Sol had a photo published in The Nation online edition - it was their photo of the week for the week of December 10-16, but alas the picture is no longer there..
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Thursday, December 7, 2006
All Outta Angst ? Part 2
In response the first half of this post, my dear friend Sol reminded me of the Hunger Strike for Worker's Rights currently taking place on the Purdue campus. I had not forgotten about the strike - I just had not gotten to it yet. In fact, it was the hunger strike that catalyzed my thoughts on this blog post. I was one of the first 30 or 40 people to sign the online petition the strikers presented to university officials demanding an end to Purdue licensed/branded clothing being manufactured in sweatshops and I get constant updates on the status of the strikers from several friends closely affiliated with those actively participating in the strike. There is a link on the right-hand side of ODM's main page that will better inform those of you interested in the hunger-strike.
In principle and ideology I agree with the strikers and I'm genuinely concerned for the welfare of laborers in sweatshops, that's why I signed the petition. I'm also concerned about the health of the strikers. Yes, this "hunger" is self-imposed, not a tortuous action inflicted on them by someone else but that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to their cause and concerned for their well-being.
That said, these issues have me thinking. I alluded to the notion of ethical-consumerism at the end of All Outta Angst? Part 1 - my wife refers to this idea as ethical-materialism, but isn't it just "ethical"- capitalism?
Are POLE (Purdue Organization for Labor Equality), the hunger-strikers, United Students Against Sweatshops, etc. really challenging the capitalist structure of Western Society or are they simply calling for changes within the existing system? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticism them - I commend them for trying to create change of any kind. I believe anything that can lift a person out of poverty, violence, or generally improve a life is very likely a cause worth fighting for. But allow me to revisit the last part of the Marcuse quote from AOA, Part 1 "... a society which seems increasingly capable of satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."
The organization of the capitalist structure has left us all satisfied to the point that we no longer question the ethics of consumption, but only how to make the consumption ethical. If the hunger-strike is successful and Purdue adopts the DSP (Designated Suppliers Program), the end result will not change the demands for consumption, rather it will change how SOME of the items we consume are manufactured within the capitalist structure. And within the capitalist structure someone is always being exploited for the purpose of profit.
That said, I'm part of the problem. I've been inculcated by capitalism to want "things." Yes, as an informed and educated consumer I can consume "ethically," but what is the end result of that? More of the same I'm afraid. Yes I can buy my fair trade coffee, drive my gas-efficient and economical Volkswagen, purchase organic food stuffs, and buy clothes that are union made - but I still consume and continue to want. "...satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."
I own a home, and last month my household consumed 3000 gallons of water. In a few short weeks I will be exchanging gifts for Chanukah and Christmas anticipating what new "things" I might receive and worry whether or not the gifts I have purchased for friends and family will provide enough of that ephemeral elation for them that only "things" can bring. I am part of the problem.
Perhaps then, this petition for Workers' Rights is not as altruistic as many of us hoped it was. Well maybe it is for those actually participating in the hunger-strike; however, the legacy will be about consumption. So what is it really about? I'm afraid the answer is the soul of the self.
Those of us "enlightened" enough to know better will be able to walk into University Bookstore and get warm-fuzzies knowing we just bought a t-shirt manufactured by someone in decent working conditions and paid a "living wage" ... maybe. Just like when we buy our fair-trade coffee and organic eggs we have no real way to know if it truly is fair-trade or organic. We know what those terms mean to us, but they are labels applied to products whose meaning is voted on by a congressional committee, the actual piece of legislation likely written by the industry that manufactures said product.
So the question then remains: Can we ethically consume? Is there such a thing as ethical-capitalism? I don't believe we can truly ethically consume, but not because we don't want to - rather because the structure of capitalism prevents us from doing so. When the bottom line is the primary concern it can't be ethical. Ethical-consumption is nothing more than enlightened complacency.
And now for the pontificating.
So where does that leave us? I wish I knew and I wish I had some genuine solutions. But I think staying informed on matters of consumption is the least we can do. When consuming, try to make the most ethical decision possible. Learn what "organic" really means and when you shop at a store find out if they provide benefits to their employees. Ask yourself if it is more ethical to frequent a local coffee shop who doesn't provide benefits to employees, or a Starbucks who not only provides benefits to full-time employees but part-time employees as well. Determine what ethical means to you and try to put it in to practice. If you determine something to be unethical start a petition for change, cause a ruckus, ask probing questions, etc. it may or may not work but its the right step to take.
What I've learned from the Purdue hunger-strikers is that we can all influence positive change. It may not be the sweeping radical changes some of us desire, but these type of actions may be the seedlings for future radical changes. At least I can hope so. Let's all do what we can to create a better society - but for lasting and meaningful change to happen, we must reorganize it.
In principle and ideology I agree with the strikers and I'm genuinely concerned for the welfare of laborers in sweatshops, that's why I signed the petition. I'm also concerned about the health of the strikers. Yes, this "hunger" is self-imposed, not a tortuous action inflicted on them by someone else but that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to their cause and concerned for their well-being.
That said, these issues have me thinking. I alluded to the notion of ethical-consumerism at the end of All Outta Angst? Part 1 - my wife refers to this idea as ethical-materialism, but isn't it just "ethical"- capitalism?
Are POLE (Purdue Organization for Labor Equality), the hunger-strikers, United Students Against Sweatshops, etc. really challenging the capitalist structure of Western Society or are they simply calling for changes within the existing system? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticism them - I commend them for trying to create change of any kind. I believe anything that can lift a person out of poverty, violence, or generally improve a life is very likely a cause worth fighting for. But allow me to revisit the last part of the Marcuse quote from AOA, Part 1 "... a society which seems increasingly capable of satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."
The organization of the capitalist structure has left us all satisfied to the point that we no longer question the ethics of consumption, but only how to make the consumption ethical. If the hunger-strike is successful and Purdue adopts the DSP (Designated Suppliers Program), the end result will not change the demands for consumption, rather it will change how SOME of the items we consume are manufactured within the capitalist structure. And within the capitalist structure someone is always being exploited for the purpose of profit.
That said, I'm part of the problem. I've been inculcated by capitalism to want "things." Yes, as an informed and educated consumer I can consume "ethically," but what is the end result of that? More of the same I'm afraid. Yes I can buy my fair trade coffee, drive my gas-efficient and economical Volkswagen, purchase organic food stuffs, and buy clothes that are union made - but I still consume and continue to want. "...satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."
I own a home, and last month my household consumed 3000 gallons of water. In a few short weeks I will be exchanging gifts for Chanukah and Christmas anticipating what new "things" I might receive and worry whether or not the gifts I have purchased for friends and family will provide enough of that ephemeral elation for them that only "things" can bring. I am part of the problem.
Perhaps then, this petition for Workers' Rights is not as altruistic as many of us hoped it was. Well maybe it is for those actually participating in the hunger-strike; however, the legacy will be about consumption. So what is it really about? I'm afraid the answer is the soul of the self.
Those of us "enlightened" enough to know better will be able to walk into University Bookstore and get warm-fuzzies knowing we just bought a t-shirt manufactured by someone in decent working conditions and paid a "living wage" ... maybe. Just like when we buy our fair-trade coffee and organic eggs we have no real way to know if it truly is fair-trade or organic. We know what those terms mean to us, but they are labels applied to products whose meaning is voted on by a congressional committee, the actual piece of legislation likely written by the industry that manufactures said product.
So the question then remains: Can we ethically consume? Is there such a thing as ethical-capitalism? I don't believe we can truly ethically consume, but not because we don't want to - rather because the structure of capitalism prevents us from doing so. When the bottom line is the primary concern it can't be ethical. Ethical-consumption is nothing more than enlightened complacency.
And now for the pontificating.
So where does that leave us? I wish I knew and I wish I had some genuine solutions. But I think staying informed on matters of consumption is the least we can do. When consuming, try to make the most ethical decision possible. Learn what "organic" really means and when you shop at a store find out if they provide benefits to their employees. Ask yourself if it is more ethical to frequent a local coffee shop who doesn't provide benefits to employees, or a Starbucks who not only provides benefits to full-time employees but part-time employees as well. Determine what ethical means to you and try to put it in to practice. If you determine something to be unethical start a petition for change, cause a ruckus, ask probing questions, etc. it may or may not work but its the right step to take.
What I've learned from the Purdue hunger-strikers is that we can all influence positive change. It may not be the sweeping radical changes some of us desire, but these type of actions may be the seedlings for future radical changes. At least I can hope so. Let's all do what we can to create a better society - but for lasting and meaningful change to happen, we must reorganize it.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
All Outta Angst? Part 1
NOFX penned this song sometime in 1998 and on the track Fat Mike lamented "society don't bother me and there's something wrong with that." Well for me its not that society doesn't bother me, quite the opposite in fact, but it seems as though society doesn't bother society anymore - and there is indeed something wrong with that.
Where is the angst these days? Are we all just fat and happy enough that the ills of society are nothing more than minor inconveniences and somebody else can worry about them? I think one of the best indicators of this apathy is the lack of anything resembling social action in U.S. pop culture. Pop culture icons of every generation have mocked, parodied, and downright condemned society for actual and/or perceived wrongs.
When I was a teenager (yes I'm going down that road- and no I'm not wagging my finger and wielding a cane) the sounds of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Rage Against the Machine filled the air waves. Kurt Cobain blew his head off after coming to the conclusion that depression, drug addiction, and his fear of "selling out" were just too much for him to handle - but prior to that he mocked a vacuous society with his lyrics and stage behavior. His suicide has been interpreted by many as a protest against everything Cobain viewed as wrong in America. However, it was likely nothing more than a drug and depression induced suicide. But does the reality matter if the fiction is more powerful?
I'm not suggesting someone like Britney Spears should eat a gun (OK maybe I am, but for entirely different reasons) - but where is the moral outrage among our pop culture icons today? Pearl Jam took on Ticket Master - ostensibly for charging more than the band thought their concerts were worth. RaTM warned us to "Know Your Enemy", handed out action guides at concerts, included reading lists in their liner notes, and performed a litany of benefit concerts aligned with major radical movements in Central and South America. N.W.A. told us to "Fuck tha Police" and later Easy E. personally battled AIDs though he ultimately lost. These were all top selling bands with numerous hits on the Billboard Charts and frequent airtime on MTV - not obscure indy rockers performing at any dive that would book them. Not all of them were role models, but they knew something was wrong with the world we lived in and spoke out about it.
Do we have anything that comes close to resembling that level of social action and commitment today? Cobain is long since dead, Pearl Jam continues to record and tour but are they reaching a new audience? I don't think so as at their concerts I see few people younger than me. RaTM broke up several years ago and former members have joined with previous Soundgarden vocalist Chris Cornell to create the whiny alt rock mega group Audioslave that carries no discernible social action message. The only MAJOR bands I can think of that might come close are System of a Down who carries a Global Action link on their website - but they are almost un-listenable. And U2, who has carried the banner for moderate social action for over 2 decades.
But is radical action dead? Should pop icons even be looked to for social action?
Perhaps Herbert Marcuse gives us some insight into this dilemma. On page one of One-Dimensional Man he asserts,
I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means that very few things, if any, can be truly subversive in a capitalistic society. If something is actually subversive it starts on the fringes and one of two things happens: 1) it stays on the fringe because it is not profitable until it fades out completely or 2) it gains enough popularity that the capitalist machine co-opts it so that subversion becomes profitable - making it no longer subversive.
Where does that leave us? I wish I knew but I'm afraid we are moving away from any real radical changes in American/Western society and instead we face a movement toward "ethical" consumerism. This direction is not satisfactory in my estimation.
More to come later ...
Where is the angst these days? Are we all just fat and happy enough that the ills of society are nothing more than minor inconveniences and somebody else can worry about them? I think one of the best indicators of this apathy is the lack of anything resembling social action in U.S. pop culture. Pop culture icons of every generation have mocked, parodied, and downright condemned society for actual and/or perceived wrongs.
When I was a teenager (yes I'm going down that road- and no I'm not wagging my finger and wielding a cane) the sounds of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Rage Against the Machine filled the air waves. Kurt Cobain blew his head off after coming to the conclusion that depression, drug addiction, and his fear of "selling out" were just too much for him to handle - but prior to that he mocked a vacuous society with his lyrics and stage behavior. His suicide has been interpreted by many as a protest against everything Cobain viewed as wrong in America. However, it was likely nothing more than a drug and depression induced suicide. But does the reality matter if the fiction is more powerful?
I'm not suggesting someone like Britney Spears should eat a gun (OK maybe I am, but for entirely different reasons) - but where is the moral outrage among our pop culture icons today? Pearl Jam took on Ticket Master - ostensibly for charging more than the band thought their concerts were worth. RaTM warned us to "Know Your Enemy", handed out action guides at concerts, included reading lists in their liner notes, and performed a litany of benefit concerts aligned with major radical movements in Central and South America. N.W.A. told us to "Fuck tha Police" and later Easy E. personally battled AIDs though he ultimately lost. These were all top selling bands with numerous hits on the Billboard Charts and frequent airtime on MTV - not obscure indy rockers performing at any dive that would book them. Not all of them were role models, but they knew something was wrong with the world we lived in and spoke out about it.
Do we have anything that comes close to resembling that level of social action and commitment today? Cobain is long since dead, Pearl Jam continues to record and tour but are they reaching a new audience? I don't think so as at their concerts I see few people younger than me. RaTM broke up several years ago and former members have joined with previous Soundgarden vocalist Chris Cornell to create the whiny alt rock mega group Audioslave that carries no discernible social action message. The only MAJOR bands I can think of that might come close are System of a Down who carries a Global Action link on their website - but they are almost un-listenable. And U2, who has carried the banner for moderate social action for over 2 decades.
But is radical action dead? Should pop icons even be looked to for social action?
Perhaps Herbert Marcuse gives us some insight into this dilemma. On page one of One-Dimensional Man he asserts,
Independence of thought, autonomy, and the right to political opposition are being deprived of their basic critical function in a society which seems increasingly capable of satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized.Is that what has happened? Or has that always been the case? Unfortunately, the latter is likely true. The truth is that Rock & Roll lost its claim to being subversive or radical when it became highly profitable - approximately 50 years ago. So what does that mean about my idealistic notions regarding Nirvana, PJ, and RaTM?
I'm not exactly sure, but I think it means that very few things, if any, can be truly subversive in a capitalistic society. If something is actually subversive it starts on the fringes and one of two things happens: 1) it stays on the fringe because it is not profitable until it fades out completely or 2) it gains enough popularity that the capitalist machine co-opts it so that subversion becomes profitable - making it no longer subversive.
Where does that leave us? I wish I knew but I'm afraid we are moving away from any real radical changes in American/Western society and instead we face a movement toward "ethical" consumerism. This direction is not satisfactory in my estimation.
More to come later ...
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Happenings
So I drove to Indy early Saturday morning to engage in a masochistic exercise known as the LSAT. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I am the type of person that excels on standardized tests and benefits from not suffering any test anxiety. Additionally, I studied my ass off for this exam - for several years I have been talking about going to law school, this was the time to put action to words. I arrived in Indy early enough that I stopped at Starbucks and enjoyed a chai latte and a cheese danish while I centered myself and mentally prepared for the task at hand. Unfortunately, it appears as though I had not prepared thoroughly enough - as my ass that I previously studied off, was wantonly handed right back to me.
It was a disaster. I knew the format. I knew the time allotment. I knew what materials to bring (and what not to bring). I studied for 3 months and took 9 practice tests. All for naught. For someone who never gets test anxiety ... I FREAKED! And I don't know why. I have scheduled to take the February exam. Bleh.
In other, better news my conversion to Judaism has officially begun. I met with the Rabbi this past Wednesday and even though I am doing a Reform conversion, the Rabbi is conducting it according to halacha - Jewish law. What this means is I am basically doing a Conservative conversion ... for those of you that don't know of what I am writing, Judaism has four main branches: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist. This is analogous to Christianity having Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism (among others). Each branch has a differing take on the various aspects of Judaism (The Torah, halacha, the Talmud, etc.) from the most "fundamentalist" - Orthodox Judaism - to its most liberal - Reconstructionist.
I digress. A conversion according to halacha first means I have to live Judaism for 12 months, fully participating in the religious practices so that I experience each of the major holidays AT LEAST once. I'm no stranger to Chanukah (not a major holiday) and Passover, but I have never really participated in Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Purim, etc. - so this is a necessary step in my conversion. How can one accept something without having fully experienced it? Additionally, I am required to keep a journal, regularly attend Shabbat services, enroll in a class on Jewish ways of life at the synagogue, meet with Rabbi once a month to discuss my "progress" and understanding of assigned readings, and finally ... the major undertaking of beginning to learn the Hebrew language - a process I expect to take many years, if not a lifetime.
Oh yes, and the parts that make the conversion truly halachic: At some point toward the end of the 12 months I will participate in ceremonies known as Hatafat Dam Brit and tevillah. Hatafat Dam Brit is basically symbolic circumcision - symbolic because (at the risk of revealing too much information) I was circumcised as an infant, however, a small amount of blood must still be drawn to fully honor the covenant God made with Abraham. An un-circumcised adult male converting to Judaism must undergo a brit milah - a real circumcision and from what I'm told, not a minor procedure. Tevillah is an immersion in a mikveh - a ritual bath used for several purposes - but in this instance the purpose is a "bath" so that I will be ritually clean to enter into Judaism. Finally, I will go before a Bet Din - a Jewish religious court - generally consisting of three people, at least one of whom must be a rabbi. It is basically an oral exam questioning my knowledge of and commitment to Judaism ... perhaps I truly am masochistic? At some point in all of this I will choose a Hebrew name.
Needless to say this is more than a simple undertaking - perhaps no religious conversion is - and one that I am excited by and overwhelmed with. I apologize for not having much existential crisis in this post, for future reading I will attempt to explain how I came to Judaism - that should more than make up for the deficiencies in this post.
It's time for bed.
It was a disaster. I knew the format. I knew the time allotment. I knew what materials to bring (and what not to bring). I studied for 3 months and took 9 practice tests. All for naught. For someone who never gets test anxiety ... I FREAKED! And I don't know why. I have scheduled to take the February exam. Bleh.
In other, better news my conversion to Judaism has officially begun. I met with the Rabbi this past Wednesday and even though I am doing a Reform conversion, the Rabbi is conducting it according to halacha - Jewish law. What this means is I am basically doing a Conservative conversion ... for those of you that don't know of what I am writing, Judaism has four main branches: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist. This is analogous to Christianity having Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism (among others). Each branch has a differing take on the various aspects of Judaism (The Torah, halacha, the Talmud, etc.) from the most "fundamentalist" - Orthodox Judaism - to its most liberal - Reconstructionist.
I digress. A conversion according to halacha first means I have to live Judaism for 12 months, fully participating in the religious practices so that I experience each of the major holidays AT LEAST once. I'm no stranger to Chanukah (not a major holiday) and Passover, but I have never really participated in Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Purim, etc. - so this is a necessary step in my conversion. How can one accept something without having fully experienced it? Additionally, I am required to keep a journal, regularly attend Shabbat services, enroll in a class on Jewish ways of life at the synagogue, meet with Rabbi once a month to discuss my "progress" and understanding of assigned readings, and finally ... the major undertaking of beginning to learn the Hebrew language - a process I expect to take many years, if not a lifetime.
Oh yes, and the parts that make the conversion truly halachic: At some point toward the end of the 12 months I will participate in ceremonies known as Hatafat Dam Brit and tevillah. Hatafat Dam Brit is basically symbolic circumcision - symbolic because (at the risk of revealing too much information) I was circumcised as an infant, however, a small amount of blood must still be drawn to fully honor the covenant God made with Abraham. An un-circumcised adult male converting to Judaism must undergo a brit milah - a real circumcision and from what I'm told, not a minor procedure. Tevillah is an immersion in a mikveh - a ritual bath used for several purposes - but in this instance the purpose is a "bath" so that I will be ritually clean to enter into Judaism. Finally, I will go before a Bet Din - a Jewish religious court - generally consisting of three people, at least one of whom must be a rabbi. It is basically an oral exam questioning my knowledge of and commitment to Judaism ... perhaps I truly am masochistic? At some point in all of this I will choose a Hebrew name.
Needless to say this is more than a simple undertaking - perhaps no religious conversion is - and one that I am excited by and overwhelmed with. I apologize for not having much existential crisis in this post, for future reading I will attempt to explain how I came to Judaism - that should more than make up for the deficiencies in this post.
It's time for bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)