Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Graduating: Day 3: Garden

by Lucy S.

I think what I’m trying to do is write every day for a week about this aftermath of graduating. And then… maybe I will write about it again once a week or once a month. I don’t know. And I don’t know if yesterday’s post really qualified as an aftermath, except that there is this connection. I left college years ago because I moved to Germany. (I almost wrote “had to move to Germany,” and that was how it seemed to me at the time.) So graduating with my master’s is the fulfillment, after all the years, of my dream to be able to teach at a community college.

I don’t know beyond that yet what I am going to do. Will I apply to PhD programs? Will I try hard to get all the work I can at community colleges? Will I find other ways to teach and write? Hit the road to just travel for a lot of the year (or years)?  Move? Focus on growing all the food I can this summer? I am confused. It is overwhelming to go from feeling so intensely focused on the work of the semester to the utter freedom of the aftermath, that swing out over the void.

In the meantime, we are planting and in other ways, getting the garden ready. Justin and Jonathan helped clear weeds out of the strawberry bed the other day. Jonathan, Sean, Ryan, and I planted some vegetables, herbs, and flowers yesterday. The hummingbirds and butterflies love zinnias. After all these years of growing tomatoes, I learned a new trick: to throw a garlic clove into each spot dug for a tomato plant. That helps fend off fungal diseases. I also planted marigolds in between the tomatoes and some basil near them. All these things are supposed to help prevent the diseases they can get in our upper Midwest humidity.  I need to get jalapeños and cilantro planted so that everything to make salsa is growing. And some tomatillos for green salsa.

In this frightening uncertainty about what to do next, I am plunging into the comfort of the tangible and what I can at least imagine as unquestionably ‘right’ and ‘good.’  I’m so tired of thinking, with regard to so many things, “Yes, but then again….”  So tired of feeling wrong in some way or another. Right now, I want to know that I can plant chard, start eating it by mid-July, cooking it in coconut oil or butter (I learned through personal experience that I feel better with these healthy fats), and keep eating it throughout the summer. Right now, I can look for stinging nettle growing out there wildly, ready to sauté or boil. For so long now, I’ve imagined what these neighborhoods would be like if everyone grew lots of food, especially out in the front yard, where we’d regularly encounter one another out there working in our gardens. I picture us walking over to give away extra fruit and vegetables and herbs (or pots of flowers), and coming home with bags, baskets, or armfuls of something else that we aren’t growing but others are. Gardens are to LIVE in, by, and with; to work in, nourishing ourselves and others; to touch, eat, plunge our hands into, inhale, sit in, share, spread beyond the confines of notions of private property.

Ryan planted blue morning glory seeds today along one side of the fence and near the post that the mail box sets on, and around some long branches that he hunted for out in the back where they were blown over when the winds cracked them off of one of the big trees. He placed those branches in the back of one of the garden beds, leaning against each other, for the morning glories to twine around and clamber up later this summer. This was his idea. Ryan also told me that he loves to see the white candytuft flowers growing out of the cracks of the retaining wall, where they have somehow pushed through this spring.


Jonathan is home now and angry that even though he told his supervisor at the coffee shop to schedule him off for certain days or times so that he could rehearse for the show he’s supposed to be in during June, she keeps scheduling him to work.  What is the reason for this?  Is she trying to make him miss the show?  Why has she started scheduling him specifically for the times he asked for off, when she was not scheduling him for those times as much before he asked for them off?  I don't believe in bosses. It warps people's personalities and leaves others at their mercy.  Not all people; some are 'nice' bosses. But still, we don't need them. 


Jonathan, like Ryan, always loved gardening. And he loves performing and other aspects of creating plays. I’m trying to hold onto this feeling I have, this more playful or intuitive sense, a quality of seeing or thinking, but with the thought of Jonathan stuck in a job serving coffee, scheduled at maximum flexibility of his manager, blocked from doing what he loves most, my mind slips into thoughts again about worker-owned businesses, better work, better answers…

Graduating: Day 2: Memorial Day: A Human Justice

by Lucy S.

I sat tearfully stunned, watching this Democracy Now segment this morning: “Memorial Day Special: U.S. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Return War Medals at NATO Summit.”  In it, we see veterans stepping up before a huge crowd in Chicago expressing what they did in the wars and why they are throwing away their medals.  Heartfelt testimony can be so powerful.

The urge to commemorate the special labor of people, sacrifices made, extraordinary care, lives lost in struggle, momentous events – this is at least part of what is behind the idea of a memorial day. Yes, it can be used to sentimentalize imperialism, mass murder in wars, unquestioningly following orders connected to mystified causes, but for the majority of common people, what it means is so bound to their feelings for those who have suffered and died in these wars. I remember in the later 1980s, during my first semester at the California community college in Lancaster, in speech class I gave a speech on the background leading up to U.S. involvement in Vietnam because I had recently learned it and had been stunned – and a guy in his later 30s left as I began. After class, he politely told me that he was sorry to have walked out, but that he was a Vietnam veteran and some of his friends had died there, and he just couldn’t take hearing that the war was futile or wrong. He said that he knew it might be, but it was too much for him to bear hearing about. I have never forgotten that, and I have always wondered how we are to delve into examinations which are bound to inflict awful pain on people who have given so much to what they believed was worthwhile.

The answer can never be to pretend that it was a good war after all. The U.S. war against Vietnam decimated the country. What I had learned in a history class that semester were some basic facts that were available in encyclopedias – not particularly contestable – not easily dismissed as ‘leftist ideology’ – yet when I told my dad, he said that he was sure that almost no Americans had been aware of that information during the time of the war.  I’d always thought that there had been two nations – North Vietnam and South Vietnam – and that North Vietnam had been a communist country with no freedoms while South Vietnam had been a democracy like the U.S., and North Vietnam had attacked South Vietnam to force them to become part of their country.  My dad said this was how most Americans imagined it.  But there had been one country, not two, and they ruled as a colony by France. They fought for their independence and won.  At the 1954 Geneva conference, an agreement was made to temporarily divide the country into two parts to allow troops to disperse and people to move if they wanted to. In 1956, an election was supposed to be held throughout the whole country as it was put back together. But the U.S. increasingly intervened and helped support the regime of the dictatorial Ngo Dinh Diem in the South. Diem said that he would not hold elections since his government had not signed the accords (because they did not exist at the time). He and the U.S. were adamantly against nationwide elections because they feared that Ho Chi Minh would win – the leader of the North’s government and the national hero of the war for independence.

I can’t write the whole history of the Vietnam War here, but what we see then and in wars since then is that the U.S. government starts wars, and common people go to fight in these wars while knowing almost nothing about the people and issues of the countries they are invading.  But it is not as simple as saying that U.S. soldiers are reactionary and deluded. In Vietnam, soldiers were drafted, and those soldiers were disproportionately low-income, people who did not get college deferrals. Since then, with the so-called volunteer military, class still plays a huge role. Economic issues may blend with idealism and a desire to see more of the world and understand other realities (sadly and somewhat ironically, in view of how that understanding takes place, especially in times of war).

I married someone in the Air Force in the late 1980s. The military’s mission as well as the domination it exercised over so many facets of our lives were always sources of stress and arguments between us. At the same time, however, I saw that many of the enlisted people in the military were never cavalier in making brash statements about how “we oughta go kick their ass” or “nuke them out of existence” as were some of the armchair warriors I knew – the hawks who had never enlisted themselves. Those in the military knew that they were the ones who would have to pay the price if those easy-to-make statements amounted to real action. And after living in other countries, they knew from relationships with people in those places that other lives and communities were just as valid and real as American ones. That is one of the sad ironies about insight gained by those in the military.

While we were in Germany, the U.S. fought the first war against Iraq. I was against the war.  I didn’t know a single other person there in Germany (from the base) who was against it. Once the war was on, military members and their families – those I knew, at least – supported it. I only found out in recent years that massive amounts of depleted uranium were sent into Iraq, starting with that war. DU will send out radiation there for 4.5 billion years. I have seen pictures of babies with only one eye, in the middle of their foreheads, and babies with what should be internal organs outside of their bodies because of this substance put there by the U.S. And I have read about poisoned soldiers, even U.S. soldiers.

I keep wondering what would happen if most of the military members went on strike, and if almost no one would join anymore. I keep thinking we need to treat our Memorial Day the way the veterans in the Democracy Now video do, as a day to learn the real lessons of these wars and make common cause with one another so that the elite can stop using us against one another. 


A person for whom I have great respect emailed me tonight, and he included these lines from W.H. Auden’s poem, “In Time of War”: “Rally the lost and trembling forces of the will/Gather them up and let them loose upon the Earth/'Til they construct at last a human justice.”

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Graduating: Day 1: Children of the Days


by Lucy S.

I’ve been trying to write some thoughts about what it means to me to graduate with a Master’s of Arts in English Literature, and the task of expressing it feels so monumental that I can’t figure out how to wrap my words around it. Inspired as I am by a gift my advisor gave me, I will try to instead begin to take textual steps into this effort.

My advisor gave me Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History, the newest book by Eduardo Galeano, one of my favorite writers. Galeano spoke about it on Democracy Now (the first time I’d ever heard him in an interview.) http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/8/eduardo_galeano_chronicler_of_latin_americas  Galeano, from Uruguay, is an extremely renowned writer. I have several of his books. Now I am reading this one each day. It is arranged with a reading for each date. I began May 22, the day my advisor gave it to me at the gathering for our MA essay presentations.

On that day, I and nine others graduating each got up to talk at the podium about our projects. I spoke for about eight minutes. I began by saying that I could get up there and say that as a nontraditional, working-class student who went back to school to finish my BA in 2009 at the local public university and then was fortunate enough to receive a fellowship to continue my education at the master’s level at this smaller university, that if you just believe and you try hard enough, that you can overcome all the obstacles and make your dreams come true!  But, I said, I have just finished a master’s essay that critiques those claims. I said that stories which depend on the idea of beating the odds always reveal that there are odds to beat. They always show deep inequalities in our society. I talked about how capitalism depends on the pyramid shape, with a majority of laborers or potential laborers (the unemployed) at its broad base, a much smaller group of professionals and managers in its narrowing middle region, and an elite at the top. I read an excerpt from my essay which talked about how the logic of capitalism affects care-labor. Because the Jimenez family was paid so poorly, so that their employer could maximize profits to then send products into a marketplace demanding the most for the cheapest price, they had to rely on Francisco, who was not even in elementary school yet, to care for his baby brother in their old car all day while they and his older brother (about nine or ten at the time) worked in the fields picking cotton. The structure and logic of capitalism always pushes this way.

Others spoke about their own excellent projects that night. In particular, I was moved by one about Hmong-American women and the tensions amongst which they navigate as they sometimes challenge traditional roles and rules for women, such as the requirement that women eat the remains after men have first eaten at the table. I had read my fellow grad student’s essay earlier in the week (she did a magnificent job), so hearing her talk about it and read an excerpt meant even more to me. The poem and her essay remind us that we cannot rigidify ourselves into one way of doing things that came into being because of a particular set of conditions and beliefs at a particular time – conditions which no longer exist – and at the same time, that it is we who are living those particularities who most have the right and capacity to determine what must change and how.

Here are some of my thoughts, as a first-generation, working-class, nontraditional graduate and unpaid care-laborer (mother). Most of us are excluded from education in so many ways. Early on, in K-12, the sorting mechanisms begin, deciding who is ‘college material’ and who is not. That sorting is always bound to class. Even the exceptions prove the rule. Later, we work in our lousy, low-wage jobs, or even jobs that pay better, but we nonetheless work at the ‘base’ of our society’s pyramid structure, and our work often leaves us little time for education. Moreover, we may have already accepted an idea of ourselves by then as ‘not smart enough’ or ‘not the intellectual type.’  And we may have caregiver responsibilities – difficulties finding childcare. Furthermore, college is becoming prohibitively expensive. When classes cost hundreds or thousands of dollars each, we begin to feel that we must justify the expense as a means to a job.

But education is not a thing you can get hold of. It moves and flows; it is a relationship. The most meaningful aspects of my education have been my relationships with professors, students, and others as well as my relationships with stories and other readings and my relationships with my own words on the page or those of others whose work I read. These cannot be made to justify themselves by means of profit logic without being altered and horribly diminished in the process. Can you imagine if we had to pay a state or private entity thousands of dollars per year to carry on our own relationships with one another?  These too would then have to somehow justify themselves by means of profit logic.  Friendships would cease to be friendships as we know them.  This is why we must fight hard to let education be what it must be: relationships with one another, our own selves, knowledge, and skills.

I couldn’t continue my education for years because I was raising kids and because of a multitude of material and other educational realities bound to that work. But no – it wasn’t because I was raising kids. It was because our society creates college classes that have to function like business boardrooms. Or they are an extension of the K-12 model, where students, of course, would not have kids. (Thus, those who do have kids while in their teens must be segregated to learn elsewhere; schools are not willing to let them learn amongst the ‘regular’ students, let alone allow their babies to be present.) We have normalized the idea that children can almost never be present when adults come together to learn. And that means their caregivers can’t be present. This comes from certain traditions. One is that college education used to be only for men, and that men, particularly men from the classes who would receive a college education, would certainly not have childcare responsibilities. Another is that education occurs in a certain order, and that people would complete college before having kids – again, especially those people of the classes who would be college-educated.

Why do we continue to ‘eat the remains’ – to draw on the poem and essay about the Hmong-American women – of the generations who came before us and who excluded so many from education? And why do we continue to see education as an object to ‘get’ rather than the lifelong process that it can and should be if we are to move beyond exploiting and excluding so many of us?

***

In the interview between Amy Goodman and Eduardo Galeano, she asks him about the title of his book. He says that “in a Mayan community, somebody said, ‘We are children of the days. We are sons and daughters of time.’ … Each day has a story that deserves to be told, because we are made of stories.”

Rather than sorting stories into categorizations of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ – ‘uplifting’ or ‘depressing’ – I believe it is important to learn what our stories have to tell us.

I did go to my presentation, though I was nervous, and it was a wonderful experience. I’m so glad I went. I did not go to my actual graduation, though I’d planned to, because I somehow did not realize that I needed to pick up the cap and gown during the week at the bookstore. For some reason, I imagined them giving these out before the ceremony began. I have no idea how I came up with that or why I didn’t check ahead of time to be sure. I am usually a person who double-checks so many things. But when I found out, it was Friday evening; the bookstore was closed, and would not be open the next day (yesterday – day of the graduation ceremony). I emailed the head of our program in embarrassment, and she said there might be extras, so I decided I would go. But I realized that the clothes I’d planned to wear were also wrong, after I read the website, and I let my insecurities and memories of certain bad experiences overwhelm me until I couldn’t think about any of it rationally. I became more and more afraid of feeling ashamed and embarrassed to go rushing in there without the gown and wearing the wrong colors. I felt so upset. And I felt sick. I was already in pain from some work and picketing the day before (the pain coming from me having been too sedentary in recent months). Finally, I didn’t go to the ceremony.

I don’t want to try to frame that any particular way right now. I could say that the main thing is to be glad that I have completed a master’s degree and participated in the wonderful presentations. Or I could talk about how hard it is to shake all the traces of particular shame and hurt that we carry, traces that can erupt from dormant to active when certain circumstances stir them into flaming up. But I am still trying to understand how I let that any of that happen.

That was yesterday. Today, I meet a friend who is moving from here to somewhere more than 1,000 miles away.

Galeano begins his book with this passage:

And the days began to walk.
And they, the days, made us.
And thus we were born,
the children of the days,
the discoverers,
life’s searchers.
– Genesis, according to the Mayas. 

Friday, May 17, 2013

Scarcities at My Former Research 1 University


by Lucy S.
This is copied from some paper and pen writing I did yesterday.


It is almost 4 pm and I am on the part of the campus where I spent most of my time during the six semesters working on my BA here. I rarely come here anymore, but a friend invited me to her thesis defense. It was as funny, fragmented yet holistic, unpredictable, and poignant as she is. I am glad I came.

I am also glad I came because being here makes me confront the scarcities in this place that became so familiar, but could not become home. Scarcities of fair material compensation; scarcities of secure jobs for so many. Scarcities of teachers. Scarcities of active concern for students; only so much of that to go around. Alienation and bewilderment for others. Scarcities of time. Scarcities of warmth, friendship, and deep, true education.

And those scarcities are for the people granted temporary admittance as students; non-tenured PhD professors paid one third or less what the tenured are paid for doing the same work; or longer term residency as wage-slaves – adults systemically herded and economically blackmailed into serving others. There is nothing mutual about it. The latter adults - the served - position themselves as indispensable to institutions where people come together to learn; after all, how could anyone there function without the two hundred-plus upper level administrators all making over $200,000 per year?  But I feel so tired of talking about that fact. They do it because they can; it’s that simple. This will continue and get much worse as long as most people let it.

For most people in the communities around our "public" university, the scarcities manifest as constructed barriers to entry. Structural rationing. The institution does not exist to serve the people of this state; it exists to serve itself. But who or what is ‘itself’? By what logic is it operating?



It is a beautiful mid-May day, sunny, not too humid, temperature in the low 80s. The breezes are not scarce; they at least are not organized and doled out by this institution. On this campus, with so many breezy, shady spots, there is almost nowhere to just sit down in the shade. There are four metal tables which each seat four people, chained to the ground near the library, and they are taken. They’ve always been popular sitting spots. Up a few steps from the broad space between the two lines of buildings facing each other, so many metal tables and chairs sit chained to the concrete in the sun with no trees around. When it is cold during our frigid upper Midwest winters that can go on so long, it is even colder there with the wind blowing beyond the shelter of the rows of buildings. When it is hot, it is scorching there with the concrete reflecting the heat back up and the sun beating unrelievedly down. Reading or writing is difficult in the glare and wind. Even on relatively mild days like this, it is hot there. There is no scarcity of tables. But there is a scarcity of thought and of care that materializes in these placements. Few people sit at these tables, now or ever.

I keep walking, cross a small street, and find a smaller group of tables, also in the sun. Finally, I decide to sit on this bench height concrete ledge. It sits in the mottled shade near a story-and-a-half high concrete structure the size of a small home which may house electrical or mechanical equipment. It blocks the breeze. My back hurts if I sit here too long. (I know from other times I sat here when I was a student.)

This scarcity of seating is of course not tragic. But it speaks to an alienation here between the needs of so many of the people who work and learn here and the people who make most of the decisions, but have their own tables and seats and spaces to suit their needs and desires far better than these suit the majority’s. And it speaks not only to manufactured scarcities, but to waste and weird contrasts. Multimillion dollar building remodels, but no tables can be moved from the barren concrete area to places where people would actually use them.  Fresh air and beautiful days are wasted when people retreat indoors to find a place to sit to do their reading and writing. Friendships that might have formed outside...

During my time here, I often found it difficult to find places to sit and talk with people. Maybe the upper layer did not want us to loiter too long and get the mistaken impression that this place belonged to us. In the icy winters, we sometimes sat on floors against the walls in buildings with vast wide open spaces for tables and chairs. Couldn’t the metal tables be placed in there? Where are they stored during winter? 

There are many trees; spreads of green grass (which you might sit on – but mind the signs telling you that poison has recently been applied again to kill the weeds); walkways; classic Greek-style buildings (one of them just had a $32 million remodel); and even tables and benches. If you don’t linger, and you don’t try to find a place to sit, it looks appealing. If you don’t need shelter from the sun or cold, you may find it charming, driving by.

If you don’t need an abiding welcome or friendship here, then walking through may elicit from you some yearnings for your own bygone college days or your stereotypes about what college would have been like, had you gone.

It is only two-and-a-half years since I graduated from here.

After the thesis defense, as I slowly made my way out of the room after congratulating my friend, I got stuck near a professor while I waited to walk out of the door. For my second to last and then last semesters, I was in two of his classes, both small. His eyes landed on me with a look of startled recognition; he then looked away quickly, then turned himself around facing away. I’d always felt that he disliked me when I was in his classes. Still, I found it strange that he wouldn't even just say, "Hey, Lucy, how're you doing?" as a quick casual greeting. I didn't feel overtly upset, at least not at all like those things used to upset me when I was a student here. But it made me finally, fully accept that I don’t like this man.

Scarcities of respect; scarcities of real kindness; scarcities of an ability to value other perspectives and lives that don’t fit well enough into some people’s bland, neat little parameters.

I am tired of giving people like him the benefit of the doubt.

[And yet, a day later, copying this from my notebook, I feel myself slide again into: “What if he just didn’t recognize me? What if he thought that I didn’t like him? What if he had something else on his mind?”]

 For most of my life, I’ve separated from my own perspective too much, as if I could somehow be (or had a responsibility to be) omniscient. Even if people acted cold or disdainful or mean toward me, I would see them separate from that to some extent. I’d think, well, maybe I'm just not their kind of person; maybe I remind them of someone they had a bad experience with; maybe they think I don’t like them. That may stem from all the years I lived with so many people, and from reading so much, and from knowing that so many people are convinced they’re right when they’re sometimes so wrong. What if I’m wrong? And everyone has reasons and stories. But now, I want to stay attached to myself. I’m not omniscient. 

Because of these personal tendencies and my own position when I was a student in that university, I struggled with how to stand up for myself, even inside my own mind.

Scarcities of true, abiding relationships there – relationships I could count on – real friends. That was particularly true my first three semesters there. I felt both alone and conspicuous. I hated being the only ‘nontraditional’ student in most of my classes. When I went back for the second half – the other three semesters – all of that got better. But the friendships I made were with people who like me were not granted full citizenship rights. From the administration’s view, we were there to pay tuition or exploit as cheap labor.  Customers or wage-slaves. There were so many more of us than of them, but there was a scarcity of understanding for how deeply problematic the situation was, and a scarcity of belief that anything could be done, and a scarcity of interest in developing our collective strength and taking our university from the layer who have appropriated it.

And now writing the day after I was there:

The upcoming plan for that research 1 university is to make it more elitist. Acceptance there is set to become an even scarcer resource in 2015. The administrative dictators want more students from out of state so they can charge them higher tuition. In turn, students from this state can go elsewhere and take out even larger student loans. Instead of paying $50,000 for four years of BA instruction at this so-called public university, they can pay $80,000 or $100,000 somewhere else. Or they can try to go to the four-year state institution that won’t have enough space to accommodate a new mass of students who can’t get into our “public” university.

More students may find themselves far away from everyone they have ties to, as grad students and professors are likewise more than ever ripped away from their family, old friends, communities they grew up in.

In Debt: the First 5000 Years, David Graeber writes:

To be a slave was to be plucked from one’s family, kin, friends, and community, stripped of one’s name, identity, and dignity; and of everything that made one a person rather than a mere human machine capable of understanding orders. Neither were most slaves offered much opportunity to develop enduring human relations (155).

In a human economy, each person is unique, and of incomparable value, because each is a unique nexus of relations with others. A woman may be a daughter, sister, lover, rival, companion, mother, age-mate, and mentor to many different people in different ways (158.

[T]o make a human being an object of exchange, one woman equivalent to another for example, requires first of all ripping her from her context; that is, tearing her away from that web of relations that makes her the unique conflux of relations that she is, and thus, into a means to measure debt (159).

I am not speaking strictly of slavery here, but of that process that dislodges people from the webs of mutual commitment, shared history, and collective responsibility that make them what they are, so as to make them exchangeable – that is, to make it possible to make them subject to the logic of debt. Slavery is just the logical end-point, the most extreme form of such disentanglement. (163)

Are we being educated into slavery? 

Freedom becomes even more of a scarcity under these conditions. People aren’t free to choose to study what they want to study, or to stay near loved ones, sharing what they learn, or to make choices that cannot be made when they owe $50,000 or $100,000 in student loan debt.

Graeber again:

The meaning of the Roman word libertas itself changed dramatically over time. As everywhere in the ancient world, to be “free” meant, first and foremost, not to be a slave. Since slavery means above all the annihilation of social ties and the ability to form them, freedom meant the capacity to make and maintain moral commitments to others. The English word for “free,” for instance, is derived from a German root meaning “friend,” since to be free meant to be able to make friends, to keep promises, to live within a community of equals” (203).

I love this. To be free is to be able to make friends.

Scarcities of freedom and friendship abound at my former university. This helps prepare us for scarcities of freedom and friendship in our larger society, all tied to other scarcities. 

On my way out, I detoured through one of the old classical buildings where my American literature class used to meet in a big lecture hall in spring semester of 2010. I looked through the door’s glass into the empty room with the lights on. And I saw the ghosts of better possibilities. In the midst of all the constraints to keep us unfree – to prevent us from forming and keeping old and new webs of sustained relations – we were more in there than they tried to force us into being. Maybe one day, we’ll cut the chains on the tables and move them as it suits us, free to make and keep and sit with friends in OUR university. Scarcity will give way to generosity and abundance. 

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Last Class (Ever?)

by Lucy S.

I will write again about coming to the end of my master’s program and maybe the end of my time as a student, unless I end up going on into a PhD program.  Tonight, as I listened to our professor talk at the end, or walked down the hall with Erin, another student, or drove home, I was keenly aware at each step that this was my last class there. And it may be my last class as a student anywhere. Maybe this was it for life.

What now?

My arms and hands hurt from carrying everything, and I am weary all over. I brought a glass rectangular pan of enchiladas, and a bag with plates, forks, knives, cloth napkins, and peanut butter cookies. The plates were glass, so it was all rather heavy. I made the enchiladas and cookies today in the sunny kitchen with the windows and doors open and some of my kids in there talking with me or helping me.

For class, we just went over each other’s drafts. I had no draft since my project is done, but I went over the others, and we talked about them. Then we ate the dinner. It was a bit cold and hard since we had to wait two hours after I brought them in, but they were not too bad, I hope. I just wanted to bring food, to do something.

At the end, our professor spoke a little, and he read us this quote from “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” by Karl Marx. “As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy.”  

The proletariat are the working-class – the workers – all of us who in various ways have to work for wages or have to work to be supported by those with wages (our own work being uncompensated), or those of us who have worked for years (even if we may be unemployed now or retired).  It was a great quote to end on, quite fitting for our class in Marxist Literary Theory. We have been finding our spiritual weapon…

I emailed my professor to ask him for the quote again, and he wrote back with more on it, and said this part also is great:

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself . . . . man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings! http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm


All of these years, since I first began to pursue my education, this root is what I have sought. I yearned to understand my own condition and our collective condition, to not have it mystified.  I didn't use those words, but I ached to understand all that I could.  And this is a process, not some knowledge you just get and then are done with getting. I don't know what I will do without school. I love it.  And the people I became attached to in my program in my university -- as I was driving home, I was thinking: will they be my friends?  Will any of them want to stay knowing me?  

I am too exhausted to write well; all eloquence eludes me now. But I at least want to note this day. I am so fortunate that I got to do this. My education changed my life.  

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Huera aka Lucy aka HuerTa


What’s in a name?

Huera means “light.” Lucy means “light.” Huerta means “garden.”



When I was a kid, Carmen, who calls me her fifth daughter and who I call my other mother, and Gloria and Ana (my lifelong very close friends who became family to me decades ago) started calling me Huera. I can’t even remember when; it may have even been the first time I went over their house. Properly spelled, it’d be Guera, but Huera’s a common variation. Huera’s a nickname for lighter-skinned Latinas as well as non-Latina, Euro-descent family members or friends of Latina/os. For my two years of high school, I was Huera to most of my friends and acquaintances, even the non-Latina/o ones there. After 10th grade and the end of my schooling as a kid, I lived with Gloria and Ana’s family, and with my first boyfriend’s family (if that relationship can even be referred to in such placid terms as “my boyfriend”), and with another family who all called me Huera. Sometimes I just stayed with people for a few days or a week here and there.  For them, I was Huera. (And I stayed with relatives for whom I remained Lucy.)

***

Gloria’s family called themselves Colombian or Hispanic. They moved to East L.A. (Lincoln Heights) from Colombia when Gloria was three. Gloria’s father had previously immigrated to Colombia from Bulgaria. Spanish and English were both commonly spoken in their home. There, we ate platanos, yuca, lentijos, arroz, arroz con leche, and carne (round steak) divided into small pieces between us all, or sometimes a mixture cooked in the big pot with turkey legs, garbanzos, rice, corn, tomato sauce, and vegetables. If we were lucky, we had empanadas (a kind of turnover with meat, rice, vegetables) and buñuelos (balls of different cheeses mixed with cornstarch and deep fried). Platanos are fried plantains, but I learned them as platanos and called them that for so long that calling them fried plantains feels somehow false. Yuca is cassava. Lentijos are lentils, and again, I learned them first as lentijos... Arroz is rice, but I think of it in that context as arroz still. Arroz con leche is rice cooked with much more water along with cans of condensed milk and cinnamon sticks to make it have the consistency of hot cereal.

Carmen worked all day at a sewing factory; she wanted dinner ready by the time she came home from work.

***

Paul’s family called themselves Mexican. He and his siblings and their parents (and I think their grandparents) were born in the U.S.; and it may be that their families’ presences in California precede when the U.S. took it from Mexico. Paul and his four siblings didn’t know Spanish; their mom Agnes did. I think their dad Joe did, though I never heard him speak it. They’d divorced years before I knew them, and I only saw him occasionally.

Agnes hated cussing because Joe used to cuss at her, explicitly, degradingly. Paul and his sister Dolores swore quite a bit, but Agnes would say in substitution, “Bless you!” She said it as someone else would say, “Damn you!”

Agnes worked at Lockheed holding a 40 pound riveter all day. Aerospace jobs dominated the Antelope Valley. Agnes had divorced Paul’s dad because he’d taken to beating her and having affairs. One day before I knew them, when Paul’s oldest brother Jesse was 15, Jesse grabbed a butcher knife from the kitchen counter and held it toward his dad who was slapping and shoving and kicking his mom. Jesse yelled, leave her alone, and he said if his dad ever hit her again, Jesse would kill him. Agnes told me that one time, and Jesse told me another time. And Joe never hit her again. They let him stay a while; she said she felt kind of sorry for him after that. But they weren't a couple anymore. One day, she came home from work and he had another woman in her bed, and that's when she threw him out. I think she could have whooped both of them by then, or at least by the time I knew her and knew Paul's dad.  Man, was she strong. 

When I lived with them, Agnes had this boyfriend from Mississippi (who she later married), way older than her, who came over Sunday mornings to cook us all grits and pancakes. Dinners were a set in stone routine. Except for Thursdays, we had pork chops, canned green chiles, refried beans, and canned corn. During my time there, I was usually assigned to cook them. (And I watched Dolores’s baby girl because she’d gotten a job at Lockheed, also.) On payday Thursdays, they drove through a fast food Mexican restaurant on the way home to pick up our favorites. Saturdays, Agnes put on her Conway Twitty or Loretta Lynn albums and we cleaned – Pine Sol in the bathrooms and to clean the kitchen floor, using washcloths instead of mops (Agnes said mops were for lazy people) – using brooms to sweep the flat carpet (again, vacuums were for the lazy).  I knew better than to argue. Meanwhile, we heard Loretta Lynn sing about sleeping single in a double bed and Conway Twitty singing with I think Loretta Lynn – he was Jimmy and she was Joanie, and Joanie had ended up marrying his best friend John by the end of the story-song.

***

Sandra’s and Ruth’s family had moved from L.A. out to our Mojave Desert town (the story with so many of us), and they called themselves Mexican or Chicana/o. Sunday mornings, their mom would pick up menudo (soup with tripe) and we’d eat it with a lot of lemon squeezed in. I was living with them when we went to a New Year’s Eve party and Beaver (another common nickname; real name Jesse; different Jesse than Paul’s brother) – Beaver was stabbed in the chest, and his lung (or lungs?) collapsed. The ambulance took 45 minutes, arriving after he’d died in the arms of a close friend. Beaver was 20, married with two little girls. He and his wife had argued that night, and she’d left early. A guy only one person knew had been brought to the party, an 18 year old from L.A. He’d started to fight a 14 year old, and pulled out a knife. Beaver stepped in between them to good-naturedly tell the newcomer to just calm down, that he didn't really want to use that knife. Somehow the knife ended up in his chest. All of us (Gloria and Ana; Paul and Dolores; Sandra and Ruth; Beaver and his wife Sandy) moved in the same larger crowd and knew one other as friends to varying degrees.  

***

Sometimes I was mostly living in my old car that my parents had given me. And when I’d park in front of Yolie’s place to feel a little safer, her mom would often spot my car out there in the early mornings after Yolie’s dad left for work. She’d tell Yolie to go out and get me. Her mom was deaf. She read lips and she spoke. But she only spoke Spanish; and my Spanish had so many gaps. Still, she communicated so clearly that she cared, and that I didn’t need to feel unwelcome. She always made us potatoes cooked into a mixture with meat and sauces that we’d eat in a couple of tortillas, and she never hurried me to leave.

***

A couple of weeks after Beaver got killed, I left Lancaster. My friend Gilbert, who’d lived in a foster home in Lancaster for a while before moving back with his family in La Puente (east of L.A. in the San Gabriel Valley), showed up in town by bus. He talked me into moving to get away from my ex-boyfriend and to try something new. And so I lived with him, his mom, stepdad, and siblings. They too called themselves Mexican, and called me Huera, and spoke mostly in English, with bits of Spanish thrown in, but Gilbert also called me Lucy when he felt like it. He did it almost in that way that parents sometimes use their kids first, middle, and last name to get their attention. He loved to loudly, exaggeratedly enunciate his grandfather’s favorite expression, delivered with rolled eyes and dry sarcasm: “Valgame dios.” (“God help me”). Gilbert cooked magnificently and dramatically; he later became a chef. He often made us chilaquiles for breakfast (eggs, torn up corn tortillas, cheese, Pato sauce…). His mom made a special fish soup for special occasions. And with their family, I had lengua for the one and only time ever (beef tongue).

Some of our friends and family couldn’t believe we weren’t ‘boyfriend and girlfriend,’ especially when we had to share a room as the house filled up with even more extended family who’d had to move in, but we were not. Yet we went almost everywhere together and functioned as a platonic couple. Finally, after yet another big argument, I decided to move (which meant putting everything I had in 4 or 5 brown paper grocery bags and carrying them to the trunk of my car). Gilbert’s mom walked out there on that sunny late morning, and she kept telling me to stay and that she’d have Gilbert move in with his grandparents in Echo Park. But I said I couldn’t, that I didn’t feel right having him leave his own family’s home in order for me to stay. He and I revived our friendship once we weren’t living together.

***

From there, I moved in with my cousins, who were in the ‘white world’ in my mind, a world that was strangely unfamiliar to me in certain ways. Their music, their ways of dressing, their makeup (or lack thereof), their one step instead of two step slow dance style, their other ways of dancing, their casual drug use… I had before mostly only drank or smoked weed (which I mostly avoided because it sometimes made me faint – low blood pressure). For my white cousins and their larger crowd, some of whom became friends of mine, I was the different one. They welcomed me, but I felt like I’d moved from another country in some ways. I’d grown up in my own white family, but this experience had been so blended with what I called back then Mexican or Chicano or Colombian or Hispanic family, friends, food, culture... My mom made us chorizo and eggs from as far back as I can remember. Our larger family-friend meld was ‘multicultural’ (a word I didn’t know then) – mixed, blended… – especially in my specific experiences.

My dad told me that his identical twin – my Uncle Alto – got called ‘Chicano Jones’ for a while as a teen, because he’d picked up a Chicano accent from his friends. They grew up in South Central L.A. after they’d moved from New Jersey as 6 year olds. At 16, Alto married his pregnant girlfriend. He quit school to work fulltime at a factory full of chemicals and other dangers (a friend almost died by electrocution there). Three kids later, his marriage ended, and in his late 20s, he married Dolores, who had two very young kids, Isabel and Johnny. He became their dad; they became my cousins; Dolores became my aunt.

The white cousins whose ‘world’ I’d joined were (in part) Alto’s daughters from his first marriage. They felt animosity toward “Dolores and her family,” and sometimes still do, even decades later. Yet they feel affection as well. When my cousin Isabel’s husband and son were murdered (elsewhere in this blog, I call her Elizabeth out of over-anxious concern for her privacy) – when they were killed, my cousin Carolyn immediately came out from Colorado. Love, jealousies, pains, resentments, nostalgia (memories of Carolyn in Isabel’s quinceañera) – all these and so much more are welded together…

More than once, I lived with Alto, Dolores, Isabel, and Johnny (and various others who happened to be living there), and Dolores’s family became my extended family as well. We’d sit around the table at her parents’ home in Montclair (near Pomona, east of L.A.), and tell stories for hours. They always had a stockpot of beans on the stove with the burner turned low, and a stack of homemade flour tortillas for whoever showed up or was living there (there was always a crowd). And coffee. Pelón, Dolores’s brother, had a heroin habit he’d brought back years before from his Vietnam tour, like some other vets from that war. No one said much about it. Pelón worked full-time, raised his son, and quietly got his fix as needed to function. No one there saw that part of his life. And then one day, for reasons no one understood, he O.D.’d; he died. But before then, Pelón was Pelón, not “a drug addict,” or anyone to be preached to or ostracized or pitied.

***

Finally, I moved back to Lancaster as a single mom with my two-year-old son. I rented the duplex adjoined to Gloria’s. She was married by then (her husband was Mexican – he couldn’t speak Spanish), and they had two kids. I moved back and forth between Lucy and Huera – and I enrolled at the community college. So much code-switching – a term I only have learned in more recent years – moving back and forth linguistically, culturally, ontologically (?)…. (Ontological: “of or relating to essence or the nature of being” The Free Dictionary.)  Ontological: a word I only learned in recent years; what is funny is that academics are always talking about ‘ways of being’ and ‘ways of being in the world,’ but it was from Gloria that I first acquired this expression back when we were kids. She said things like, “He has such a weird way of being…”

***

At a pedagogy group this year (pedagogy: “the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept” Google), one of the guys – a white guy in his late 20s or early 30s – friendly, smart, one of those people who it just seems like everyone would like – who’s just now finishing up his PhD in education – had us do a reading on critical race theory. One thing the Filipino-American author of that text said was that because whiteness is dominant in the U.S., someone who’s white could never know how it is to be the only person of color among a group of whites – that being the only white person among a group of Latinos, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Asian-Americans… was not the same, because the dominant white culture remained beyond that specific situation. This seems true to me.

And yet I said with some trepidation at sounding ridiculous, “Well, I know what he’s saying, but I feel like my experience is kind of different…”  But what words could I use to quickly convey that experience? Even what I have written here is minuscule compared to the realities. And awkward, I worry. I said a few sentences about it – something which undoubtedly sounded inane (“I grew up with Hispanic friends and some family…”)

(Even the use of the word “Hispanic” is wrong now in academia; but none of my “Hispanic” or “Latino” or “Mexican” or “Colombian” family and friends use “Latino,” so it always feels a bit feigned to me when I use it… I noticed when I read the 2011 book, Living “Illegal”: The Human Face of Unauthorized Migration, that the immigrants who the authors called Latino/a called themselves and others from Latin America Hispanics. Some of the authors are Latina/o.  But still, there is always something about this that feels strange for me, as if I’m going to tell my family and friends that they don’t know it, but they’re supposed to be using the term Latina/o now rather than Hispanic. It seems like an academic directive, because I learned it in academia.)

 I thought even as I said what I did in pedagogy that the guy in the group would see a white woman silly or presumptuous enough to think that she could know. He smiled and shook his head and said, “No.”  And I can’t say that I know. I don’t even know how such a feeling could be measured, or whether the Hispanic part of my family feel it in the way that the African-American part of my family might feel it or the (first generation) Filipina part of my family might feel it. Immigrants or native born? So many variables. But I know that the nice guy from pedagogy has no idea what my experience really is, either, as far as these things go. It is possible that he doesn’t understand how melded you can get, so that you sometimes feel like some kind of undercover person moving around amidst white people, wincing or lecturing or hurt and mad at times at the little or not so little comments made which often imply whiteness as a norm and reveal racisms. 

Sometimes some white people say things about people of color that they would not say if I were not white. And I feel angry, not in some kind of ‘politically correct’ way (as some white folks who imagine themselves to be ‘tell it like it is’ people think is the case) – no. I take it personally. I take it as if they were expressing digs and slams about me or my mom or my sister or my kids.

***

One time my friend Sophie was at a gathering of her spouse’s coworkers and their partners, and a guy started putting down Mexicans. She finally smiled and said, “Well, you know, I’m Mexican.”  He hadn’t realized this, so he felt safe to express some racism. He stammered and stuttered and tried to dig himself out of his mortification.

Sophie doesn’t call me “Huera.” I know her from another time and place in my life. She understands Spanish perfectly; her mom spoke it to her, and then she answered in English. But Sophie hasn’t spoken Spanish since she was six, because at the school she attended in Dallas, Texas, kids used to get in big trouble for speaking in Spanish. She will only pronounce Spanish words with an American-English accent. Sometimes I have said to her, "Man, what the heck did they DO to you in that school?" She only smiles.

***

Last year, I asked my good friend or “brother” Joel (pronounced with two syllables; accent on the second) what word he’d use, and he said he’d say Mexican to describe himself and his birth family. He was born and raised in a small town in Texas. He said he’d use Hispanic to describe his immediate family – his wife and two kids. Joel married my “sister” Ana (Gloria’s sister; she always calls us sisters in a way that goes beyond the use of this term in female friendships; we really are family). So as a family, they are now Colombian-Mexican-American (reorder the words as you wish). Joel and I sometimes email each other (to joke or debate), and in one a couple years ago, he accidentally called me “Huerta” instead of “Huera.” Huerta means garden, mostly a working, food-producing garden. I have run with that in my correspondence with him, and sometimes with Ana or Gloria. After all, I am a gardener.  Before I returned to school, it was my passion. It has lain a bit dormant since then.

Huera means “light.” Lucy means “light.” Huerta (I write it to him as HuerTa to playfully emphasize the new “T”) means “garden.”

I don’t know what these things mean exactly. I am always writing about the need for finding our commonality, for finding solidarity. And I have family and close friends from such a multitude of backgrounds. Here I have shone a light on some of the “Hispanic” parts of my culture. I’m trying to explain part of who I am, and what I know, and why “race” or “skin color” or “ethnic background” are so inadequate at expressing one’s culture. I have a culture, partly regional, partly familial, partly friendship-based, a mix of so many experiences – and it is this garden, the particular people whose roots have been bound up with mine, years ago, or at various points along the way, even up to the present. Roots are always growing. Any gardener can tell you that about their HuerTa.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Living Deliberately: Why I Went Back to School


by Lucy S.

Last week for my theory class, we read Frederic Jameson’s book, The Cultural Turn, an extremely interesting book, yet one I struggled with at times. It’s not that he uses a lot of jargon. But he writes long sentences with several ideas strung together, and at times makes references without explaining them, relying on readers to know them already. We write on the class blog site in connection to the reading each week, so I voiced my questions regarding what we are to do with what we learn – how we are to take readings that are sometimes difficult for us and talk about them beyond the university. I asked what it accomplishes for us to move in the world carrying these theories and various forms of knowledge in our minds. I always wonder about this. What do we have to contribute? This is especially on my mind as I get ready to graduate and face being out of academia again for now at least. Even if I am lucky enough to teach at a community college, we will not be reading Jameson in those classes. How do we keep what we learn circulating in the world?

When we came together as a class last Wednesday, our professor brought up my post and said it was a fair question to ask. He then picked out a sentence in the book to demonstrate the way in which Jameson strings ideas together in long sentences. Making us hold multiple ideas as we made our way through these long sentences, said our professor, trains us to make more complex connections and to hold off easy resolutions. Our mainstream ideologies give us a false sense of ease with regard to summing up people, issues, and structures in our society, and they give us a taste for further ease. We get used to not stretching our minds too much. We decide that we don’t like to read, think about, talk about, or write about what is hard. Jameson is resisting that false ease, not only in the content of his book, but even in its very form.

For some time, I’ve struggled with the question of how we can even hope to have an actual democracy if people have little or no understanding of primary issues in our society – no sense of history, no sense of the realities in other countries in this world (or even other states in the U.S. or their own), no sense of the positions and records of these politicians we are supposed to vote for (an impediment in itself to any substantive democracy), no sense of the techniques being used to manipulate us, no deeply developed thinking about complex issues that affect us all so profoundly. We have had it so drilled into us that these ‘choices’ between politicians and that these superficial 'choices' about 'issues' somehow fundamentally are the very meaning of what democracy is. Why do so many people accept that conception of democracy? In what way is that rule by the people? 

But that unquestioning acceptance of what we’ve always been taught is what comes from simplistic thinking. These things feel like ‘common sense,’ as for so long, and for so many people, it felt like common sense that if a man hit or raped his wife (but the word ‘rape’ would not even be applied), it was ‘his business,’ and not for any governments or other outside entities to be intervening. But my professor was saying more than that we need to interrogate what passes as ‘common sense’ and ‘normal’ to figure out what injustices and atrocities are embedded in those ideas and practices. He was also noting that we live in a time that glorifies stock phrases and simple expressions that deliver a fake, cheap wisdom and a momentary bit of emotion without contributing to profound insight.

When I first went back to the university in 2009 to complete my BA, I sometimes argued the case to my independent studies professor that using words that not enough people outside of academia know is elitist and may keep many people out of the conversation. I asked why things couldn’t be phrased simply. One of the words I used in my example was ‘hegemony.’  Why couldn’t academic writers just say ‘political and social domination’ instead of ‘hegemony’?  He did not agree. He said it was important to try to choose words that most precisely express the ideas we're reaching for.

Here is something from a University of Michigan site explaining hegemony:

One of [Antonio] Gramsci's ideas was the concept of "hegemony," or ideological domination.  When one ideology, or world view, dominates, it suppresses or stamps out, often cruelly, any other ways of explaining reality.  Actually, hegemony can contain a variety of ideologies.  Some are artificial -- theoretical explanations created by academics or political activists or philosophers.  Other ideologies are "organic," which means they come from the common people's lived experience. These consist of a culture's way of seeing and believing, and the institutions that uphold these beliefs, like religion, education, family, and the media. Through these beliefs and institutions, society endorses the ethical beliefs and manners which "the powers that be" agree are true, or right, or logical, or moral.  The institutions and beliefs that the dominant culture support are so powerful, and get hold of people when they are so young, that alternative ways of envisioning reality are very hard to imagine.  This is how hegemony is created and maintained.

According to Gramsci, hegemony locks up a society even more tightly because of the way ideas are transmitted by language.  The words we use to speak and write have been constructed by social interactions through history and shaped by the dominant ideology of the times.  Thus they are loaded with cultural meanings that condition us to think in particular ways, and to not be able to think very well in other ways. [….]

Gramsci added another dimension to the definition of hegemony: domination by consent.  It seems impossible that anyone would consent to be oppressed, or that we ourselves might be consenting to oppress others.  But no matter how outraged we are at the poverty that exists in the richest country in the world, all most of us do to fight it is tinker with the system.  We know that the rich are getting richer while the poor and the middle class are feeling less and less secure.  We know, but we accept.  "What can one person do?" we say.  "The poor have always been with us."  It's a fatalistic feeling we have, but Gramsci doesn't blame us for it.  "Indeed," he says, "fatalism is nothing other than the clothing worn by real and active will when in a weak position."(1)

It’s an excellent, understandable, short piece, and I urge you to read it.


It's interesting that of all the words I might have chosen that autumn day in 2009, I happened to choose ‘hegemony.’ Dominant contemporary hegemony is what gives us this idea that we shouldn’t have to think too hard, that anything difficult is just made unnecessarily that way, and that the main thing we want to do is get anything hard over with so that we can get back to ‘fun’ stuff. It makes us think that if we can’t understand something, what is being said must not be all that important anyway.  

This has been so convenient for the elite layers benefiting from our lack of understanding about our own interconnected situations. It works best for them if most of us continue along in the following manner: If we vote at all, we vote on dumbed down ‘issues’ that have been predigested for us, and then we leave it to the politicians on our ‘team’ (Dems or Repubs) to do what they do once they are elected while we shop, watch entertaining TV and movies that make us feel without thinking too hard, play with gadgetry, and decorate our dwellings and ourselves while making no sustained, collective efforts and demands. We’re played against each other in constructed competitions for jobs, education, material goods, and care. We have little or no solidarity with others (beyond a small number of family and friends, and even then, we often don’t like them to ask much of us). But we can be whipped up into a frenzy against this or that supposed enemy, so that we give up our rights or send ourselves or our kids to risk getting mutilated or killed while helping to devastate or murder so many others. We do the jobs they construct, regardless of how meaningless or harmful they are, at the wages they decide to pay. We ‘just follow orders.’ We do not get to actively create the kind of society that we yearn for.

When I went back to school in 2009, part of me wanted to work at learning what is difficult and thus understanding my condition and world better, and part of me resented the difficulty. I especially hated that so many people I know and love would not have access to these things. Too many had been lost or were in such pain. I also had observed that most of the people propping up the destructive hegemonies and dominating the rest of us had college educations, and those educations had not brought them enough empathy, wisdom, courage, or active care for other lives. I wanted to know why. Why was that, when I found education to be so vital? It’s a huge question on which I've been continually working to find answers.

At the end of that first semester back, I wrote a paper in which I expressed these huge questions and my efforts to discover answers. I noted that Henry David Thoreau (my very favorite author, if I had to choose one) had said that he “went to the woods because [he] wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life” (65), and that I had come back to school to front other essential facts, and in my own way, to try to live deliberately. I am glad to say that this remains my core reason for what I do. I do not want to live by accident, infused with and thrown about by hegemonies and other words and realities that I cannot name, which remain all too real in their effects upon us. I do not 'when it comes time to die, discover that I have not lived.'

I will end this by including a fuller excerpt of the Thoreau passage from which I quoted this most famous part of Walden. I do not at all mean that going to a university or getting degrees in literature are the sole ways to live deliberately, but that trying what is difficult and finding words that come from and convey those endeavors matter tremendously. Thoreau, like Gramsci, writes here against that fatalism that is all too easy to swallow and be swallowed by.

We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep. I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor. It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts. Every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical hour. If we refused, or rather used up, such paltry information as we get, the oracles would distinctly inform us how this might be done.

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when it came time to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear, nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion (64-65).




“Nutshell Biographies #2   Center for Learning Through Community Service. ANTONIO GRAMSCI and the idea of ‘hegemony’ (Thanks to Victor Villanueva and his book Bootstraps: From an American academic of color.  Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993, from which some of this material has been adapted.)”  Here is the citation for their Gramsci quote: (1) Gramsci, Antonio.  Selections from The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.  NY: International Publishers, 1995 [copyright 1971]. p. 337

Thoreau, Henry D. “Walden.” Walden, Civil Disobedience, and Other Writings. New York: Norton, 2008. Print.  

***

There is something I want to add.  After I posted this and then was doing other things, I kept thinking about the paragraph in which I talked about how it works best for an elite layer if we continue along in certain ways. I don't mean to say that we are ever really reduced to just those things. And even some of those activities that I named come out of desires to enjoy life and create. I am not arguing for some kind of grim asceticism in which we feel that everything is 'wrong' and that we are 'bad.' It is just that in a capitalist society, people are encouraged to figure out how to use those relationships and deep desires to turn into money and domination over others.  But I don't want to imply that I see people around me cynically.  We are always so much more than what the elite and the capitalist system try to reduce us to, and if we were not, we would just succumb. We  would not be worth our own efforts to create better.   We are always so much more, which is why we are worth caring for and fighting for in the first place. We have relationships with one another, and we strive to grow. We create in so many ways. We love life.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

May Day – International Workers’ Day


 I don’t have much time to write; I have to finish a reading, keep preparing for my official conversation tomorrow about my final project, do some last writing on my master’s essay, and go to class tonight. The temperature has dropped from the 70s to the 40s in one day. I won’t be marching today. I have no time to, I am sorry to say. Saturday, I will finally be at a picket action in the afternoon, if all goes well. But today is May Day – International Workers’ Day.  

It’s sadly unsurprising that so many people in the U.S. don’t know about or think much about this day. Here’s a bit of Wikipedia history on the day:

International Workers' Day is the commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago. The police were trying to disperse a public assembly during a general strike for the eight-hour workday, when an unidentified person threw a bomb at them. The police reacted by firing on the workers, killing four demonstrators. "Reliable witnesses testified that all the pistol flashes came from the center of the street, where the police were standing, and none from the crowd. Moreover, initial newspaper reports made no mention of firing by civilians. A telegraph pole at the scene was filled with bullet holes, all coming from the direction of the police."

In 1889, the first congress of the Second International, meeting in Paris for the centennial of the French Revolution and the Exposition Universelle, following a proposal by Raymond Lavigne, called for international demonstrations on the 1890 anniversary of the Chicago protests. May Day was formally recognized as an annual event at the International's second congress in 1891.
International Workers' Day: History”

Isn’t it amazing that International Workers’ Day commemorates what happened in Chicago, and yet it is in the U.S. that the holiday goes uncelebrated in any official sense?  But of course, it has been important for the dominant powers to obscure this history and to de-radicalize people in doing so.

I presented a paper at a conference last Friday that was about our disappeared history – the roots of the mass expansion of our public college systems in the U.S.  

During the Depression, the Roosevelt administration created the WPA (Works Progress Administration) arts projects to create jobs. Many proletarian writers – worker-writers on the Left who were part of movements to transform the country into something far more participatory, democratic, and economically just – went to work for the WPA.  The WPA did not outlive the Depression, but it was a major predecessor to the mass expansion of the college and university systems. Thus, an effort for all to rise became something complicated and at odds with itself – a means for individuals to rise if they got a college education. 

Yet that radical heritage has never been eliminated in academia. Our college systems were also a kind of ‘commons’ – something available to all, at least in some places, such as in California, where they were free for a while. And they became a place in which education can help create critical consciousness. At the same time, there was a kind of deal made in which individuals could blame themselves or be blamed for not getting a college education, so that it would somehow be their own fault if they were poorly paid for their labor and worked in lousy conditions. Thus, individual ascension vies with collective ascension as a goal in our educational systems. 

This is what a big part of my work has been about – my final project as well as some of my other work. I have been trying to understand my own condition, our society, education, and what is worth working for.

I struggle with depression, insecurity, panic attacks, and personal situations with no easy resolutions. I mourn lost loved ones and those who suffer most egregiously under this system. I get upset when I talk with my cousin Johnny and listen to him struggling to catch his breath because he caught Valley Fever during his 17 years in California State prisons, where the disease is most rampant – 17 years for nonviolent crimes. But I am fortunate in many ways. I love my life, and I love the many awesome people I am bound to in many ways. And I agree wholeheartedly with radical educator Myles Horton when he said:

I think that we all may be mixed up psychologically, but I don't think that we are going to solve our personal problems just by searching our souls or by getting a professional therapist to help us work out our internal, individual problems.  I think these problems get resolved much faster in action, preferably in some kind of social movement.  (The Long Haul 93-95). 

And I agree with him when he said:

I think if I had to put my finger on what I consider a good education, a good radical education, it wouldn't be anything about methods or techniques.  It would be loving people first.  If you don't do that, Che Guevara says, there's no point in being a revolutionary.  I agree with that.  And that means all people everywhere, not just your own family or your own countrymen or your own color.  And wanting for them what you want for yourself.  And then next is respect for people's abilities to learn and to act and to shape their own lives.  (We Make the Road by Walking 177)

Be proud of your labor, paid and unpaid, and stand with other workers.

Solidarity,
Lucy