibility to workers and (in actuality) to save companies lots and lots of money. It was assumed, that work is work whether a boss (or colleagues) can see it being done or not. Ah how adorably naive we were.

Coincidence or not what is considered ‘productivity’ in the workplace has changed during the same period that these words became de rigueur. It’s difficult, and perhaps irrelevant to determine which came first, but my money is on the vernacular as the forerunner. Somewhere post Working Girl, Glengarry Glen Ross and Wall Street office life changed. There was a time (think really big hair) that getting the work done; in relative isolation was the norm. Most industries did not dictate group work, teams, or even presentations. There was little time spent selling oneself internally or making sure one looked as if one was working. The latter really took flight with advances in technology. How grand it is to set one’s alarm or code one’s email to appear to be working at 3:00 AM on a Sunday (during a 3-day weekend!) It would be wonderful if this “look at me, I’m working” approach was not a direct response to flextime, telecommuting and consulting. After all the very raison d’être of exhibits a, b and c is to not be engaging in work as performance art but instead to be producing perhaps invisiblly to the naked eye.

The workplace can be a very paranoid place indeed. There’s something about a shared microwave that breeds immaturity and pettiness as well. (Seriously people don’t ordinarily go around stealing each other’s food and leaving fuzzy congealed cartons in the refrigerator. But in the workplace we’re all 15 again.) It is (almost) natural to pit oneself against others and when others aren’t visible things get complicated and messy. Of course it doesn’t have to be this way.

Good leadership can create an environment of collaboration and support. A leader who understands how flexible work schedules and home offices can be beneficial will make it work. An organization that rewards productivity, stewardship and penalizes wastes of time, money and people will create more harmony among workers. But to do any of these things demands very skilled leaders. Perhaps there are people born with an innate sense of organizational behavior and social psychology, but I’ve yet to meet them. Being the best widget designer, or bond trader or scientist does not prepare one for being a great supervisor. It might seem a minor point, the cultivation of good bosses, but an awful lot hinges upon it.

As the ‘look at me I’m working’ approach becomes more popular, productivity is not necessarily increasing. Technology and real life lend themselves to working remotely, yet workers are often penalized (overtly or subtly) for availing themselves of the options. Neither of these workplace revolutions supports our economy or employment. Having people work more, do less and burn out quicker is not sustainable. Marginalizing talent who avail themselves of company policies is shortsighted. Much is said about preparing young people for the workplace. Enough cannot be said about preparing workers for leadership positions.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

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