Things I'm Torn About: Respectability Part 2: Achievement

"It's about the beauty of failure. It's about that failure happens to all of us...Every character is not only flawed, but sucks at what they do, and is beautiful at it and Jackson and I suck at what we do, and we try to be beautiful at it, and failure is how you get by...It shows that failure's funny, and it's beautiful and it's life, and it's okay, and it's all we can write because we are big fucking failures. "
---Doc Hammer, co-creator of The Venture Brothers, on the show's underlying message.


It's hard to tell the difference between indolence and protest, and it's hard to tell the difference between subservience and greatness.

The cult of work in America is rooted in our Protestant work ethic, so well documented by Max Weber, and the Protestant work ethic in turn is rooted in a cult of pain worship, which historically has been the essence of most expressions of Christianity. There is a fundamental belief that pain is redemptive and meaningful, and the idea that somebody should live an enjoyable life without having "earned" it through the pain of work is offensive to the American psyche. I believe this pain worship at the heart of American culture is pathological. I don't believe it's rooted in anything rational, but rather is a byproduct of two millenia of steady Christianization. As Weber points out, it dovetails perfectly with the dictates of capitalism. Isn't it a convenient coincidence that this belief in the redemptive power of work happens to also maximize profits for owners of capital? Or, in the case of public or nonprofit organizations, to maximize the achievement of misssion? Either way, our deep psychological commitment to the idea of redemptive pain and earned rewards is readily exploited by management to maximimally sublimate the individual. Enjoyment of life is countenanced with legitimacy only when it occurs according to the time, place, and manner deemed appropriate by the powers that be (i.e., only after one has first dedicated the appropriate time and energy to the furtherance of organizational goals).

I don't believe that pain is fundamentally good. I don't. I think pain is pain. Pain MAY be a necessary step on the way to improvement, but our culture goes beyond that. We are committed to an aesthetic of pain. We are so threatened by the possibility that pain and suffering could just be random and unfortuante occurrences in life that we must invent some sort of intrinsic value for suffering. I think this is irrational and is a mistake and leads us to abandon pleasures even when it is unnecessary and to embrace pain even when it's pointless. I also think we have too quickly swallowed the idea that human existence should be something that occurs only for a few hours a night, weekends, and 2 weeks a year. I believe people work too much in the United States, and that humans should have more time to themselves to do other things.

So, basically, I have part of my brain that celebrates laziness. That celebrates career mediocrity. That celebrates abject failure. That celebrates the roustabouts and the bums and the Lebowskis and the indolent sages that speckle society. The pieces of shit doing nothing all day long. The people who call in sick and don't pick up the slack and hang out with their lovers and their kids instead of spending every possible waking second at the office.

ON THE OTHER HAND....

I also have a tremendous respect for achievement, and the sacrifice that it requires! I love art! I love science! I love philosophy! I love technology! I love organizations that help the world! Making a mark in just about any field almost always requires a tremendous amount of work! I can't very well celebrate people's accomplishments without having a deep appreciation for the work they had to put in.

I also respect people's dedication to their family's material well-being. Sacrifice is part of being a good provider for one's family. Is it great to be around for your kids' school play? Sure, it's freakin great. But is it also great to be able to buy braces for them and to send them to rich kid summer camp so they can meet other rich kids and grow up to get rich people jobs? Yeah! Yeah, that's also freakin great.

So I have this other part of my brain that says that a person should be dedicated to something. To a cause of some kind. To something greater than their own lives. Most of the time, this will involve a lot of time spent doing something other than what most would consider "recreation."

I am genuinely torn about this. How should I feel about my own career, which is certainly not achievement oriented right now? Should I make it my goal to pay my bills with the least amount of working hours humanly possible? There are days when I feel like that. That committing myself to a high-octane, R1 career path (assuming it was even possible) would be to sell myself out, to waste my one chance at being a human on some faceless organization that will chew me up, spit me out, send me the gold watch, and never look back. Or should I make it my goal to try to make a difference in the world? To try to be a famous researcher? Or even a famous artist? To get my policy ideas adopted by governments? To ease people's suffering?

I don't know! I really don't. My personality is not naturally gifted in the areas necessary to be successful...I have trouble with organization, concentration, and self-discipline, so I probably won't do that with my life. But I guess the question is, how bad should I feel about that?

Wherein I write a review of Girls, indicating an utterly delusional belief that anybody on the planet cares one iota what I think about Girls.

I've been watching Girls on HBO. Some random thoughts after a season and a half:

1. The show works best as a satire of privileged kids trying to transform themselves into interesting people. It's strongest when it's mercilessly mocking their narcissism and class-blindness and naivete. It's weakest when it seems to break from satire to try to impart some profundity to these characters. They're not profound. They're mostly all douchebags and pretentious buffoons trying to become interesting people by living in a place they've been told is interesting and doing things they believe interesting people would do. They aren't interesting people and probably never will be. The show mostly understands this, though, and it's funny to see their efforts pilloried. Having come out on the far end now of the age group depicted in the show, I know by the time they get to be my age, most of them will be gainfully employed with a middle class salary, married, with a house, a kid on the way, and nanny interviews scheduled. Which is fine. I love it when people finally settle in and accept that they'd rather be comfortable than interesting. It's honest. It's painful but funny to watch these characters try to have it both ways, which is about as rare as getting a pro-basketball contract. You can be interesting, or you can be comfortable, but you can't be both. Like most people, they'll get there eventually. Although, ironically, the show consists of actors and it's creator (Lena Dunham) who actually have succeeded in finding a lucrative and creative career. Still, though, I don't think these characters are going to make it.

2. Fuck New York City. We don't need any more stories set in that place. Plenty of other places in the world worth hearing about.

3. I've never spent too much time around female social circles, having grown up in a house with three males and only one female. I don't think I believe, though, that most women just walk in and talk to their friends while they're on the toilet or taking a bath.

4. Lena Dunham is naked a lot, to the point where it's noticeably incongruous with the story. I almost get the feeling she gets off by writing nude scenes for herself. It's a strange contrast with the character Hannah's personality, which is fairly uptight and neurotic. Yet, she still gets naked every other scene and in fairly public ways sometimes. Maybe this contrast is intentional and is trying to say something about her desperation to be somebody different than she has been her whole life. That's possible. It's also possible Lena Dunham is an exhibitionist who has been handed the power to put herself into a lot of nude scenes on a popular television show.

5. Oh, Hannah is talking to some new guy and they're standing close to one another. Do you think maybe one of them will suddenly and aggressively kiss the other without warning, leading to an intense sexual encounter?! Yes! Because this happens every single goddamn episode.

6. There's a scene where the owner of the coffee shop where Hannah works makes fun of her for writing about relationships. He asks why she doesn't write about political issues or death or "real shit." I liked that scene because it was the show acknowledging it's own ridiculousness: that it's trying to derive meaning from this story about privileged white kids trying to find meaning. Later in that episode, Hannah tries to write a story about death that turns out to suck. It's the show saying, "yes, we know this is material is neither profound nor politically relevant, but it's what we know how to do, and we do it well, so just fucking enjoy it." Later, we see the coffee shop owner struggle with a romantic relationship and his own anxiety about failure, and it's the show saying, "see, even you pretentious assholes who are always on about politics and whatnot have a heart that needs tending."

7. The arc of Hannah's relationship with Adam is very well done and funny and touching and believable. Most of the other romantic relationships are hard to believe. The actor who plays Adam is incredible and might be in the new Star Wars movie!

8. I enjoy the friend fights between Hannah and Marnie. As I said, I don't have a lot of experience with female friendships, and it's really interesting to see them argue. The arguments seem really strange to me. It's hard to pinpoint what exactly they're arguing about a lot of the times.

9. I like how the show wrestles with the male characters' misogyny and the female characters' reactions to it. Marnie is dating a really nice guy and dumps him for being too nice, eventually finding a verbally abusive jerkoff artist. But she clearly makes that choice of her own free will. It's strange. And Hannah's boyfriend Adam is both really honest and sweet but also a stalkery psycho who she ends up fearing. But something about him attracts her to him, despite all the red flags that he's got serious anger issues. The women are not completely absolved of responsibility in pursuing these crappy relationships with asshole men. The hippie-dippy world traveler gal marries an asshole financier. We all know it's doomed from the get go, but who's fault is that? Hard to say. It's nice that these dynamics are not placed squarely on the shoulders of some caricatured misogynistic men.

10. I realize that many people in the world have a lot more sex with a lot more people than I do, but this show is almost entirely about people having sex. The dramatic tension in the show is mostly about sex. The dialogue in the show is often about sex. Sex is certainly a big part of life, but it's not THAT big a part of life. Sex is not actually that interesting. It's like kids....if they're yours, there's probably nothing that matters more, but if they're somebody else's, they're about as interesting as mold. I don't care about these characters' sex lives, except when they point out how stupid they are, which is funny.

Overall, I think it's a good show that sometimes gets confused about whether it's a satire of the age-old quest by young privileged people to be cool or an earnest exploration of the beauty of 20-somethings finding themselves in New York City. When it sticks with the former, it's often really well done and funny. When it drifts into the latter, it's a crap shoot.

Things I'm Torn About: Being Respectable

What should our relationship be to the social world into which we're thrown when we are born? My thoughts on this question are not entirely consistent, nor have they ever been, which no doubt bespeaks the wider culture's confusion about it. Is it more admirable to earn the honor and respect of the group or to follow one's own lights, even when it goes against what society deems respectable? Some messages from the culture reinforce the former and some the latter.

On one extreme, we worship the individual...the cowboy, the renegade, the loose cannon, the eccentric genius, the underdog, the unlikely hero. The baby boomers successfully spread the cult of the individual throughout society: Be Yourself; Do You; Me Time; Free to Be You and Me; Special Little Snowflake; I'm ok, You're Ok; Find Yourself; Personal Journey. The message is that everybody is different, and what is admirable is for individuals to be brave enough to "express themselves" and "be who they are."

On the other extreme, we worship the martyr. Literally! Our collective ethics are still very Christian. They elevate self-sacrifice, self-denial, and the common good over selfishness....self worship, self fulfillment, self aggrandizement, self promotion. We admire people who are humble and self-effacing and devoted to others. The saint. The team player. The impoverished sage. The work horse. The family man. The relief worker. The selfless mother. The 6th man. The unselfish pass. The anonymous donor. The rich man in the sensible car. The long-suffering scientist. The Christ. We admire grinding it out; battling in the trenches; doing our part; playing by the rules; waiting our turn. We admire the loyal servant; the right hand man; the noble savage; Sam Gamgee and Gunga Din.

Both of these little streams of thought regarding the relationship of the individual to the collective weave in and out of the culture, and consequently most of us possess both of these ideal types as models of what is admirable and worthy of emulation. What the culture has failed to mention, though, is the inconvenient little fact that these ideal types are in tension with one another.

It cannot be simultaneously true that one should ruggedly hold to one's own counsel and that one should live one's life with humility and great love for the all the other humans here on earth. These are both defensible and probably admirable ways of being in the world, but they are not easily reconciled. If I love the world and accept my own limitations, I can't dismiss off hand how the world thinks I should live my life. On the other hand, the world has a long history of pretty terrible mistakes in telling people what they should and shouldn't, can and can't do.

Should I care about money? Should I join community organizations? Should I aspire to a job with prestige? Should I devoted to paying all my debts? Should I get married and have a family? Should I buy a house? Should I lose weight? Should I save for retirement? Should I get a decent suit? Should I buy drugs? Should I get a dog? Should I follow the law?

Sometimes, what society and I want are the same thing, in which case, this conflict doesn't arise, but sometimes they aren't. What do I do? Who do I listen to? Could I possibly ask more rhetorical questions?

Racism

Discussions about racism can be confusing, because we do not have a shared understanding about what racism is. Children are taught that racism is "hate", but racism today bears little resemblance to that word, even if its consequences are just as destructive. Consequently, people can think, talk, and act in ways that are racist without having the slightest idea that they are being racist. On the flip side, people with extremely expansive definitions of racism will see racism around every corner, and their perpetual righteous indignation can take on a "crying wolf" effect among the dominant culture.

It would be nice to come to some kind of general consensus about what racism is and isn't. It would be nice to expand white people's understanding of racism to capture more nuance, while perhaps curbing some of the excessive accusations of racism.

For some people, any mention of less-than-desirable group characteristics is racist. In my mind, this approach is excessive. It is not racist to utter statistical facts about group tendencies as measured by the best available research instruments. The explanation of these facts may evince racist thinking, and it may be racist to assume that a group's characteristics obtain in any individual member of that group, but it is not racist to report statistical differences on important measurements across racial groups. Yes, I am aware that the scientific method itself can be tainted with bias in its assumptions and methods, but unless we want to turn a blind eye to racial issues in society altogether, we have to discuss race as a culture, and to do that, we should lean on the best available data.

For some people, racism is defined very narrowly to mean an irrational hatred or devaluation of an entire race such as, for instance, the belief that a race is genetically inferior. The key there is the word "irrational." Those who take this definition of racism do not believe they can be racist if their feelings can be defined as rational. For instance, an employer might not hire a black person, not because the employer "hates" black people, but because the employer is afraid his clients do. Such a narrow definition of racism is inappropriate, because it fails to account for the momentum that carries the effect of historic prejudice into today's society.

So-called "color blindness" is destructive for a similar reason. Even IF people could judge and treat every single individual based solely on that individual's merits, it would still fail to account for how historical prejudice of the virulent hatred variety has momentum and continues to shape society today. No, color-blindness is not tantamount to fairness, at least not yet. It's as if for the first 2/3rds of a game of Monopoly, one player was prevented from buying properties, and then was allowed to play by normal rules. It would be ludicrous to contend that it was fair when we won and they lost. No, clearly, this would not be fair, and neither is it fair to pretend that history started yesterday. The legacy of historical racism has proven more stubborn than that. The economic and geographic disadvantages that were legally entrenched until the Civil Rights movement persist still today, and the exploitation of class disadvantage will, by virtue of racial disparities in poverty rates, automatically translate into racial inequality.

In my mind, the most insidious form of racism today occurs at the intersection of the rational and the irrational. It occurs when individuals make what appears to them to be a rational decision, which they therefore tell themselves is not racist, but which nevertheless has the collective effect of disadvantaging a race. Some have called this "statistical discrimination" to distinguish it from the virulent "hate/inferiority" variety of racism that was once so prevalent. While this statistical discrimination is certainly destructive, it is even more so when mixed with subtle forms of irrational thinking. That is, the veneer of rationality hides the irrational cognitive biases that have long fueled racial hatred and fear.

For my money, racism today is most commonly practiced as the application of double standards. It is the tendency among whites to forgive, or even celebrate, certain types of behavior among other whites which they would condemn among racial minority groups. Drug possession among white youth is seen as a momentary lapse on the way to their productive middle-class respectable life; drug possession among minorities is evidence confirming their depravity. A white guy who shoots his neighbor over an argument is a hot head, but he has a good heart and deserves a second chance. A black guy who shoots his neighbor is a murdering thug who deserves to be put to death. It's fine when Hank Jr. says, "I'd like to spit some beechnut in that dude's eye and shoot him with my ol' 45." It's fine when Johnny Cash sings, "If I hadn't o'shot poor Delia, I'd have had her for my wife," but when Public Enemy raps about violence, they're dangerous, out of control animals. Guns are great if you're Ted Nugent but terrible if you're Common. A single mom on welfare in rural Indiana is a deserving victim; a single mom on Welfare in Compton is a welfare queen mooching off the honest tax payer. Wanting a yacht and a Ferrari is just good ol' fashioned capitalism when it's a white stock broker, but it's spiritual and moral turpitude among dark skinned kids. A hillbilly accent and atrocious grammar are endearing when it's some white redneck, but, "for god's sake, why don't those people learn English" when it's a Hispanic immigrant.

All that being said, it is also frustrating when discussions of racism are divorced from discussions of class. That is to say, just because a person is white does not mean that their lives have been handed to them on a silver platter. A white person who grows up poor faces challenges in life that a person growing up black and middle class does not, which I believe is why many working class whites bristle so much at the idea that they are living high on the hog off of "white privilege." Who has faced more challenges in life, a white kid who grew up with a single mom living in a trailer, or an upper middle class black family growing up in an affluent suburb? Recently the income achievement gap (the test score gap between poor and middle class kids) exceeded the racial achievement gap. I believe white America would be more capable of opening their eyes to racism if it weren't always divorced from the general problem of income inequality in this country.

We still see enormous disparities in income, education, and incarceration rates across racial groups. If one assumes an even distribution of talent and intelligence across racial groups (which I do), then clearly these disparities are inconsistent with a system that claims to provide equal opportunity. Any definition of racism must account for the momentum that historical racism has carried through to today and must take into account rampant double-standardism, but it should allow for discussions of group characteristics and take seriously the challenges that growing up poor presents to all racial groups

We've had our chance

At the end of Joss Whedon's The Cabin in the Woods, the protagonist declares that the destruction of mankind wouldn't be so bad, because, frankly, we've had our chance at dominating the planet, and we've basically screwed it up. There was a time in my life when I would have found that viewpoint overly pessimistic, but now it makes more and more sense to me all the time. Similarly with Mr. Smith's diagnoses in the Matrix that humanity is a virus that needs to be eradicated. I just don't think we're all that impressive of a species. Individuals? Sure. There are individuals who are great. There are individuals who are nigh divine in their intelligence and artistry. And there are plenty of people who have integrity and intelligence and are committed to organizing society in a rational and compassionate way.

But there are so many more selfish, angry, reactionary, delusional, irrational lumps of ignorance and hate and superstition and xenophobia and bigotry and narcissism. Whatever we manage to build, there will always be this seed, this contingent of humanity waiting to be bamboozled by some charismatic madman into perpetrating horror.

We catapult through history on the backs of geniuses, but we're mostly free riders. It would be one thing if we rode quietly and with gratitude, but we grouse and gripe and thrash the whole time. Discontent sitting there like a loaded gun, waiting for some charlatan to pick it up and shoot the closest convenient group of powerless minorities.