RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

Everyday People*

5875791298_2cbcee97ff_z

The New York City Police Department has a melting pot guide for its officers. This guide offers tips for understanding the ingredients that make up our multicultural stew. At first blush it would seem a little quaint in the 21st century to need such a guide (in New York City). Unless the police recruits are coming from a small town (in the 1950s!) it’s a pretty sure bet that they’ve met or seen people of other backgrounds. But more than a cursory familiarity is needed on the front lines.

What is striking about this 21st century guide is the assumptions it makes. The reports of its content would suggest that it is written for the white, Christian, heterosexual police officer. Unfortunately there’s nothing unique about this approach. “Diversity” manuals are almost always written from that perspective (and without irony!) Social worker guidelines, medical manuals, public and private sector human resource documents are almost always written from the perspective of the white Christian heterosexual. Anyone doubting this need only flip through the tomes in pursuit of the chapter: Understanding White Christian Heterosexuals. Good luck with that.

Beside the obvious bias that this perspective has, there is a larger efficacy issue at hand. Police officers, social workers, et al. who are not white, Christian and heterosexual experience a gap in their training. A social worker, let’s say from an observant Jewish urban background, working in a rural white Christian area is not well served by this type of training. It is assumed that she will know the customs and culture of white rural Christians. The assumption that NYPD officers are white, Christian and heterosexual is (mercifully) outdated. A first-generation Chinese-American police officer may be well versed in the customs of Chinese-Americans but not know the customs and culture of white Christians. It is true that people who are outside of the power-base of a society know some of the ways of that power group. It is an integral key to survival to know of the holidays and some customs of Christians, whites and heterosexuals if you are not of that background. But the more subtle cultural cues (the type which are always addressed in these manuals and training) need to be spelled out clearly for all people of all backgrounds. Creating diversity manuals, which only have the potential of being 100% effective for white Christian heterosexuals transcends irony.

By not viewing whites, Christians and heterosexual people as a “group” we are asserting that these people are the norm and everyone else is a minority or special interest. This perspective is not helpful and is on the verge of being utterly false. If nothing else it is woefully old-fashioned. When it comes to the topic of cultural awareness we must be ahead of the curve not behind it.

*I am no better and neither are you
We are the same whatever we do – Sly Stone (1968)

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 11, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

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

Surviving AIDS

quilt

There are (at least) two AIDS exhibits in New York City right now. One is part of a larger exhibit about activism in NYC and the other focuses on the first five years of the disease in NYC. Both of these exhibits are limited in their focus rendering them both effective. To create one exhibit that tells the 30+ year story of the disease, the social impact & history, the science and politics would be daunting and possibly not very meaningful. Historians and curators are familiar with this phenomenon if they’ve ever struggled with how to tell the story of something that changed everything. It’s best to narrow the focus to help people experience the story on the most intimate level.

It’s remarkable (and worth noting) that exhibits about AIDS have moved beyond a quilt exhibition. While nothing will mitigate the devastation, loss and shameful politics of the period, it is exhilarating to consider how far we’ve come. There is now an entire generation who has come into their sexuality without fear of death. The anxiety of HIV/AIDS testing is a distant memory for most. In the past, people would debate the trip to the doctor/clinic, not convinced that they actually would want to know. Weeks were spent waiting for the results, which could only be given in person. Today, like ovulation, pregnancy, and blood sugar, HIV testing can now be done at home. There is still no cure and there is still stigma, but boy have things changed, and that is a story worth telling.

Back in the early 1980s people started getting a rare form of cancer. The fact that it seemed to be striking gay men caused doctors to create the name GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). A year or two later the name changed to the more accurate AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) and a few years later (1986) HIV was identified. In those first few years there was little information and as is often the case, rumor and fear filled the void. All that was really known was that homosexual men were getting very sick and dying. It was not known how exactly the disease could and could not be transmitted. Was it airborne? Could you get it from touching skin, sharing food, drink, or smoke? Patients were quarantined and communities were panicked. Things only got worse when a dormant period of the disease came to light. People who looked and felt perfectly healthy became concerned. Film and movie sets grew tense seemingly overnight. Few actors were ‘out’ in the early 1980s but friends and colleagues suspected (or knew firsthand). You couldn’t tell who might be sick (or harboring the disease) and therefore everyone (who seemed gay) was suspect. Some actresses refused to do kissing/sex scenes. Some actors refused as well (there is very sad and painful footage of Rock Hudson trying to avoid kissing Linda Evans). People in real life changed their behavior as well. Some people were concerned about their hairdresser. Should he be touching clients? Waiters drew public concern as they touched the tableware. Homosexuals, a group profiled since the dawn of time, were now seen as potentially dangerous, even lethal.

Devastation often brings people together, and the disease did. Gays (and lesbians) came together to support, fight and care for the ill. They took to the bedside, the streets, the stage and made their presence known. They drew attention not just to the disease but also to the deafening silence of political leadership. It’s impossible to separate the political stance and funding allocation for AIDS with the perception of it being a ‘gay disease’. In the later 1980s very public evidence of the equal opportunity of infection came to light. Ryan White’s mother sued the Indiana Department of Education in late 1985. Ryan, a hemophiliac had AIDS and wanted to attend school. Elisabeth Glaser died from AIDS in 1984 after receiving a tainted blood transfusion. (Both of her children died shortly thereafter.) She was married to a very popular actor at the time. And disgusting as it is, it’s true; a child and a celebrity spouse made for a better cause than homosexuals.

One could certainly argue that the disease galvanized a movement and a visibility that has birthed today’s civil rights progress. But oh what a price was paid. Entire communities were lost (particularly in the arts.) An inconceivable amount of people has died from AIDS (25 million) worldwide. People are still contracting the disease all over the world, the worst infection rate is in sub-Saharan Africa. Prevention in these countries is incredibly challenging. Here at home there are many many people of all backgrounds and orientation experiencing a degree of sexual freedom that would make 60s love-in participants blush. It’s likely that safe sex is not often practiced. AIDS is no longer seen as a death sentence, but something for which you can take a pill (and not a regime of dozens of pills at specific times of the day). But it is still a helluva disease with no cure and it’s most certainly best to avoid it.

We can be grateful that the fear has lifted and for the medical progress that has been made. But it’s vital that men and women who have no memory of 30 years ago be told the story. It’s not about making people feel badly it’s about giving them roots. Knowing where we came from and how far we’ve come is empowering. When we feel strong and relevant we engage in less risky behavior.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 7, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

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

You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two*

stealing

One of the classic adolescent rebellions played out in homes around the world involves the interpretation of limits. Taking the car out at 12:01 AM is not technically driving at night. Having friends over to ‘study’ isn’t really having a party. The teen, having recently acquired the ability to discern shades of grey, knows exactly what they’re doing. They know that the intention of the ‘night driving’ restriction has to do with the dark and not the time. They know that they are not to have friends over when there is no adult present. But one can admire their commitment to the job of testing limits and tormenting parents. That is the point of adolescence (that and moving themselves and their packed bags closer to the front door). But what about full-grown people who engage in the same rule/law/ethics interpretations? How did they get stuck in an adolescent developmental stage and does it apply to all areas of their lives?

Does the president of the Academy of Arts & Sciences have her staff falsely claim her to have a doctorate on grant proposals, then dare them to pierce something? After stashing close to half a million dollars in an off-shore account does the U.S. Trade Nominee then swipe a twenty out of his mom’s wallet? As the Military Joint Chiefs of Staff defend their male dominated, hierarchical, and abstruse approach to sex crimes are they texting each other about getting with Senator Gillibrand? There are times when skirting the letter of the law and finding creative solutions is admirable. Many examples come to mind within institutions catering to the vulnerable. Hospitals are notorious for rules & regulations that may not always be beneficial to a patient. Social services agencies can at times be more rules than reason. Schools become increasingly rule-bound with every semester. We are often put in the position of reinterpreting or bypassing rules (or even laws) when the situation warrants it.

And this is when things get sticky. A mature adult with a sense of communal responsibility and an interest in the world should be able to discern between personal benefit and compassion/public good. Letting your dog off the leash in a populated park may make the dog happy, but mostly it makes you feel like a cool dog owner. Smashing the window of a parked car to rescue a dog from a sun-baked death is for the benefit of the dog. Both of these acts are against the law and only one poses a potential danger to others (the leash-less dog). We are continuously enacting laws or fines to encourage people to act decently. The very fact that we need to approach decency from the outside in is problematic. Parents everywhere will tell you how exasperating this is as they engage in it day after day after day. Time-outs begat no phone, begat no car begat grounding. Parenthood can at times seems like a progression of creative external incentives to do the right thing.

Isn’t the idea of adulthood that we’ve now internalized decency? Don’t we pull up our big boy/girl pants and realize all we have is our word and reputation? When we decide to lie (and lying is always a decision) about our credentials (on resumes, Linkedin, proposals, and in interviews) do we honestly think that no one will find out? Are we making a conscious decision to be seen as not just less qualified but a liar too? When we put money offshore, presumably having decided that we’ve already paid what we care to in taxes, do we not worry how that will be perceived? In essence the law that allows for this form of tax evasion is no different than many other less sexy loopholes. We all know that some level of corruption exists in enabling these rules and laws to exist. When we avail ourselves of a corrupt, personally beneficial act, we do so knowing we are harming others. That we teach our children (by our act) that this is a decent way to live is baffling. But that we can consider ourselves suitable for public office is simply loony. That we can look at military brass behaving abhorrently and hear the strains of ‘boys will be boys’ in our heads tells us everything.

Children will be children, it’s their job after all. And teens will be teens. But will adults be adults? What becomes of a society that is mired in adolescence? Impulse driven self-absorbed, risk tolerant behavior is very scary when it lacks parental oversight. Rules and laws have their place but they can’t take the place of conscience. Nothing can.

*Oliver (1960) – Lionel Bart

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 5, 2013 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

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

Seeing Differences

tiger7_1508441a

I’m a profiler. Why pretend otherwise? Without any effort whatsoever; the appearance, and speech of a stranger is rapidly calculated and a (metaphorical) card pops out that reads; “tourist” “nanny” “poser”. We all do this to one extent or another. People who can not assess people by visual and verbal cues are often taken to a specialist. There is an actual biological origin and motivation for this ability. Our senses exist to take in information and to assess danger. We may not know everything about the tiger say, its hobbies or dreams, but we know it’s a tiger and it’s headed straight toward us.

Most everyone can make certain generalizations about people very quickly. This comes in handy when looking for directions; would you ask a tourist how to get somewhere or would you ask a local? Of course you’d have to be able to identify a tourist and a local. And, this is where people may get themselves into trouble. “Appearance” is not a question of skin tone or pant waist. The way in which someone carries him or herself is an integral part of their appearance and often speaks volumes about who they are. What a person says and not just how they say it is also key. Grammar, syntax and accent are fascinating but may tell you less about someone’s intentions than what it is they’re actually saying. What people say (and don’t say) is probably the best (and perhaps only) reliable indicator of who a person is.

A 20-something in a stuck elevator wailing how ‘this is the single worst thing that’s ever happened to me in my entire life’ has led a charmed life, no? The same could be said about a supervisor who without a word, routinely hands you his empty coffee cups. The stranger, who worlessly pushes you to the ground at the sound of an explosion, knows a thing or two about survival. Our past and our sense of our place in the world are continuously communicated. We tell our stories (laced with varying degrees of fiction) literally and figuratively. For those who engage in the literal, it’s always fascinating to see what they include and choose to omit. In their editing, they often tell us more about themselves than they ever intended. Case in point: a woman wrote the story of her small child’s dog attack (just to be clear; the dog attacked the child.) It’s a traumatizing and bloody story that quite frankly is entirely her doing. She has remorse for the trauma and the facial scar but seems to have zero understanding of her role in the mauling. She knowingly created an extremely dangerous situation, not just for her own child but for anyone in proximity. That her children were not removed from the home, she was not imprisoned and was paid to write about her sorrow can only lead me to come to this conclusion; she is privileged. Had she lived in public housing the authorities would be aware of her behavior. If she had been to a public hospital the authorities would know. If she had looked a certain way or talked a certain way, the authorities would know.

It causes me no pleasure that I have engaged in the same act of profiling that perpetuates such inequity. But how do we ever fight for justice if we cannot detect the injustices? The only way to see that people are treated differently is to see the differences. There is nothing immoral or politically incorrect about acknowledging that people are diverse. What is morally reprehensible is to engage in separate and unequal justice.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 1, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

In Other Misogynistic News…

feminism-3

The highest court in El Salvador has decided that a 22-year old woman must continue with her life threatening pregnancy and give birth to a baby who if born alive will die immediately. The young woman has lupus and obstetric complications. She also has a small child at home. The court’s justification is the same spouted by anyone looking to control a woman’s body; they are protecting the fetus. The fetus in question is encephalitic and cannot possibly live as a baby for more than moments. There is an actual child who might very well lose his mother to this pregnancy. That this woman is being forced to endure this pregnancy is barbaric. A court ordered pregnancy is holding her hostage. She will witness her declining health and her growing stomach, helpless to alter the tragic outcome.

That this is occurring in El Salvador is less relevant today than it might have once been. Twenty or so years ago we may have been horrified but resigned. After all, El Salvador is a very religious country. But guess what? So is America now. Not since the Puritans landed on Plymouth Rock have we had such a powerful religious influence on politics and policy. In 2013 it’s rather difficult to point the finger at any other country’s religious fervor. Almost without exception all organized religions agree on a few points; there is an invisible entity that guides, there is a polarity of good and evil, and women have a place. It is not a coincidence that as the nation (finally) benefits from the feminist fights of the 1970s we are seeing reproductive freedoms erode. Those longhaired, bell bottom wearing woman marched through the streets with signs reading; A Woman’s Place Is In The House And In The Senate. And guess what? They are in the House and in the Senate. Their numbers don’t come close to representing 51% of the population, but it is an improvement. Equity in sports has a long way to go, but just remember what Billie Jean King had to endure. It is no longer legal to hire according to gender. That women still make less than 3/4 of what men earn, is an issue, but still it is progress.

So if it’s no longer legal to keep women out of office, the workplace or sports, what is a misogynist to do!? Well we know for a fact that sexism in medicine is both easy to engage in and rarely questioned. We know that medications are routinely researched and developed according to a male test subject. We know that great efforts have been made to ensure that men can always have sex (while on life-support if need be) but there is still no hormonal male birth control. Most medical machines and devices are designed for male patients (except for that gem, the mammography machine which if any man had ever to place any of his sensitive bits into would be redesigned in an instant.) When we combine the sexism of traditional medicine with the sentimentality of “it’s for the children” it’s far easier to attempt to marginalize 51% of the population. It’s not for the children; it’s never been for the children. If people cared a whit about the children we would have stellar healthcare and nutrition for all and the best K-12 system on the planet. We came close to that reality once, but I think we’ll all agree that there’s been some serious backsliding. It’s not for the children that we force a teenage girl (who is in fact a child) to endure a pregnancy and birth, or to look at a sonogram of her fetus. (How is it that using technological advances to traumatize girls and women is contemplated let alone allowed?!)

The truth is that any group outside of the power structure will suffer as they progress. We’ve seen it happen to every minority group. Homeostasis is a very strong force. There will always be those who feel that people they view as ‘less than’ are infringing on their rights by having rights of their own. But it’s hard to fathom how torturing a 22-year old woman and leaving her small child motherless makes anyone feel better about themselves.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 30, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

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