(
Alan: The following
letters-to-the-editor were mostly submitted to Durham, North Carolina's Independent Weekly.
October 26, 2000
Editor (The
Independent),
I was encouraged by Hal
Crowther's recent categorization of our political economy as a
"plutocracy." ("Alone on the Cliff," October 18-24, 2000)
I also admire Hal's
courageous dismissal of "conglomerates and their parasites --- like
political parties and universities."
However, when Hal
laments the loss of culture, compassion, compass and conscience as the devolved
outcome of Darwinian economics, I wish he would venture an opinion as to why
the brutality of advantage has overwhelmed all opposition.
The encompassing
consumerism that Hal briefly mentions is rooted in the philosophical -- if not
theological -- premise that the obsessive pursuit of self-interest will
liberate the "invisible hand of the marketplace" so that everyone
will be saved by the resulting "trickle down" --- a sort of modern
manna mediated by magnates and the mandates of materialism.
The question --
"Are we here, primarily, to serve self or others?" -- has been
answered by the solipsistic certainty that Self is primary.
Lao Tzu observed that
"Nature is not human-hearted." Tragically, we have extrapolated the
zoological truth of Darwinism to dethrone the heart of Human nature. We humans
are no longer "set apart from the world," but are swallowed up by its
bloody maw.
I realize that my
judgment steps on many "progressive" toes. However, given the
dog-eat-dog nature of social Darwinism, only a fool would refuse to use fang
and claw to reach the top of the plutocratic pecking order.
Change requires
admission of wrong-doing - not the modern world's strongest suit.
Unfortunately, there is no alternative to social Darwinism but to acknowledge
the uniqueness of human life, locating within it sacred qualities rooted in a
repository of value which --- subsisting by unspeakable mystery --- exists
beyond the observable workings of Nature. (In this regard, I'm encouraged by a
developing consensus among scientists that "Reality" is made up of
eleven dimensions. At a recent, national convention of physicists, a
provocatively mysterious question was set forth as central to the next
century's scientific agenda: "If there are, in fact, eleven dimensions,
why do we only live in three of them?")
Slurping at the
smorgasbord of Nouveau Choice, we experience no need to make binding decisions
that would steer us upward from the primordial swamp.
Instead, we have abused
broad-mindedness so that transcendental value is disparaged when not ridiculed.
Meanwhile, the plutocratic drift of social Darwinism -- coupled with
totalitarian materialism -- have been deified as the twin foundations of
existence.
Inevitably, we re-make
ourselves in the image of our gods.
Or, as William Blake put
it: "We become what we perceive."
In the end, there is no
escape from choices which are -- at least functionally -- of religious
importance.
You pay your money. You
take your chances.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
Dear Editor (Newsweek),
I hold three university
degrees, a high school teaching credential in Biological Science, and have
taught at Managua, Nicaragua's National Medical School and the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill where I was contracted to write a Spanish language
textbook ("La Charla").
In 1996, after teaching
upper level high school Spanish in Hillsborough, North Carolina, for six years,
the State Department of Public Instruction bluntly informed me that my
"lateral entry teaching credential" would not be renewed unless I
took 15 additional credit hours of Spanish language coursework. Ironically, I
could have taught these courses as capably as the people from whom I was
obliged to take them.
Rather than suffer this
abuse, I quit.
If America's public
schools "want teachers" -- Newsweek, October 2, 2000 -- it is
important to lay responsibility for the shortage at their own doorstep.
It is difficult to
describe the full scope of Public Instruction's metastatic foolishness. Still,
one must start somewhere...
For example, it is
absurd to require credentials of prospective teachers when these same
candidates might be invited to demonstrate their capability (or lack thereof)
in actual classroom settings. If "the proof is not in the pudding"
then where does it reside? In a sheepskin?
Alternatively, the
fruitless, state-mandated hazing whereby teachers secure their largely bogus
credentials is rooted in the need to fleece a captive audience, thus insuring
the financial survival of University Departments of Education, among the most
counterproductive enterprises sponsored by The Ivory Tower.
Or consider the surfeit
of administrative dead-wood. New York City's Public School District employs
thirty (30) times as many administrators -- "per student" -- as NYC's
Diocesan School District. These redundant, meddling ner-do-wells should get
"real jobs." Every administrator returned to the classroom translates
to 3 or 4 additional teachers hired with the savings.
It is true that the
outsized scale of public instruction requires an unusually large number of
"administrative wardens" to "keep the peace." However,
non-stop skirmishes -- and occasional pitched battles -- impeach the
putative tranquility which administrators claim to maintain. There's a
cheek-by-jowl relationship here with Mayor Richard Dailey's Freudian slip
following the Democratic Convention riots in 1968: "The police are not
here to create disorder, they're here to preserve it."
Although I will vote -
reluctantly - for Al Gore or Ralph Nader, sustained Republican support for
school vouchers is right on target.
Recently, Newsweek
columnist George Will quoted Lisa Graham Keegan (Arizona's Superintendent of
Public Instruction): "Everyone is complicit in trying to make the education
system look good without merit... This country is so content not to know the
truth about its children, it's horrifying."
Help dismantle the
conspiracy of silence.
Gratefully,
Alan Archibald
***
8/27/00
Editor (Newsweek),
In "Nader and the
Push for Purity (8/28/00)," Anna Quindlen faults Ralph for an
"either-or attitude that most of us had when very young (so that) his
politics need never grow old."
I disagree.
America's two party,
winner-take-all system is the template for "either-or" politics and
creates the Peter Pan puerility Ms. Quindlen rightly laments. Stuck in this
self-serving over-simplification, American democracy never matured, but slowly
devolved into big money's "back forty."
There are many putative
differences between Republicans and Democrats. However, when Al Gore
insists categorically that we can have "growth" AND
"ecological integrity," he's admitting philosophical kinship with the
forces of consumerism that despoil the planet while pretending to put a
populist face on plutocracy.
Ironically, it's Ralph
Nader who breaks this "either-or" mould, advocating for
multi-partisan, "parliamentarian" politics, staunchly refusing to
sharecrop the droppings of big business. Quindlen construes this uncompromising
view as childish.
Perhaps.
Perhaps an American
politician has finally matured, finally decided to "make the children pick
up after themselves."
I voted for Nader in the
last presidential election, but am leaning toward Gore in 2000. My Democratic
inclination isn't based on heartfelt conviction that Gore will resist the
formidable pressures threatening representative democracy.
Rather, I consider Bush
so dangerously empty-headed -- so appallingly self-preening that,
throughout his term, "the looking glass" would reflect nothing but
his "pretty face" and a wraith-like "invisible hand" whose
foremost function is to throttle the planet's poor.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
8/27/00
Editor (Independent),
Although Hal Crowther's
new book, "Cathedrals of Kudzu," brims with wit and insight, his
description of the relationship between "belief," "doubt"
and "drink" -- misses the mark.
As a Catholic living in
the South, Hal's assessment of Walker Percy seems somewhat misrepresentative,
both of Walker, and of Catholicism.
Catholics do not
consider themselves "saved," although it is a rubric of our faith
that "the far shore" will embrace those who have acted in harmony
with the incarnation of love.
Surely, the Church
hasn't surrounded Percy with "the odor of sanctity:" rather,
Catholics esteem Walker as one of our more fruitful sinners.
Nor is Percy as assailed
by doubt as Hal would have it. Many incidental pieces in "Lost in the
Cosmos" are egregiously orthodox --- religiously self-certain to an almost
embarassing degree. Consider Percy's letter to the New York Times equating
abortion-on-demand with the same sort of slippery slope logic used by Nazi
social engineers in the 1930s. (Although Percy's argument is carefully crafted,
the New York Times didn't even acknowledge its submission: apparently "the
tone" was insufficiently avant garde to satisfy the Editors' penchant for
that specifically modern oxymoron --- "broad-minded censorship.")
It's not my purpose to
attack or defend the content of Percy's writing. Rather, I fault Hal's
observation that "no first rate fiction was ever written by anyone who was
too certain about anything." By this rubric, the collected writings of
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are summarily dismissed, not to mention Southern greats
like Flannery O'Connor and Percy himself. I wonder how Hal accommodates the
Bible, an anthology of texts, which -- while partially historical -- embody
mytho-fictive writing at its best.
Admittedly, doubt is essential
to tested belief, as Job bore eloquent witness. In this century, G. K.
Chesterton -- the British Catholic and self-assured believer whom Hal himself
holds in high regard believed that Christ crucified was lacerated by
doubt concerning the existence of God.
I do not dispute Hal's
determination to focus on Percy's fondness for bourbon, as no one disputes
Chesterton's fondness for beer and wine.
As distinct from
tee-totaling sects, Catholics drink.
Italy, France, Spain,
Portugal, the Czech Republic and Ireland - as well as the Catholic regions of
Germany, Holland and Belgium - are the planetary cultures where drinking is
most carefully woven into the tapestry of everyday life.
Oddly, Hal has
difficulty recognizing this cultural fundament of earthy - at times, mucky -
Catholicity, and in reaction, seems unduly determined to accord moonshine a
sanctuary of its own, a place where unbelievers can participate in the true
secular sacrament.
However, the
well-documented relationship between writers and drink, while productive, has
not - in the main - been happy. Hal's claims on behalf of "the boozy
doubter's purgatory" make one wonder why these boozy doubters are so
easily piqued by devout Catholic drinkers, particularly when so many boozers
eventually "come in from the cold" to sip sacramental wine around a
much larger table.
Out on the rim of the
broken wheel, lonely regard for moonshine tends to be just that.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
9/18/97
Editor, (Newsweek)
The opening paragraph of
Germaine Greer's "Unmasking the Mother"
(Newsweek, 9/22/97) is
so larded with sloppy logic I'm surprised Newsweek
editors let it pass.
Greer berates Mother
Teresa for occupying a first class airline seat (a
seat that had been
pre-arranged and pre-paid by people foreign to her
missionary
organization), and then, in a dazzlingly self-centered
arabesque, tries to
fault Mother Teresa for not consuming a single
sturgeon egg or drop of
champagne. It seems to me yon Germaine doth
protest too much. Which
end of the candle do you wish to burn my dear?
I would venture that Ms.
Greer is comfortably ensconced in the ranks of
pop luminaries who shine
only when their own celebrity is being toasted.
Like most modern cynics
-- and strangely reminiscent of kindred spirits
who crucified the
Nazarene -- Ms. Greer is incensed that relentless
goodness should reveal
her own carefully concealed deficiencies. Irritated
by this rude - but
unintentional - awakening, it is understandable that
Ms. Greer's eagerness to
make peace with This World causes her to foam at
the mouth when
contemplating someone who has made peace with The Next.
I doubt Ms. Greer is
capable of conceiving that Mother Teresa's
globe-trotting marathons
were trials rather than the festive occasions. Ms.
Greer presumes. As often
happens, words reveal more than we intend.
Seemingly, it is Ms.
Greer herself who genuflects at an altar of celebrity
that requires jet
travel, clinking glasses and slavish adulation.
Ms. Greer's statement
that Mother Teresa "rush(ed) in to grab the loot,
$30 million a year"
is so void of credibility that one wonders if Germaine
is actually attacking
Mother Teresa or, perhaps, trying to expunge her own
unresolved apostasy.
Indeed, Mother Teresa insisted that her name and
image not be used in
fund-raising efforts. She repeatedly declared that
"if God wants this
work done, he will provide the money. If not, he
won't." Go ahead.
Poll your friends. Not one of them has ever received a
fund-raising letter from
the Missionaries of Charity.
From personal experience
with Mother's missionary sisters and brothers, I
am aware that the Order performs
desperately needed service throughout the
world. The task is
daunting. In order to serve the poorest of the poor --
whose fetid stench,
physical decay and shrill lunacy are often beyond the
reach of government
welfare efforts -- Mother Teresa and her sisters
succeed in creating
loving relationships with people whose distress is so
alarming that few dare
to approach, much less love, them. Newsweek
readers would perhaps be
intrigued to see how Ms. Greer - and her "sisters"
- would perform under
identical circumstances. Picking maggots out of open
sores takes a toll on
manicured nails.
As for Ms. Greer's
rambling allegation that Mother Teresa cultivated an
image of India as
"a hideous place", there is no record that Mother Teresa
ever failed to honor the
religious, cultural and human richness of the
Indian sub-continent.
Indeed, India's delight in considering Mother "one
of their own" was
amply evident at her funeral.
On the other hand, the
behavioral residue of the caste system - and the
widespread Indian belief
that one's karmic fate is irrevocably
self-invoked - tends to
justify the definitive dismissal of the
downtrodden. Had I not
known that "Unmasking the Mother" was written by
Ms. Greer, I would have
assumed the author was a curmudeonly colonialist;
certainly not a
liberated - or liberating - human being.
As Ms. Greer points out,
charity abounds in India, but to say that
"begging can only
be a huge industry in India because people give" is akin
to claiming that the American
welfare system exists only because we
gringos are so
profoundly generous. Such socio-political naivete spotlights the
disdain of a highly
theoretical woman who seems so full of personal and
intellectual vainglory
that she is compelled to vent her bloated spleen on
the rest of the world.
It is a shame that the
"tang of reproach" which Ms. Greer noted in "the
reverend mother of the
convent where I went to school" failed to kindle in
Germaine any ability to
examine her own conscience.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
PS A provocative
criticism that might have been laid at Mother's door was
her ingenuous acceptance
of donations from sources as dubious as Papa Doc
Duvalier. Interestingly,
Greer - in her ideological rush to savage Mother
Teresa - fails to
exploit this real weakness.
***
10/99
Editor (Independent),
Patrick O'Neill's
"Loyalty Oath" is so focused on one particular Tree that
it fails to see the
Forest.
It's not so much the
Pledge of Allegiance (in isolation), but the entire
gestalt of Compulsory
Government Schooling that engenders a nation of
flag-waving sheep.
In the main, Compulsory
Government Schooling is designed to create passive
consumers, enthralled by
each "new-and-improved" version of "bread and
circuses."
I have taught in Public
Schools at the elementary, middle school and high
school levels. I have
served as a Central Office administrator. The
strictly hierarchical
structures I've encountered are typically
anti-democratic, often
despotic. With good reason O'Neill quotes Maria
Montessori: "The
true concept of liberty is practically unknown to
educators."
Compulsory Government
Schooling specializes in substantive inequality,
exculpating itself with
ersatz gestures of superficial
"multi-culturalism."
Patrick bemoans the shoddy treatment accorded
minorities in the
nation's public schools, but only glimpses those rare
instances that escape
the System's control.
Abuse and dishonor are
not exceptional: they are the System's daily bread.
Under the sway of
Compulsory Government Schooling -- and the spin doctors
who daily resurrect its
corpse -- the Nation is increasingly unable (as
Susan Sontag recently
observed) "to even ask any moral questions."
Patrick would make
better use of his skills as an educational advocate by
quitting the grip of
Compulsory Government Schooling altogether. By doing
"an end run,"
he would bypass the obfuscation, interference and intrinsic
counterproductivity that
characterize contemporary public instruction.
It is hard to argue
against Public Instruction since -- like the broader
culture it perpetuates
-- its well-groomed surfaces often shine.
However, this
superficial grooming hides a barely repressed shadow side,
which -- when it lunges
from under its rock -- looks a lot like Littleton.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
Editor (Independent),
I almost stopped reading
Godfrey Cheshire's diffidently expressed
approval of the
"Taste of Cherries." Then, I was seized by his reference
to the
"communal" aspect of suicide.
There is an
unacknowledged urge in the modern psyche to make
suicide a social event.
People do not need Jack
Kevorkian's technical assistance as much
as they need social
sanction to end their lives.
Oddly, this
unacknowledged need for social sanction is revealed by
the self-slaughter at
Heaven's Gate.
Thirty eight people
killed themselves. Not surprisingly, the event made headline news.
Yet not one news outlet
commented on the remarkable ease and consummate efficiency
with which these space
cadets snuffed out their lives.
How could we stonewall
the effortlessness of this massive
enterprise?
Three dozen people take
a sedative, lace on their Nikes, and
then place plastic bags
over their heads.
Not one of these
would-be suicides reconsidered the macabre
finality of their slowly
unfolding decision. Once they laid down on their
individual beds, not one
balked. Not one said: "This is more wacko than
Waco! I'm getting the
hell out of here!"
And when it was done,
not one of us said: "Damn! That was easy!
Iwonder why the
assisted-suicide movement gets so lathered?"
I can not explain the
many interactive impulses that lead to the
demand for socially
sanctioned suicide. But it is wrong for us to pretend
that the mechanics of
self-slaughter require a physician's expertise.
Suicide is a difficult
decision.
It should be a difficult
decision.
To render suicide
another "prescribed" activity -- to be performed
in a socially sanctioned
setting -- is to belittle the pitch and moment of
this appropriately
agonizing choice.
We should not delude
ourselves. If we really arrive at the determination to take our own life,
the practical mechanics
of suicide are as easy as "bagging it." As recent events have born
out,
Heaven's Gate may be
crossed with extraordinary calm.
If the Nikes are a valid
indicator, suicide may even be performed with a sense of humor.
It is, perhaps, the
collapse of social support that undergirds many modern motivations to end life.
Instead of restoring the
social support that once made life an transcendental good, we
now demand but
sufficient support to end life whenever we deem it bad.
Can the demand for
minimalist Muzak be far behind?
The socialization of
suicide does not uproot the great questions
which inhabit death's
bourn. Rather, "social suicide" fosters our
collective carelessness
and ratifies a slowly emerging consensus that Big
Questions needn't be
asked at all.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
9/98
Editor (Independent),
It's a pleasure to read
Hal Crowther's well-written articles.
Hal's willingness to
"Give it a Rest" (September 2-8, 1998) is a
welcome departure from
our national obsession with "The Job of Sex."
As Hal points out,
"sex is the party no one wants to leave." I
wish Hal provided more
insight into the philosophical underpinnings of
this party. Instead, he
issues an oddly determinist observation that "sex
is bigger than politics,
economics and religion combined."
Maybe...
A measured assessment
might also take into account the
incalculable cultural
impact of a celibate carpenter and three millennia
of Buddhist monks. While
contemplating the shallow detritus of
voluptuaries from
"Don Juan" to "Madonna," we must also contend with the
chaste asceticism of
Teresa of Avila and Francis of Assisi.
Perhaps "sex,
unacknowledged, is the ground zero of wishful
thinking," but the
implicit dismissiveness of this statement ignores the
fundamental role played
by wishful thinking in the development of
civilization.
Thirty years ago, it was
popular to characterize the nascent
"sexual
revolution" as part of a larger cultural urge to "let 'it' all
hang out."
Brief reflection on the
plutocratic/pharmaceutic push to transform
Viagra and Testerex into
"essential goods," makes one wonder whether
humankind's effort to
contain "it'" wasn't the real Text of human
progress, whereas
compulsive sexual expression may soon be recorded as The
Footnote whereby culture
was undone.
Even Freud recognized
the direct relationship between civilization
and the sublimation of
sexual energy. Sadly, Hal has not achieved escape
velocity from the orbit
of Freud whose fixated sexual outlook (coupled
with his cocaine habit)
created dubious delusions concerning the
centrality of sex.
When Freud's heir
apparent, Carl Jung, finally broke with Sigmund,
it was due to his
growing realization that the religious instinct -- i.e.,
humankind's primary need
to humble itself before the Mysterium Magnum of
which we are part -- was
more fundamental than the sexual instinct.
Whether or not Jung was
right, he at least expressed an ideological
position which Freudians
- then, and now - painstakingly repress.
Hal's materialist model
of reality is profoundly instructive.
However, great value
gets lost when the purported primacy of "matter" is
not tempered by another
set of hypotheses based on the centrality of
spirit.
Whether one agrees with
the following statements, they are both
tenable hypotheses: 1.)
"Human beings are primates whose baboon essence
does everlasting battle
with humankind's ecclesiastical fictions," and
2.) "We are not
human beings trying to be spiritual. We are spiritual
being trying to be
human."
The hyper-sexualized
root of America's endlessly prurient "party"
has given rise to a
feeble culture that's a billion miles wide, and six
inches deep.
Our determination to
"milk" these six inches for every cubic
centimeter of luscious
liquid they contain prevents us from going deeper.
We are shoal-stranded:
we are terminally shallow.
Obsessed by the
clockwork pleasure surging in -- and around --
those delectable six
inches, the nation's collective attention clamped
onto Bill Clinton's
zipper the very day John Paul II arrived in Cuba for
his epochal encounter
with Fidel Castro. How many "Independent" readers
are aware that the Pope
used his Havana podium to excoriate consumer
culture and cowboy
capitalism? In comparison with Clinton's economic
policy, the Pope might
be mistaken for Marx himself. If such spirited
attacks on modern excess
are the outcome of celibate sublimation, dose me
again....
Back on American shores
-- having mistaken a prurient itch for
lasting satisfaction --
we await the panting details of Slick Willy's
willy, Willey and will
he?
Our national obsession
with sex pollutes everything. It's as if we
had discovered a Great
Good and then corrupted it through the same mistake
Midas made. Lacking a
"Golden Mean," we turned everything into precious -
but lifeless -
metal. Ironically, we have the wealth to purchase an
unprecedentedly
wide-range of pleasures, but lack the psycho-spiritual
health to enjoy them.
Oscar Wilde predicted America's fate when he noted
that "cynics know
the price of everything and the value of nothing."
Which reminds me, how
much does a dose of Viagra cost?
Even the lives of our
children --- most notably Jon Benet Ramsey --- have
been debased by the
universal mandate to declare priapism a virtue rather than a disease.
The Jon Benet case has
assumed mythic proportion because
we're all attracted to
the sexual saturation that fosters pre-adolescent beauty
queens endowed with the
dubious grace of chrome-pole strippers.
Chesterton (whom Hal
credits anonymously with the observation that
"sex is a Great
Secret") believed that the modern world had taken an
essentially "wrong
turn" and that it would be necessary to undergo a great
purge in order to
re-chart our course, just as Chesterton argued that the
Dark Ages were the
centuries-long "fast" by which Europe rid itself of
Roman decadence.
In this modern era, we
are resolved - at least in fantasy - to
ensconce our
"heads" in chambers so dark we need glass belly buttons to
see out.
Whether we awaken
spontaneously from our erotic dreams -- or, if
rude circumstance
awakens us -- there has been no shortage of keen
commentary describing
the bleak milestones along our mobius dead-end.
Tennessee Williams noted
"the deadening coarseness of sexual
obsession" and the
fact that many moderns perform "their act of love like
jabbing a hypodermic
needle to which they're addicted, but which is more
and more empty of real
interest and surprise."
Elsewhere on the
spectrum of sexual disillusion, Norman Mailer
described obsessive
sexual activity as "jamming a piece of suet up a
drainpipe."
"If this is the
result of sexual honesty in school and the media,
I advocate a return to
virgin worship, arranged marriages and vicious nuns
with rulers."
Although Hal chortles
disbelievingly at his own assessment, it is
notable that virgin
worship has a far more honorable history than phallus
(or yoni) worship; that
most East Indians enjoy their arranged marriages;
and that "the
vicious nuns" have always done a demonstrably better job
educating the nation's
young than government schools which warp the
population with daily
doses of The Official Story.
It might prove tonic to
ask which of the following is more
vicious? ... to use a
rule(r) to insure a measure of discipline based on belief in
sexual restraint and the
Greater Good of the over-arching Community, or,
to spawn pre-teen sexual
predators, who know nothing of The Common Good
and whose pre-maturely
active penises are used like lethal clubs?
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
6/98
Editor (Newsweek),
Although my soul aches
for anyone blindsided by the brutal
finality of suicide,
Robert Brudno's "Unfinished Business" (June 1st, My
Turn) does not mend
fences.
Instead, he surveys the
wreck of Vietnam and enjoins us to lend
"support whatever
the cause, whatever the result."
In an understandable
attempt to relieve the incalculable pain of
his loss, Mr. Brudno
mistakes a stronger dose of the disease for the cure.
The enduring notion that
Americans should support their country
"right or
wrong" underlies the misguided pride that regularly pollutes our
foreign affairs.
Enthralled by
thoughtless patriotism, we continue to raise our
children to accept the
authority of government without question. Such
witless submission to
"The Official Story" is not a truth I deem
self-evident.
Were we as committed to
the well-being of our young as to the
perpetuation of
institutional "power," we would teach our children
unvarnished history,
presenting the full spectrum of our nobility and
wickedness. Together,
this balanced view of light and dark would serve as
grist for the joint mill
of morality and dialectical reflection.
Imagine a day when
America's children are so well-trained in the
disciplines of truth
that they spurn any belligerence wrought by
bureaucracies which
deliberately ignore the havoc they unleash.
Alan Brudno was, in
fact, "mortally wounded back here" by a system
of inter-locking,
acculturative mechanisms that didn't even let him
speculate that the
Vietnam horror might be ill-advised.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
Dear editor,
Albert Camus commented
that "Genius is having a profound grasp of
the obvious."
Newsweek's March 2, 1998
edition contained two inter-related
articles that begged
further examination.
"A Scare in the
West" informed readers that Neo-Nazis can purchase
bubonic plague bacteria
through the mail.
In "Saddam's Secret
World" we learn of Washington's frenzied
efforts to destroy
Iraq's biological weapons capability.
Even if Saddam were
twice the fool he seems, why would he expend
needless energy to
manufacture agents of mass destruction when American
agents can purchase
these tools on the open market?
Saddam may not be a
genius. Then again, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to be a rocket
scientist.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
2/98
Editor (Independent),
Despite your
panting effort, the Independent's "Summer of Love"
edition did not take a
"Positive" Look at Sex.
Carl Jung noted
that "sex is eternally problematic. Too little sex
makes our spirit anemic;
too much gives lopsided emphasis to our animal
nature."
No matter how one
defines the role of sex, it is a bald fact that
teenage males -- given
license -- will f___ anything that moves.
In light of this
eternal combat between the male sexual urge and
the need to honor each
individual's personhood, it is fortunate that some
measure of sexual
suppression exists.
Admittedly,
suppression does, at times, cross the boundary into
pathological repression.
However, to reify
the human body - as your cover does - by showing
"it" without
eyes and other personalizing facial features - is a classic
display of
depersonalization rooted in fixated genital sexuality.
The political
"left" - to which I belong (in my idiosyncratic way)
- continually bounces
between the mutually untenable poles of assuming
that The Truth is
"obvious" to anyone with eyes to see, and the capricious
urge to redefine
"truth" whenever re-definition suits its pragmatic
intent.
For example, the
Canadian Supreme Court has - rightly I believe -
ruled that heterosexual
pornography is intrinsically "harmful to women."
Not surprisingly, Phil
Harvey (founder of "Adam and Eve," a North Carolina
"sex aids"
emporium) will not countenance such claptrap.
In league with
deconstructionist allies who re-define prostitution
as "sex work,"
-- in the fey hope that nomenclatural change will diminish
the essential tawdriness
of selling one's body -- "Adam and Eve" employs a
team of
"psychologists" who "certify" that the wo/men who
strip/fuck in
Harvey's films are
vanguard rebels dedicated to personal, social and
political liberation.
In your photo of
Harvey, we observe the aging warrior himself,
brandishing his
signature condom like a sacred badge. Try as he may,
the condom remains a
shop-worn ruse to obfuscate his role as an unrepentant pornographer. (I was
amused - but not surprised - by how many of your "Adam and Eve"
product reviews found fault with the fabrication, function or exorbitant cost
of these sex
toys, most of which
display the embarrassing silliness and sad desperation that characterize
"adult" entertainment.)
Harvey's
"understanding" of human sexuality trivializes an
unparalleled vehicle for
interpersonal communication.
To claim --
alongside the Independent's tester of the "Super
Stretch Sleeve" --
that "if it fits like a glove, it must be love," is to
affirm a grotesque
confusion of the physical and the metaphysical.
Will your "Super
Stretch Sleeve" tester go fuck himself again?
And again? And
again?
"Probably.
After all, love can do some crazy things."
America's problem
is not lack of sex, but confusion of sex with
love. Erecting a
phallic Tower of Babel on this mistaken premise, we
hasten to fill the
gaping void in our lives -- not with the infinitely
diverse textures of
dedicated relationship and communitarian commitment --
but by excessive focus
on the hyper-excitation of genital encounter, as if
filling a vagina (or a
rectum) were the solution to our personal, social
and political
heart-ache.
Although sexual
liberation sounds plausible - and often imperative
- to juvenile ears, its
net effect is the normalization of arrested
development.
Your "Summer
of Love" edition gives no indication that "Fall" and
"Winter" are
just around the corner, and that we will all grow old and
die, (events which the
Great Religions anticipate with a startling blend
of awe and hope.) The
delusional fantasies of human sexuality propagated
by Mr. Harvey -- based
as they are on the denial of death -- seduce the
sexually inexperienced
into "arrested development" as a way-of-life.
In the end, the
psycho-spiritual "stuckness" engendered by this
misdirected sexual
energy causes more pain than pleasure.
For many
Americans, this ironic revelation comes into focus only
after youth has fled and
flesh softened. By then -- having invested one's
adulthood in sexual
child's play -- it is far too threatening to admit the
mistake of a lifetime.
When -- finally
-- Philip Harvey's sexual miscreants hear the
panicked whisper of a
"wrong road taken," it will be easier for most to
live out their three
score and ten chasing the consolations of
depersonalized - and
depersonalizing - sexuality, rather than charting a
new course toward agape
and the limitless passion that fires it.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
12/98
Editor (Independent),
"Wanna Teach?" (by Bob Geary, 12/16-22/98) attempts to validate
many guidelines laid
down by State Departments of Education.
To
devise his validation, Mr. Geary portrays Rep. Fran Shubert as
a conservative whose
prime directive is to corrode the splendor of The
Academy and the
luciferous system of Public Instruction that has
painstakingly been put
in place.
I'm
unfamiliar with Shubert's overall record.
Generally, I'm cynical of politicians --- more so those on the
right than the left.
However, no matter how benighted Ms. Shubert's
conservatism, it is
foolish to forget that "even broken clocks are right
twice a day."
We
might also recall that parents -- regardless the extent of
their formal training --
often have a sixth sense concerning structures
and policies that
"short" their kids.
Parents of minority children are even better attuned to buncombe
and abuse.
Ten
years ago I was a lateral-entry public school teacher in the
State of North Carolina.
I quit The System after experiencing - and
witnessing - the
commonplace outrages visited upon Anthony Solari, whom
Geary erroneously
represents as an exception to the rule. (I might add
that Mr. Solari and I
now both teach at UNC-Chapel Hill.)
Two
guiding principles undergird Public Instruction.
One
such priniciple is embedded in Adolf Hitler's observation that
"by means of shrewd
lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make
people believe that
heaven is hell - and hell heaven... The great masses
of people will more
easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
The
other principle --- also well-aligned with Hitler's rubric of
pervasive prevarication
--- is that our instructional System is committed
to "quality."
To
the contrary, the bulk of Public School administrators construe
quality as a threat.
Quality --- and the independent spirit from which it
grows --- are deemed
mortal threats to the absolute power held by State
Departments of
Instruction.
It
is misleading for Mr. Geary to declare that "custodial care" is
a recent corruption of
Public Instruction. If one looks with steady gaze,
it soon becomes clear
that Public Schools have long been places of
custodial care --- among
the most dangerous and damaging places where
tender spirits might be
consigned.
The
upshot of these "principles" is that the Public School System
has become fertile
ground for America's Official Story --- the same
Official Story that
recently resulted in a 417 to 5 (sic) congressional
vote approving those
twinkling "points of light" over Baghdad.
Stars of wonder, stars
of night, stars of fury burning bright.
Ah! For a gentler,
kinder America...
And
lastly -- to salt the wound -- our instructional systems are
determined to make
mediocrity acceptable.
To
cut through these multiple veils of mendacity, I suggest that
all hiring decisions be
made by teams of Master Teachers (selected by
their peers) who observe
candidates in actual teaching situations without
knowing whether
prospective pedagogues are in possession of the State's
silly credential.
The
decisions of these teams would be final and binding.
If
"The Proof" is not "in the pudding," it will not be found
in
certificates accessible
to anyone with enough money to buy the "privilege"
of sitting in
State-specified seats until The Academy has completed its
tedious hazing, a
procedure not unlike the endless bombings
which the White House,
Pentagon and dumbed-down American populace have
pre-approved for the
people of Iraq.
One
thing is certain: America will not become a civilized country
until we escape the
enchantment of public sector educators who insist that
radical change is
un-necessary, and that anyone proposing radical change
is necessarily an enemy
of liberality, integrity and conscience.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton observed that: "...there are others whose
state of mind is still
more extraordinary. They not only do not need the
landscape to corroborate
their history, but they do not care if the
landscape contradicts
their history... If the map marks the place as a
waterless desert, they
will declare it as dry as a bone, though the whole
valley resound with the
rushing river. A whole huge rock will be invisible
if a little book on
geology says it is impossible. This is at the opposite
extreme to the
irrational credulity of the rustic, but it is infinitely
more irrational... This
great delusion of the prior claim of printed
matter, as something
anterior to experience and capable of contradicting
it, is the main weakness
of modern urban society.
The
chief mark of the modern man has been that he has gone through
a landscape with his
eyes glued to a guidebook, and could actually deny in
the one, anything that he
could not find in the other. (William Cobbett)
however, happened to
look up from the book and see things for himself; he
was a man of too
impatient a temper, and later he showed too hasty a
disposition to tear the
book up or toss the book away. But there had been
granted to him a strange
and high and heroic sort of faith. He could
believe his eyes."
State-sponsored Systems of Public Instruction would pluck out our
jellied orbs.
Between Democratic Capitalism (masquerading as a form of
government bent on The
Common Good) and the psychological colonization
imposed by Public
Instruction (and televised celebrity culture,) it is
difficult to say which
agency displays greater "insolence of office."
Fifty years ago, it was sufficient for Dwight Eisenhower to finger
the
"military-industrial complex."
More
recently, intellectual rigor requires people of conscience to
decry an upstart Trinity
properly designated as the "military-industrial-educational" complex.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
(I recommend "Lies
My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American
History Textbook Got
Wrong," by James W. Loewen, The New Press, NYC, 1995)
***
2/13/99
Editor (Independent),
Hal
Crowther's essay, "We're History" (February 10-16) depicts the
nation's power-brokers
as "perverted and ambitious, animated by passions,
crimes and great
disasters."
Perhaps Hal
is overly focused on the "mountebanks and frauds" who
"serve" as
front-men (front-persons?) for the System, while
underestimating the
tidal pull of culture itself. As Wendell Berry
observed: "The
problem is not bad politics: it's a bad way of life."
It is
increasingly painful to witness the trivial workings of
power in a culture that
is - as Neil Postman observed - "amusing itself to
death."
American
institutions have collaborated long and hard to convert
us into interchangeable
"consumer-units" --- cradle-to-grave shoppers
convinced that each
fabricated "want" will soon become an "essential
need."
In lockstep
sequence, we first became wanton; then proceeded to
consume every
post-industrial opiate, hoping that one of these "designer
drugs" would
eventually satisfy the soul.
In 1922,
Chesterton noted that "Materialism is really our
established
Church."
America's
devotion to Materialism -- and its joined-at-the-hip
twin, Utilitarianism --
reduces history to absurdity, making
transcendental quest
impossible and sexual obsession inevitable.
If human nature is in
fact limited to instinctually mandated
behaviors, then we
should expect - as Hal reported in a recent essay -
that the 500 most
popular Internet sites are pornographic.
Hey! As
long as it doesn't hurt anybody...
Having
agreed that we are animals with no roots deeper than
zoology, what's left to
discuss but the Pleasure Principle --- preferably
in its more extreme
manifestations?
I am not
arguing here for the existence of God, but rather for a
minimalist - one might
say a "utilitarian" - requirement that human beings
act "as if God were
real" if human affairs are to be animated by any
principle other than
prurience or pleasure. (I realize this argument will
make no sense to those
not yet middle aged, and that America keeps its
elders at arm's length,
if not in convalescent homes.)
Given
prevailing cultural currents, we choose from a sanctioned
list of
"value-free" aspirations set forth by "the guardians" of
autonomous technopoly
even though our lives and livelihoods are regularly
rendered
"value-less" in the process.
We are
extremely well-provisioned people --- impeccably trained
(as technicians), too
clever by half, able to extrude astute analyses of
problems-we're-still-struggling-to-create,
determined to impose a morally
bankrupt vision on a
world finally conditioned to cheer our
techno-heroics.
And
through it all, we remain compulsively absent from our own
lives.
The Mad
Chase is afoot and no one has patience to possess their
soul. "Things are
in the saddle and ride mankind." We are cogs, flogged by a Machine
that methodically salts
the Ground of Being while deifying velleity and passion.
Meanwhile, Academia,
Media, Industry, Journalism, Finance, Politics and most
of the Arts validate
this New World Order in which technique is glorified and people reified.
Nor has
Religion escaped the clutch of Moloch's intent. Now more
than ever, nominal
practitioners have become part of the problem, not the solution.
All of us
are suborned cheerleaders, witlessly rooting for the demise of history, if not
the end of time.
Gandhi
observed that "there is more to life than increasing its
speed."
Alternatively, America's secular Religion establishes Speed as the
Central Dogma of the
Great god "Progress."
It doesn't
matter "where" we are going; only that we get there faster.
Our
unswerving dedication to this mindless progression --
carefully propagandized
as "progress" -- becomes "curiouser and curiouser"
when we consider the
mass of evidence that, finally, "there's no there
there."
Heaven
forbid we ask any of the right questions.
We're too
busy "staying on task."
Besides,
our obligatory aimlessness makes it inappropriate - if
not gauche - to speak of
"final ends" or "first causes," the only
meta-level levers which
might rescue us from terminal meaninglessness.
And so,
each of us pays extortionate rent to occupy this Cowardly
New World, predicated on
the primacy of brute survival, glossed with the
neophiliac seduction of
"The New & Improved."
In this
craven kingdom of "things in the saddle," only "means"
matter --- and these
means are increasingly mean-spirited.
According
to the received wisdom, the twin concubines -- "Speed"
and "Progress"
-- will be miraculously transformed by "the invisible hand"
of the omniscient
marketplace into loving spouses who tend hearth in our
atomized pleasure domes.
Ah, in
Xanadu...
American
politicians have long slept with anyone who can slip, unseen,
into their stately
mansions.But we focus on these front-men at our peril.
Each of us
is in bed with our worst enemy.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
2/20/98
Editor (Independent),
Hal Crowther's
analysis of "the septic emergency" afflicting the
fourth estate is well
drawn. ("Hell to the Chief", February 18-24, 1998)
However, random
allegations and senseless acts of mudslinging
should not distract us
from the core issue.
How do Monica
Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, obscure congregations of
Buddhist nuns and
pay-as-you-go PAC-men secure such intimate contact with
the President of the
United States?
The fact that
Linda Tripp receives an annual salary of $88,000.00
- and that Bill Clinton
is paid thrice that amount - confirms my suspicion
that technocrats and
policy wonks are plutocratic flunkies ---
bottle-necking
gatekeepers receiving tidy sums of blood money to prevent
vision from rooting
inside The Beltway.
Small town
gossips Lewinsky and Tripp elicit the same embarrassment
once reserved for the
President should he conduct Affairs of State with his zipper down.
No more.
Hal rightly
impugns Monica Lewinsky by turning her own testimony
against her: "I was
brought up on lies. That's how you got along. I have
lied my entire
life". Nevertheless, to dismiss Lewinsky on these grounds
-- without examining the
lawyerly muteness that intermittently besets our
otherwise garrulous
president -- is akin to "the pot calling the kettle
black."
Can Mr. Crowther
name a dozen contemporary politicians who would
not confess lifelong
patterns of falsehood should they - in a moment of
weakness - muster a
small measure of Ms. Lewinsky's candor?
Bill Clinton's
ferocious reluctance to provide straightforward
answers to gnawing
questions recalls the quip: "'How do you know when a
lawyer's lying?'
(Answer:) 'His lips are moving.'"
I have no idea if
President Clinton is guilty of the many
allegations infecting
his airspace. I do know his pre-trial posturing
suggests a slick lawyer
trying to dodge the necessity of "taking the
fifth."
Without detailing
the widening rift between the planet's rich and
poor -- a phenomenon
exacerbated by Clinton's "globalizing economics" -- I
confess wonderment at
Hal's triumphant reference to America's current
'moment' as embodying
our "greatest influence and prosperity."
What essay will
Hal write when Clinton's pending climax ignites
"points of
light" all over Bagdhad? If such random acts of thuggishness
constitute the apogee of
American "influence," then the sorry state of
American journalism has
found a fit bed-partner in Bill Clinton.
History will
judge Mr. Clinton.
In the meantime,
he has obliged his contemporaries to believe he
will bed anyone.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
3/12/99
Editor (Independent),
Recently, a
friend recalled Carl Jung's belated renunciation of
Nazi Germany. In
self-defense, Jung noted that everyone who participates
in a culture tends to
accept its unexamined suppositions, even though
their superficial
criticism may be scathing.
"The Real
Culture War" displays Hal Crowther's customary
brilliance. Yet, two of
his comments point to this deeper level of
"unexamined supposition."
"The
resource gap between starving clubs and rich teams is so wide
that the have-nots have
given up all pretense of competing." A half dozen
paragraphs later, we
read that "the Greaseman... sells crude polemics and
vile politics to an
audience of dangerous losers."
Wherever
competition is a cornerstone of cultural aspiration, most
people lose. Even in the
rarefied realms of well-developed expertise,
competition insures that
half of all participants leave "the arena" in an
emotional state
indistinguishable from clinical depression.
At the grass
roots, American-style competition insures that
"common folk"
relinquish their integrity to over-achieving "experts" who
eagerly
"outperform" one another in a relentless effort to provide
ever-more-clever
renditions of "the unexamined life."
Conditioned to
idolize "the best and the brightest," most folks
slide into sluggish
spectatorship, staring wide-eyed at their religious
disillusion and
political dissolution.
Deprived of
meaningful choice by the culture's compulsion to
"succeed,"
most people quietly accept their fate as "losers."
In this world of Ted
Turner "winners" and Willie Loman "losers"
there is acute need for
a persuasive argument against "success."
Lamentably, there
is now little reference to the once commonplace
observation that
"everything contains the seeds of its own destruction."
Whatever its
erstwhile utility, the competitive drive to succeed
-- as distinct from the
self-generated (dare I say "God-given") urge to
create -- has become
America's most dangerous toxin.
As "The Real
Culture War" grinds on, I advocate for more of Grampa
Noll's semi-professional
ball-playing, simultaneously disenfranchising
Yanqui powerhouses whose
sublimated bloodsport re-enacts
"the
Christians" and "the Lions."
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
July 15, 1999
Editor (Independent),
In his recent essay,
"God's Holy Fire," Hal Crowther acknowledges
Reynolds Price and Annie
Dillard as "beacons in the fog for the
disillusioned minority
that might become drab atheists."
However, Hal's own faith
is ultimately invested in a form of
reason that decides
against the possibility of "a loving, caring God."
To make his case for the
incompatibility of reason and a loving
God, Hal quotes
Dillard's datum that there is "an annual death toll of 30
million children under
5."
What would Hal make of
the fact that until 1750 A. D., half of all
human beings died before
the age of 8?
Our ancestors -- far
less sensitive than Hal and I, far less
accustomed to
soul-softening consolations -- accepted suffering and death,
and still managed to
extrude the genius of Mozart, Bach, Dante, Milton,
Francis, Aquinas,
Cervantes, Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Such scope
highlights the
unacknowledged narrowness of modern liberalism.
The nearest the 20th
century has come to such titanic coupling of
intellectual force, steadiness
of gaze and magnanimity of spirit is in the
person of Gilbert Keith
Chesterton who, in keeping with the main thrust of
Judeo-Christianity,
insisted that humankind is whipsawed by the ongoing
result of a primordial
"shipwreck" --- that what is evident to our senses
reveals only part (an
often honorable but frequently terrifying part) of
what will be revealed as
the mysterion plays itself out.
We may indeed camp here,
but it is perilous to call this place
home. Annie Dillard's
best-known book, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek," bears
witness to this same
message of exile and pilgrimage.
History may record that
the great heresy of the 20th century was
our attempt to declare
Reason "sufficient," when, in fact, it is a single
tool among many --- a
tool, which, if invested with primacy, results in
the unprecedented
ravages of reason-run-rampant and the ever-bloody plans
of "the best and
the brightest," the same folks who brought us Viet Nam
and who now earnestly
sketch the lineaments of planet-trashing
"globalization."
H. L. Mencken (whose
eponymous prize Hal has won) was no friend of
religion. Yet late in
life he voiced unexpected praise for (Roman
Catholic) Christianity,
saying that "life is indeed more like a poem than
a equation."
It is the usurpation of
poetry by the presumptuous self-certainty
of data-drunk
rationalists -- the bloody sacrifice of imagination on the
altar of knowledge --
that compelled Chesterton's observation that "to be
merely modern is to
confine oneself to ultimate narrowness."
It may be foolish --
perhaps divinely foolish -- to believe with
Einstein that
"imagination is more important than knowledge."
But it is ultimately
claustrophobic and paradoxically
self-destructive to
conclude that the mysterium magnum does not transcend
the predictable purview
and too-common despair that attend
disproportionate faith
in reason.
Thomas Aquinas, who laid
the cornerstone of Western rationality,
held that
"sin" is always characterized by loss of splendor and loss of
perspective. Left to its
own Mephistophelean devices, reason epitomizes
this latter loss.
And so, having lost any
perspective vouchsafed by a transcendent
touchstone, we have sunk
into unbridled subjectivity, a swamp of sheer
imminence made more
miasmic by deconstructionist academics who insist that
Existence does not even
harbor the possibility of splendor.
William Blake declared
that "we become what we perceive." If
Blake's vision is true -
or if creative imagination might make it true - I
would sooner believe
that we are children of a loving God than manipulable
consumer units - adrift
in a sea of market research - desperately eager
that the guardians of
Technopoly inform us which capricious want shall
become our next
irrepressible need.
And then....
S/he who dies with the
most toys, wins.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
"I thought that in
princely dwellings folk would exhibit a higher
moral quality since they
possess all the copious plenitude that may adorn
our nature. I found it
the reverse Uranio. Men of high lineage were swift
to promise, but vastly
slack in performance, and I found them the foes of
all simple goodness;
gentle and reposed in aspect, but swollen in pride
like the whole sea. A
race fair to outward seeming only...
What elsewhere is deemed
virtue, here is held to be a defect. Nay,
shame is imputed to the
deed that is not crooked, to the love that is not
simulated, to the
simplicity of holiness, the faith that may not be
broken, the guileless
heart and the clean hand --- all these are held as
the marks of low spirit,
mere dull stupidities, and trifles to call up a
laugh. Trick and lie;
fraud and robbery; spoliation hypocritically
disguised; to grow fat
with gifts and ruin another; to find one's glory in
another's fall; these
are the "manly" distinctions of this perfidious
crew... They are
unrepressed by shame; respecting neither the claims of
affection nor those of
blood; with no memory of any act of kindness. In a
word, nothing is more
worshipful, holier, more conspicuously right, than
all the exact opposite
of their vast hunger for court distinctions, their
ravenous appetite for
gain."
Torquato Tasso
Born at Sorrento,
3/11/1544
***
3/00
Editor (Independent),
Howard Zinn's
"Delusion 2000" is, itself, based on delusion.
Mr. Zinn asks "how
can we support candidates who have nothing to say about the fact that our
country, with 4 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of its
wealth?"
A more penetrating
question would point the finger directly at ourselves and not at the poor
bastards whose sorry fate makes them quadrennial whipping-boys.
Everyone is quick to
espouse "curtailment of resource consumption." To compensate our
environmental sins, do we not faithfully lug the recycling box to curbside? But
beyond the window-dressing, how many of us do NOT yearn for salary increases, or
the next "hot" IPO, or getting "cut in" on a lucrative
options deal mechanisms whose upshot is the dizzying acceleration
of an already reckless rate of resource utilization . Who among us does not
want to be a millionaire?
Spiritually,
psychologically and economically, we have scant idea how to live without
shrieking one continuous "MORE!"
The problem is not bad
politics but an abominable way of life. Politics is the scapegoat that
circumvents the need "to become the change we wish to see in the world.
(Gandhi)" Traditional politics is the arena in which we delude ourselves
that policy initiatives have "profound impact," when, in fact, the
warp and weft of culture is dependent on family health and the range of
acculturative mechanisms by which we raise our young. Admittedly, there is
interaction between policy and acculturation. However, the drift of democratic
capitalism has been to erode family integrity, to undermine any acculturative
process that might "break the box" or otherwise achieve "escape
velocity."
Two particular areas beg
redress.
One is our inability to
acknowledge that "monopoly government schooling" serves as a control
mechanism, perpetuating the status quo and the psycho-social chaos on which the
existing "order" stands. Several years ago, our well-schooled
citizenry chose representatives who voted 413 to 5 to bomb Bagdhad.
Predictably, chest-thumbing natives loved it. Now, in the absence of a
clearly defined enemy abroad, we settle for the increasingly frequent execution
of dark-skinned natives, many of them scarred by the intrinsic dishonor of K-12
hazing.
The other item begging
redress is our assumption that more and faster resource consumption
is a mark of Progress. Could anything short of systematic indoctrination
produce this witless belief? To emphasize the majesty of our achievement, we
now proselytize "unlimited growth" as the sine qua non of enlightened
"globalization."
Notably, the planet's
most equitable resource distribution has taken place in the Indian state of
Kerala, where 30 million people have a per capita annual income of $222.00, yet
also enjoy life expectancy and literacy rates on a par with our own. Furthermore,
Keralans are civilized enough to shun state-sponsored slaughter, in part
because capital crimes and the psycho-social chaos which provokes them --
are not embedded in the matrix of culture.
Bred to a culture that
enters "depression" the moment metastatic expansion ceases, it is
refreshing to see that a steady-state economy actually works.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
"Poverty is not the
problem. Wealth is the problem. Poverty is the solution."
Satish Kumar, former
Jain monk and current editor of "Resurgence" http://www.resurgence.org/
The wealthy make of
poverty a vice. Plato
Growth has become
addictive. Like heroin addiction, the habit distorts basic value judgments.
Addicts of any kind are willing to pay increasing amounts for declining
satisfactions. They are blind to deeper frustrations because they are absorbed
in playing for always mounting stakes. Products that are new and improved
promise the concept of being 'better', but leave the concept of 'whether or not
good' for the individual or society completely unaddressed. Often new and
better products create more wants, dependency, and dissatisfaction for most,
and constantly renovate poverty for the poor. Ivan Illich
We Americans are an
unprincipled nation, when you come down to it. Not that we're bad or anything.
It's just that it's hard for us to pay attention to abstract matters when we
have so many concrete matters -- cellular phones, ski boats, salad shooters,
trail bikes, StairMasters, snow boards, pasta-making machines, four-door sport
utility vehicles, palmcorders, rollerblade skates and CD players for our cars
-- to occupy us. No wonder all the great intellectual concepts ... come from
pastoral societies... P.J. O'Rourke
Without the inner beauty
of a free and harmonious life, (fine food) and eau de cologne can become merely
forms of barbarism. Without tolerance and broad spiritual understanding,
hygiene will only make for clean animals, very clean and very healthy, but also
very animal. External riches will merely smother us, if we do not cultivate
inner riches. Miguel de Unamuno
It is the greatest of
all advantages to enjoy no advantage at all. I found it invariably true, the
poorer I am the richer I am. Thoreau
He is richest whose
pleasures are cheapest. Thoreau
Everything is so
relativized. I think we've got ourselves into a terrible jam there, with all
kinds of ideologies that have taught us not to be judgemental. Not being
judgemental also, in a way, means not thinking. Salman Rushdie, Mother
Jones, July-August, 1999
***
2/28/00
Editor (Independent),
Hal Crowther's
comparison of contemporary liberalism to McCarthyism (February 23-29) is apt.
However, Hal's wish to
reinterpret the First Amendment in order to discourage "the Larry Flynts
of the Internet from preying on children" makes me wonder where to begin
the revision.
When the Constitution
was ratified, applicable communication technologies were limited to megaphone
and type set. Our current First Amendment quandary was not caused by these
particular manifestations of speech and print.
Rather, we find
ourselves confounded by the pre-emptive impact of pictorial imagery. Saturated
by the superficiality of pictorial images, it has become impossible to conduct
meaningful discourse. In hindsight, the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw
"yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" as if this were a
meaningful contribution to First Amendment law -- seems laughably naïve,
especially in contrast to the routine imagery that sets us all
"afire."
Speech and press
freedoms should guarantee anyone's right to yell anything --- even
"Fire!" in a crowded theater.
If, however, we wish to
reinterpret the First Amendment, it would be wise to recall the Framers'
original intent. Here's a Truth we might hold to be self-evident. The authors
of the Constitution did not intend the unimpeded spillage of pornographic,
violent and otherwise degrading images. (One day, such spillage will be viewed
as unregulated toxic waste disposal.)
Unfortunately, we are
conditioned to believe that the First Amendment protects pictorial imagery.
Consider Hollywood moguls whose livelihood depends on provocative images.
These "guardians of the popular imagination" routinely spearhead
neo-liberal causes without a moment's consideration of the role they played at
Columbine. Yes, the NRA and Smith/Wesson were culprits. But Hollywood? I
beg your pardon!
Interesting antecedents
are afoot here. The 1st Commandment emphatically proscribes "graven
images." On one hand, the outcome of this ancient "imagery ban"
was the elimination of pictorial art in Jewish culture. Jewish temples
displayed calligraphy and geometric patterns, but no representational images of
man or beast. Simultaneously, by eliminating pictorial images, the First
Commandment inculcated deep appreciation for "the Word," transforming
Jewry into "the People of the Book."
By not dissipating
attention on pictorial side-shows, Jews became unusually focused on the written
and spoken word. The upshot of this attentiveness was the creation of a culture
with unparalleled passion for higher-order thinking skills.
On the other hand,
pictorial imagery tends to elicit visceral - rather than thoughtful - response.
Note how television viewers stonewall thoughtful interaction with the universal
utterance: "Shhh! I'm trying to watch this!" Not surprisingly, recent
research revealed calamitous contraction in the range of vocabulary used by
contemporary Americans.
Our national fondness
for the passive consumption of images whether pornographic, violent,
political or commercial leaves little time for conversation. In this
discursive void, our larger cultural conversations become simple-minded
sound-bites on those infrequent occasions when discourse rises above grunting.
Mind you, I like to
grunt as much as the next guy. I too have been known to pick up stray copies of
Playboy in order to lust after the Jimmy Carter interviews.
But, if our goal is to
vivify the First Amendment so that it serves -- rather than corrodes --
culture, the crux of our current conundrum is not speech and print per se, but
our de novo super-saturation with pictorial images that impassion us
needlessly, simultaneously diminishing our ability to think, to speak, to read,
to write and to interact with other living beings.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
1/11/00
Editor (Independent),
Although Michael
Ventura's recent discussion of "corporatization" was apt, the opening
paragraphs of "Millenial Nudity" (January 5-11, 2000) were somewhat
inflated.
In Ventura's view,
everyone should have engaged millennial soul-searching
while the Gregorian
calendar - which missed Christ's birth by 5 to 10
years - rolled into a
new, arbitrary cipher.
"The press of
history" may have transformed this New Year's trumpery into a moment many
"will never forget," but for those of us who retired at 10:30 there
is, I'm afraid, nothing to remember.
Was there anything to
celebrate?
New Year's Eve
represents the essence of pagan celebration: "there's no there
there." This year was no different, save the thousand-fold amplification
of the event's intrinsic vacuity.
Ventura laments that Y2K
distracted many from more meaningful considerations such as "Who and what
am I now? What should I be doing and why?"
On New Year's eve, I
dined with the director of a Duke medical institute, and during the course of
our conversation he persuaded me to turn off my computer until Monday
afternoon.
What I discovered from
this needless precaution --- this circumstantially-imposed electronic
"fast" --- was the incomparable bliss of not having to genuflect
before the phosphorescent time-bandit.
In lieu of my customary
"cuts, pastes and clicks," my life tumbled into the lusciousness of
untrammeled Reality. Time unfolded of its own accord. There was no rush, no
hurry, no frenzied "accomplishment" devoid of lasting satisfaction.
An epiphany emerged from
all this... "What I should be doing now" is foreswearing
cyber-serfdom in favor of real life.
Three years ago, I
disposed of my television. Perhaps the computer is next.
I don't want to be
overly hard on Mr. Ventura. He regularly graces us with substantial insight.
However, it is a rare essay in which his writing doesn't reveal a significant
admixture of "Calaughforlornia."
A native New Yorker,
Ventura's move west has exposed him to new forms of hype and
hyper-acceleration. In many ways, California is its own pontificate, preaching
novelty as its central dogma, sacrificing virgins to the fascism of fashion,
each new velleity morphing so fast that History and Contemplation become
obnoxious intrusions.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
***
10/17/97
Editor (Prism),
Mother Teresa's
"Home for the Dying" is neither hospice nor
hospital.
Mother Teresa's Calcutta
"Home for the Dying" is what its name
claims; a place to die.
The "Home"
insures that people will not die - untouched - in
offal-clogged gutters.
It is hard for
first-worlders to contemplate Calcutta without
projecting the
prejudices of wealth onto Third World street-people.
Calcutta's "Home
for the Dying" is the mirror image of a
catastrophe triage
station. Instead of determining who might survive --
while letting the
mortally wounded die unattended -- Mother Teresa's
sisters gather the
broken bodies of the moribund and take them "Home."
I have never known any
supporter of Mother Teresa's work who
mistook the Calcutta
"Home" as a hospice or medical facility.... two
fairly widespread
misconceptions among people who rely on the secular
press. At times, some of
the people taken "Home" do suffer from treatable
diseases that remain
undiagnosed. For some observers -- always observers
who live outside India
-- this oversight inspires bitter recrimination.
In the global scheme of
human suffering, I marvel that we
"northerners"
routinely spend $150,000.00 to beat back lymphoma with
marrow transplants and
laminar flow isolation rooms even though this same
sum could be used to
inoculate entire countries against polio. Just 200
cases of
"heroic" cancer treatment consume the equivalent of Mother
Teresa's world-wide
operating budget.
Where are the voices of
recrimination when needed most?
When I moved to
Sandinista Nicaragua to teach at the Managua
Medical School, I
advocated vehemently on behalf of simple sterile
procedures in municipal
hospitals. However, as I grew accustomed to water
shortages, electrical
blackouts and broken windows allowing flies to swarm
in torrid operating
rooms, I settled for a plain plastic swatter as the
most appropriate means
of discouraging "Beelzebub's minions" from settling
on "cracked"
chests and prolapsed uteruses.
On one occasion I
visited the National Leprosarium to document a
case of blastomycosis.
Dona Mirjinda, a Miskito Indian woman, was so badly
infected that her leg
had become mesmerizing in its repulsiveness. It took
me a full year - and
"string pulling" on two continents - to get someone
to donate a course of
the appropriate fungicide. The drug "only" cost
$300.00, but I was
living on $100.00 per month.
Tell me: was the
life-saving medicine "cheap", or "prohibitively
expensive"?
Christopher Hitchens has
led the attack on Mother Teresa. He
highlights an episode in
which the missionary nun refused to accept the
donation of a New Your
City building because municipal codes required
installation of an
elevator. Hitchens implies that by refusing to install
the elevator - or even
to let the City install it at municipal expense -
Mother Teresa behaved
mean-spiritedly toward the handicapped.
Hitchens' first-world
interpretation fits the facts well. However,
from Mother Teresa's
vantage, any "inconvenience to the handicapped" paled
in comparison to the
waste of a hundred thousand dollars that could have
been spent on bread.
The nitty-gritty
exigencies of Calcutta distill to this stark
choice: either the
destitute and dying are sheltered, cleansed and fed,
or, they die on the
streets.
Before we harden in
poses of self-satisfied outrage, I would ask
if occasional oversight
of treatable diseases at Mother Teresa's "triage
stations" isn't of
less moral weight than the routine practice of
high-tech
"medicide" in the northern latitudes? "Medicide" is the
ghoulish
compulsion to protract
"life" at any cost. Patients subjected to medicide
are so tormented by
associated procedures that traditional peoples view
their treatment as
torture.
What ideological
arabesques impel us to lambaste Mother Teresa's
version of
"deathwatch" when Westerners construe death as a demon to be
vanquished, even at the
expense of reducing life to mere metabolism and
artificially prolonged
misery?
Tibetan Buddhist
"rinpoches" - in union with Christian monks and
Hindu sanyassin -
observe that fear-of-death is intimately linked to human
aggression. No sooner
does Mother Teresa create a "Home for the Dying" --
a place in which death
is not feared -- than Western analysts beat the
drums of
witch-hunt. A curious coincidence indeed...
Catholic moral teaching
holds that there is no need to take any
extraordinary measure to
prolong life. This seemingly cavalier attitude
may shock some, but what
is the alternative? --- a consuming fear that
Life has
"made" a horrible mistake, and that we mortals must repress death
at any cost?
However, I am not
without misgiving.
I wish Mother Teresa had
launched jeremiads against the wealthy. I
wish her Nobel
acceptance speech were laced with incendiary condemnation
of the mighty. Having
said that, it is also true that Mother Teresa
inhabited the choking
miasma of irremediable poverty --- not a propitious
circumstance to
strategize "draining the swamp."
I am also appalled by
Mother Teresa's indiscriminate acceptance of
money from thugs.
However, if unable to provide for the basic needs of my
loved ones, I too would
accept charity from Papa Doc.
In the end, Mark Cook's
savage treatment of Mother Teresa recalls
a recent comment by
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh: "Let me tell you
about our profession. We
are the meanest, nastiest bunch of jealous, petty
people who ever lived.
You think I wouldn't sell my mother for My Lai?"
Like all of us, Mother
Teresa was a flawed individual. She also
dedicated her life to an
extraordinarily difficult rescue mission, a
mission so fraught with
frustration, desperation, futility and burn-out
that the world ignored
this weeping wound for millennia.
To create the impression
that Mother Teresa murdered people with
malice aforethought is,
to say the least, self-serving.
Attentively,
Alan Archibald
No comments:
Post a Comment