Royals are Gross

There has been a trend recently in pop culture that I think is stupid. At this point, I'm careful to examine whether something bothers me because its stupid, or because I'm just old and not hip anymore. This has actually bothered me for a while, and it seems to be getting worse. 

Using the words King and Queen as terms of endearment is dumb. While it is meant as a compliment, denoting that person as beautiful, strong, and showing leadership qualities, I'm pretty sure when confronted with what actual monarchs do, it should be seen as an insult. 

Royal titles used by normal people to describe other normal people started out in the Black community sometime during the Black Renaissance. It stems from this idea that all Black Americans are descendent from African Royal families, who were among the first to be sold into slavery in the Americas. While the Triangle Trade did rely heavily on the participation of African Kingdoms, I couldn't find any actual evidence of royalty being kidnapped and sold. Regardless of the historic truth, this idea is still an important metaphor for potential African greatness, robbed by Colonialism. The consequences of this crime are shared by American Natives, Southeast Asians, and Indians. So much progress and development was held back and straight up stolen. There are many books, papers, and studies to attest to the damage Colonialism is responsible for. 

While I understand the need to reclaim identities stolen by generations of racist supremacists, religious zealotry, and greed, trying to claim royal lineage of a bygone era is not the way to do it. In 2016, Damon Young wrote an essay about this same thing for The Root. He puts it very clearly: 

If you’re from a place where kings and queens existed, there’s a small chance you actually directly descended from them. And a much, much, much, much, much, much, much larger chance you descended from people who were ruled by them. And, if history is any guide, if you happen to be from a place with an unfathomably wealthy ruling class, that unfathomable wealth most likely ended with the ruling class. Everyone else was either some version of middle class (not very likely) or a peasant (very likely).

And this, basically, is my point. The chances that any American, no matter what their ethnic background, is actually a king or queen is near zero. This is very much like crazy white supremacists pining for Medieval Europe, because they think they'd all be knights and lords in an Aryan utopia. In reality, they'd most likely be serfs, and dying of plague in a Europe that was actually pretty diverse in the Middle Ages. More on Feudalism later.

First of all, there aren't that many monarchies left in the world, and those monarchies that still do exist are keeping very good records regarding who ascends to the throne. Karen from Alabama isn't on anyone's list. Also, even if there are a bunch of descendants of royals running around in America, only 1 can become king. That's how monarchy works. The word literally means "One Ruler". Also, whatever kingdom these hypothetical royals came from no longer exists. They'd be kings of nothing, unless you want to destroy an already existing state and set up a new kingdom. This sounds an awful lot like Colonialism, actually, which is where this all started. 

This brings me back to why I hear an insult when I hear King or Queen being used. Royals are literally the point source for all the world's current problems with equality. Royals financially supported colonies to start with. The Catholic Monarchs in Spain sent Columbus. Henry VII of England sent Cabot. Manuel I of Portugal sent the Portuguese Armada to Brazil. James I of England authorized the Virginia Company of London. And these colonies are founded on the premise that non-Christians, and therefore most non-Europeans (and quite a few actual Europeans) are inferior. 

Colonialism aside, though, why would anyone want to be associated with royalty? I know we have this weird fascination with princes and princesses in our entertainment which stretches back to some of the first ever fictional epics like Gilgamesh, and Beowulf. All of the ancient Greek heroes are kings. King Arthur. Most of Shakespeare's plays are about kings. Most of Disney's animated films are about princesses. But reading about actual historic royalty makes for some sick and twisted realities.

The way Feudalism works, Royals are at the top of a pyramid of land owning Lords. Basically, one family owns all the land, and has the power to grant land rights to lesser lords, or take it away. Everyone actually living on the land is expected to pay these lords for the privilege to exist there, through goods, services, or taxes. Feudalism relies on this idea that the lords provide protection through military defense. But... if the Lords' manpower and money come from the people, why does the people need Lords to start with? So, really a Royal family, at its core, only appears to exist to exploit the people. Feudalism looks an awful lot like a Medieval Pyramid Scheme. But systemic exploitation isn't the only terrible thing Royals are known for.

The Hapsburgs, the best example of the Royal Ick Factor, were so inbred we named a genetic deformity after them, The Hapsburg Jaw. Consanguineous marriage as a way to "purify bloodlines" wasn't just a Hapsburg thing, either. The infamous King Tutankhamen shows signs of inbreeding, meaning this crazy practice goes back at least 3000 years. The premise of this ridiculous concept originates in the narcissistic notion that royalty can't mix with common folk, for the normal people are somehow inferior. 

Observe, for example, the "rules of etiquette" when meeting the King of England. When the Royal Family visited the US in 2009, a bunch of news outlets published articles about this. The Mental Floss article is here. Basically, no one can speak before spoken to, no touching, they expect gifts. You are expected to be there before they arrive, and they have to depart first. According to the article, even the royal pets are assholes. They behave, essentially, like they're doing you a favor by meeting you. 

This notion that Royals have distanced themselves from everyone else, created myths that they are superior to the very people they rule over is at the root of the problem I have with an entire culture identifying with royalty. Royals are perhaps the worst people on the planet, and are not the role models for the strength, beauty, empathy, and leadership that this nicknaming trend tries to acknowledge. There has got to be better, more positive, more reaffirming titles you can give your loved ones. 

Utilitarianism: A Primer

Sometimes I am accused of being, or lumped into a box called The Left. While it may be true that I am Left leaning on the political spectrum, I think it is important to distinguish how, like the Right, there are many different philosophical groups within the Left.

I like to think of myself as a Utilitarian mostly because A: for it's flaws, it mostly makes sense to me as a broad plan to make decisions B: the over arching theme spells a death for individual exceptionalism. No one is special. C: It's basics are echoed by many other Leftist philosophies. So what is it exactly?

Utilitarianism: 

A branch of Consequential Philosophy declaring that consequences of utility should be the basis for decision making. Basically, actions should produce the most utility for the largest group of people. Utility in this case means "good". Also, to clarify, the philosophy as a whole considers all human beings to be people and to be equal. There is no special determinations made for wealth, gender, or age. As Utilitarianism has evolved, it has merged with deontological ethics, bridging the two philosophies.

In 1780, Jeremy Bentham published the first ideas of utility as a basis for morality. As a consequentialist philosophy, Bentham argued that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" is the measurement for morality, right and wrong. Instead of rules and laws laid down ahead of time that can be very black and white, consequentialism views the outcome as the indicator of morality, not the actions that lead to the outcome. In Utilitarianism, if the outcome benefits more people, than the actions are justified.

Bentham

Bentham was more interested in earlier Hedonism, popularized by Aristipuss and Epicuris, but Utilitarianism evolved under John Stuart Mill, who moved the definition of utility from "utility=pleasure" to "utility=well-being". Mill was pretty clear to separate Utilitarianism from Hedonism. Hastings Rashdall and G.E. Moore continued to separate the two ideas at the turn of the 20th century. Ideal Utilitarianism is a rejection of Bentham and focuses on promoting beneficial experiences, and relationships, and limiting pain, hatred and contempt.

One of the biggest challenges to early Utilitarianism was the rejection of rule/law. Mill wrestled with this, as did Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker. Act and Rule Utilitarianism attempts to mitigate the problems that arise from attempting to weigh consequences for each and every decision. The probability of choosing less than the best utility are high. So... Act Theory states that an act is right if it maximizes utility. Rule Theory maintains that an act is right if it adheres to a rule/law meant to maximize utility.

John Stuart Mill

Robert Merrihew Adams then took Act/Rule theory in 1976 and rolled it all into Motive Theory, which posits that Utilitarianism should be used to create motive and disposition which would then dictate choice of action and applied rules/laws. This allowed Utilitarianism to shed its Consequential Hedonist past and merge with Kantian ethics.

The biggest issue with Utilitarianism is the definition of utility. How do we quantify it? If we use the earliest, most vague notion of utility as happiness/pleasure, than this criticism has weight. Hedonistic happiness seems to be short term, individualist, and subjective. But, when the idea of utility changes to well-being, the ability to measure that on a grand scale becomes easier, and it evolves from a short-term consequence, into a longterm, more objective, more group-based happiness.

There are definitely parallels to Socialism here. Many Socialist ideals hinge on the greater good for the most number of people (the working class population far exceeds management/shareholders). However, Utilitarianism is not without casualties. The ideal is the "Greatest Good for Greatest Number" after all, not "Greatest good for Everyone". Realistically there will be losers, the plan is to minimize the losers, but still acknowledge that reducing that number to zero is not always possible.

There are plenty of ethical scenarios that play with this idea. Grim scenarios abound, like, "If you have to sacrifice one child to save the lives of millions, do you do it"? Utilitarianism would say yes, by the way, if that is the only, best option. This makes Utilitarianism out to look unfeeling, robotic in the way it weighs consequence, turning people/populations into equations rather than appealing to lives as more significant. I don't believe it does this at all. I think the fact that the end goal is to lift up majorities is enough to prove Utilitarianism does in fact value human life as significant, far more significant than any one single individual.

It seems to me that Democratic Socialism, or as they used to say, Democracy, as a form of government would be the best way to govern through Utilitarianism. If everyone has a voice and vote, it is an easy way to calculate what most of the society wants. At this point, it is pretty easy to study society and figure out best practices to be used to best defend our welfare, maximize social capital, and promote healthy lifestyles on a grande scale, without limiting liberty.

Utilitarianism does not place anyone's own personal ambitions above others, which is why it isn't really a Capitalist philosophy. If the consequence of the actions leaves one person rich, and many others scrambling to survive, that isn't maximizing group utility. If laws protect and serve only one groups' utility and undermine the utility of minority groups, than that doesn't fit into this philosophy.

By framing my thinking this way, like Adams said, I have changed my motivations, which has led to changing my opinions about many political issues. Utilitarianism, at its core, ignores systemic groupings like race, culture, religion, and class. It ignores the ambitions, and desires of the individual for the betterment of the welfare of the group. This appeals to me.

Cultural Appropriation: What is it exactly?

Recently, and by that I mean in the last 10 years or so, there has been this trend toward social consciousness, a progressive reformation fueled by the internet's ability to bring people closer together and give voices to the previously ignored. One of the great things about social media platforms and the media that reflects that social media back at us as newsworthy, is the ability for the minority to be heard. While I think this is great, giving a voice to the voiceless, sometimes I am surprised by our ability as human beings to take everything a little too far.

Cultural Appropriation is the idea, best put, that dominant cultures, because they are the strong, majority culture, are able to take aspects of minority, oppressed cultures, and use them for nefarious means, often without the consent of the minority culture, and also often without adequate compensation. In short, Cultural Appropriation is an offshoot of Colonialist bully tactics and is inherently evil and should be called out and condemned.

I found this explanation somewhere too... "taking something from a culture that you do not belong to, and use it outside of that cultural context – usually without understanding its cultural significance, and often times changing its original meaning”

I wanted to give credit to the cartoonist. but no one seems to know

Already, with this definition, I have questions, and problems. My first question? What are these nefarious means? 

In many online articles from sites like The Huffington Post, Salon, Gawker (if it still existed), and other "liberal media" publications, the nefarious means are explained as using the cherry picked minority culture for monetary gain. Obvious examples of this include white musicians learning "black" music and then becoming rich off producing those styles, or fashion designers ripping off minority fashion and turning it into expensive high fashion products. Or the alternate medicine industry that often mines non-Western cultures for homeopathic remedies.

Less obvious, however, would be the underhanded scheme of borrowing minority culture and turning it into a fad which then serializes and undermines the appropriated culture turning it into no more than a caricature. The entire crux of the Anti-Indian Sports Mascot movement is built on this premise.  This is also the problem with ethnic themed Halloween costumes. My second definition above is important in this context. A dismissal of original context in favor of brand recognition, or profiteering is totally an appropriation as opposed to appreciation.

Typically, however, the Left, even with the best intentions of supporting the struggles of the less fortunate, and the oppressed minority, took this idea of Cultural Appropriation and over policed it to the point of madness. At times, it seems, the goal for some people is to completely shut out everyone who is of a different culture and revert back to a cultural isolationism. This cultural possessiveness doesn't appear to be a very progressive goal.

this is probably anti-Left propaganda. 

Which brings me to my second question: What cultures do we, as Americans, belong to, or not belong to, and who gets to make those decisions?

The United States of America is in a very unique place as far as culture is concerned. Everyone is welcome here, despite what fervent anti-immigration 'Mericans may say. And, because of that, the US, unlike every other country with stricter immigration policies (or no immigration policies), is a very interesting place culturally. This country has pockets of cultural influence that mirror every place on the globe. And in those pockets reside customs, cuisine, religious practice, fashion from everywhere. I think that is pretty remarkable, that one nation houses all of the diversity of the rest of the world. There are cultures here in the US that otherwise may never meet, and probably never meet under good terms.

Music, I think, gets a particularly bad rep for Cultural Appropriation. Music, the USA's greatest export, is steeped in cultural mixing and matching. All the great pop genres are rhythms and cords borrowed from "minority" cultures in America. Gospel, Blue Grass, and the Blues helped form Country, Rock n Roll, Reggae, Funk, Soul, and Hip Hop. It is almost impossible, however, to look at the history of modern music and not realize that, in every genre, there is a disproportionate number of minority innovators who died penniless while Eurocentric musicians often found exorbitant amounts of wealth and fame by playing "minority" music. At this point, however, I think the power structure in the music industry has shifted enough that all creators and innovators receive their due regardless of cultural identity. I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure contemporary Black and Latino artists are no longer largely ignored in favor of White copycats (award shows still have problems). And, on top of that, at this point, I think we, as a society, are informed enough to look back and recognize the primary contributions and importance of minority musicians and artists. I know, personally, I'd rather hear Fats Domino and BB King, and Big Mama Thornton than Elvis.

Speaking of receiving their due... anti-cultural appropriation groups don't seem to take into consideration the market for cultural appreciation, especially when lead by that particular culture. Basically, I'm pointing out the viability for minority cultures to sell themselves. Tourism is one of the biggest, sometimes the only, industry in developing nations. Caribbean nations are good examples. Hawaii and Puerto Rico are also good examples of American cultures outsourcing themselves to the rest of American culture.

Any ethnic specific cuisine is basically a business opportunity to sell a cultural experience. As a non-member of any of these cultures, am I supposed to not give my business? Should my mother return all those amazingly crafted ponchos and wraps? My point is this discussion could get off the rails real fast depending on how far down the hole you want to go.

Is it worth highlighting a fashion company's obvious appropriation of Native art to sell jewelry to college kids? Yes. Especially since there is a Federal law prohibiting the sale of falsely marketed Native American made products. But is it worth shaming that 8 year old who went on a Caribbean trip with her family and got her hair braided and wrapped? Probably not, now you're just an asshole.

And I think that is where the line of Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation lies... are you being an asshole? Is there really any harm in college aged idiots drinking tequila and wearing hats on May 5? Is there harm in a Mexican restaurant chain selling tequila and hats every day of the year? I think this really comes down to personal judgement all around. With some common sense woven in. This whole thing comes down to judgement: People judging others' lifestyle choices, other people making judgements about what is and isn't respectful and responsible. Is there really harm being done? What is the goal here?

So... no Karen, that white chick with the dreads is not trying to trivialize the struggles of the Rasta. And no, Chad, it's not ok to wear that headdress to Coachella. And yes, Linda, I can make sticky rice in my house and eat with chopsticks whenever I want. But also, ethnic themed Halloween costumes are never acceptable.

There is this myth in America that has been prevalent since my grandparents' day that cultural diversity should be celebrated. But instead of trying to live this myth, we use it as a way to further divide and spread hostility. Please, share the cultures, be open, be understanding, teach, learn, experience, be respectful, don't be an asshole.

Reading is... fun!

Recently, I entered into the debate on teaching models for language arts skills. More specifically, how do we teach reading most effectively? The classic model, made famous by those ridiculous Hooked on Phonics works for me commercials, deals with building skills from the bottom (sounds) to the top (whole sentences).

In the 80's, these experts, Goodman and Smith, decided going the other direction would be better, as communication relies on whole meanings, not just parts of meaning. The concept is that regardless of one's basic knowledge of sounds, pronunciation, and vocabulary, comprehension should be the first thing studied, and then the basic things come second. This, of course, would never work in Kindergarten, but it is effective in high school.

However, because everyone is pretty familiar with Bottom-Up tactics, since everyone was taught that way, until the late 80's, teachers found themselves blending the two ideas and it has been decided that integrating the two is the best policy.

Another concept in mainstream teaching is the idea that everything has a meaning in literature and language, and therefore reading is an exercise in decoding the meaning. This is very much the way poetry is taught. The theory is called New Criticism, which i find ironic, because there is nothing new about it. New Criticism matches up nicely with a bottom-up approach to teaching reading also.

Of course there is another polarizing method to teaching reading. An aesthetic reading, instead of looking for the definite answer, one that clearly makes sense, and obviously was meant by the author, Teachers have students look into the text to create their own meaning based on their experiences, and the experiences of the author which are made known to the class through a lesson on biography. This is a wonderfully fun and creative idea, however, no matter what students come up with, some things just mean exactly what they were intended. For example, nothing by Sylvia Plath is ever going to be about pink ponies and rainbow flavoured sherbert.

The teaching landscape, however, is moving more towards open-ended interpretation, creative thinking, aesthetic readings, despite the demand for schools to prove success through high test grades.

However, because we I think, just by growing up, for the most part, in schools in the 80s,

This seems to be an ongoing issue for contemporary teachers and the professors and experts that teach them. Its nearly paradoxical. Clearly, the teacher teachers want to see more creativity, foster the love of learning, fight boredom in classrooms, and put some energy into lackluster lessons, however, the state needs to see data that shows how smart our students are. No one can measure accurately how much a student learns and retains through personal experiences. So we are left teaching to standards, measuring success through large tests that dont require creativity, or foster outside of the test learning, or care if one is bored and uninspired. as long as you pick the correct multiple choice answer. But learning is way more than test grades.

When I was in middle school, I learned more in one week at Nature's Classroom, for example, then I did the rest of the year in my language arts class. Or, at the very least, I remember more. Guess which experience was graded, and which wasn't.

I think too, that a lesson in discourse is almost a must when teaching aesthetics especially when doing MCAS prep. Just knowing that not all types of writing and language is proper for all situations may help differentiate between efferent answers and aesthetic answers. for example: the way we write in personal journals is not the same way we should write for term papers, or... a letter to my friend (or probably more likely text message) is not the same as a letter we would send with a job application. choosing to teach efferents or aesthetics without teaching the other would be a mistake.

My Boss Hates Sylvia Plath

So, my boss is a Virginia Wolfe scholar, but hates Silvia Plath. I dont know if its the crazy, bipolar, suicidal poetry that turns people away, or the way she died, or perhaps her writing doesn't just grab you, or make you think the way that good writers do. But, for this particular class I took, I had to read and write about Plath. I came up with the following, which is based on the idea that she wrote her prose from a poet's perspective, so that even though the narrative was easy to follow and often bland, sometimes there are points of poetic brilliance. Maybe if she could get her head out of the oven, she could have written something good.

Upon closer reading of Sylvia Plath’s the Bell Jar, one can find a variety of themes, symbols, and allusions easily looked over at a first glance. Plath’s experience writing poetry has helped her fill her prose with description and metaphor. Water is one of the more prevalent images in the Bell Jar. This paper will look closer at the ideas, allusions, and uses of water as an image and examine the many uses of water in the Bell Jar to ascertain the importance of this image to the complete work.

Water can be seen as a cleansing force for Plath’s character Esther. Esther uses water to rejuvenate herself. At the beginning of the novel, Esther claims to often submerge herself in hot baths. She muses, “there must be quite a few things a hot bath won’t cure […] Whenever I’m sad I’m going to die, or so nervous I can’t sleep, or in love with someone I won’t be seeing for a week, I slump down just so far and then say, ‘I’ll take a hot bath’” (Plath, 19). This seems to be her solution to everything and can be seen as a passive way to handle all of her issues.

There is evidence in holistic medicine to suggest water can actually be a healing agent. There is a theory posed by Dr. Masaru Emoto that he calls the Hidden Messages in Water. In the book by the same name, Emoto poses the idea that water can absorb and hold human emotions (Emoto). The idea suggests that water can hold both positive and negative feelings. A more realistic study had been done in the 19^th century by the German priest Sebastian Kneipp. He stressed the importance of ritualistic baths much like those used in Rome and Egypt (Baruch).

As used by Plath the character Esther feels she is truly helped by this practice of submerging oneself. After explaining her habit of taking hot baths to deal with positive and negative stressers, Esther goes on to explain that she can lay in the tub “for near an hour, and I felt myself growing pure again” (Plath, 20). Esther admits she uses the water to make things in her life disappear, if only for a little while. The bath becomes a vehicle for escapism. She states, “Doreen is dissolving, Lenny Shepherd is dissolving, Frankie is dissolving, New York is dissolving, they are all dissolving and none of them matter anymore. I don’t know them, I have never known them, and I am pure” (20).

Chemically, according to the United States Geological Survey site on water properties, water can easily dissolve more things naturally than any other liquid, thus the nickname “the universal solvent” (USGS). Esther dissolves her problems in water, it becomes her ally, she bathes herself clean, using the universal solvent to universally solve her poor decisions. This passive tactic fails Esther, however, contributing to her fall into depression. The idea of the warm bath changes from a place of quiet contemplation and renewal, to a good place to witness death. The water, to Esther, is the perfect medium to watch her blood, her life, flow out of her, and becomes an excuse for her not to end her life just yet. She muses, “how stupid I was, I had the razors, but no warm bath” (Plath, 151).

Water can also be seen as an allusion to the bell jar. Although Esther has used water in the past to her benefit, it does not always seem to be a positive force. It becomes a prison of sorts, at once soaking up depression and reflecting it back. Esther’s worst of times leave stains on her psyche like the one seen in the hallway, the “faint irregular dark stain before [her] door as if someone had by accident spilled a glass of water there, but dabbed it dry again” (23). The sickness from contaminated crab is another good example of the use of water as negative. Not only is crab a creature of the sea, living in water, but more importantly, Esther describes her sickness as rolling through her “in great waves. After each wave it would leave [her] limp as a wet leaf” (44). Throughout this episode, the water running in the sink is the only sound left going as Esther passes out on the floor of the bathroom. The continuous pouring of water into porcelain mirrors the continuous waves of sickness, which stop only when the nurses find Esther the next morning.

Water becomes its own character, in a way. Plath has given it significant time and place in the novel. It has character, which mirrors the moods of Esther. At first, water is serene, calming, clear. By the time Esther gets to the beach, the Sea is seen as turmoil, dangerous, and cold. The way Esther describes the water can be linked to how Esther feels inside. This is near when she begins cutting, wandering aimlessly, and feeling the heaviness of hopelessness, and loneliness associated with depression. Esther looks out to the sea, and shares how “the drench seemed to come off the sea floor itself, where blind white fish ferried themselves by their own light through the great polar cold. I saw shark’s teeth and whales earbones littered about like gravestones” (153). Esther gives this description of macabre which is really an update on her emotional state as cold, and dark, and hostile.

Rain plays an interesting role as well, starting with the food poisoning incident in New York (it rains during the trip from the theater to the hotel). Rain shows up again while Esther visits the cemetery. The scene begins with “a fine drizzle started drifting down from the grey sky, and I grew very depressed” (166). This scene culminates in Esther breaking down in the “cold salt rain” mourning the loss of her father, and therefore a mythical future that never happened.

After reviewing Plath’s use of the symbol of water, in all its obvious, and more subtle allusion, the conclusion of the importance of water can be summed up by a small anecdote by Esther. Esther recalls a conversation with the raincoat salesgirl which ends in the profound revelation that “no raincoat is ever water-reppellent” but it can be showerproof (166). This, more than anything else, speaks to the psyche of individuals and of life more than anything else. Esther spends the entire novel unable to rise above personal tragedy, self doubt, and uncertainty which leads her to dark places of depression and suicidal tendancy. Using weather as a metaphor for these feelings accurately describes cycles of life and cycles of emotion and shows that these things do pass, people are able to move on, to a point. But, as the salesgirl points out, we aren’t water proof. By the end of the novel, Esther realizes that after all she went through, she did get wet, but she won’t always be underwater.

Subconscious Animism

I found this interesting, while rereading selections from my copy of the Ecocriticism Reader (why would I want to refamiliarize myself with that,I wonder), I came across the theory that western culture has purposefully eliminated an otherwise inborn connection with nature.

Dr. Christopher Manes, PhD in Medieval Studies from the University of Oregon, and author of Green Rage, poses the idea in Nature and Silence that up until the prominence of Judeo/Christian thought, Nature had a personality, a voice, and only through this silencing of Nature, has Man solidified sole status as the only speaking subject.

Lynn White, Jr, former director of Medieval and Renaissance studies at UCLA, and professor at UCLA, Mills College, Princeton, and Standford, points out that due to a fundamental pillar of Christian dogma, western culture thinks of itself as apart from nature. "To a Christian, a tree can be no more than a physical fact" (White). The point being that the Judeo/Christian idea that Nature exists to serve Man has allowed for the truth of Man's "transcendence of and rightful mastery over" Nature. Therefore, the use of natural resources and by extension the exploitation of the planet for profit is validated. According to Kant, reason is related to political power and self interest. Why not use the land? The highest religious power says its ok, and we can make money while doing it.

However, if human beings and nature are truly disconnected, one apart from the other, how have "primitive" cultures of the past and present have been able to thrive within a communal relationship with nature? The answer, Mane says, lies in relations. There has existed in EuroAmerican culture this idea of "privileged speakers", which up until recently has meant "rich white dudes". Our culture had done its best to silence the voices of people of color, women, and children, thus making it easier to exploit these various groups, to the point where drastic counter movements were staged to reaffirm and empower the voiceless. The point being, if Nature is allowed to have a voice and be personified, it is more difficult for it to be exploited.

Here is the cool part: even though in our culture, it is considered crazy, tribal, and uncivilized, "in modern technological society animistic reflexes linger". Exhibit A: Cars and sports teams. As a culture we have attempted to cast the power of certain animals by naming things after them. Exhibit B: Children are not considered mentally insane when talking to stuffed animals, dolls or other toys, and people often lose their temper and shout and curse at inanimate objects, like that broken washing machine, or the Ford Mustang that just stalled on the freeway onramp. The idea is that people in these situations have created a "animistic subject, a shifting autonomous articulate identity that cuts across human and nonhuman identity" (Manes). Pretty cool, eh? I thought so.

The overall point? Final summation? Perhaps we should suck it up and stop pretending we are apart from the natural world. People talk to their house plants, dont they? The fact that there is overwhelming evidence that preservation and conservation of natural resources not only makes wise business sense, but also keeps everyone living here healthier, should be enough incentive to once again become a part of Nature.

Literary Theory

"If you allow a lot of young people to do nothing for a few years but read books and talk to each other then it is possible that, given certain circumstances, they will not only begin to question some of the values transmitted to them, but begin to interrogate the authority by which they are transmitted" (Eagleton, 175).

    This could be true. I found in my own education that this is a possibility. However, not every student is an English major, like myself, or even a humanities student. Most people I've come across who weren't humanities students hated to read. The certain circumstances, then, depend largely on motivation to read and discuss in the first place.

    What seems to be lacking in language studies is a clear purpose. Why even bother reading, besides the occassional enjoyment from pulp fiction? Why does one care enough to spend time and energy getting through texts that seem to need a field guide to understand? Language studies seems to have drifted from transmission of ideas and discussion of truths to summarizing of story plots and character strengths. This is not only incredibly easy, but also pointless.

     Eagleton, in his introduction to Literary Theory, states the main purpose of literary study is to manipulate the language. Eagleton points to the idea that "many films and works of philosophy are considerably more valuable than much that is included in literary canon" (176). For example, Plato's Republic is not a part of standard Language Arts reading lists, but the cave allegory is a pillar of literary construction. Other works often not seen are ones that create much controversy, but have become foundations for great works of canonized literature. These books include Marx's manifesto, the Evolution of Species, and the three sacred texts from the three largest world religions, the Torah, Bible, and Q'ran.

    This idea that literature can challenge and change the status quo is nothing more than an ideal. Certain circumstances never seem to line up in an educational system domineered by canon, standardized testing, and uniform learning frameworks. Gone, it seems, are the days of group contemplation and the humanity of Humanities.

    Recently, in the Boston Globe (July 5, 2009) there was an article about a book club for the homeless, which was put together by a Boston lawyer, and his homeless buddy. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/05/from_a_rare_friendship_a_book_club_for_the_homeless_is_born/

    It seems true discussion can and does happen, but not always in the classroom, and not always in the learning instituions. Eagleton points out that even though the humanities exists to portray "the social order in which it exists", this social order seldom has the time to appreciate. "Who is concerned with the uniqueness of the individual, the imperishable truths of the human condition, or the sensuous textures of lived experience" in the realms or business, economics, science, and politics? There is something to be said of a group of society's most down trodden as the only group willing to use literature to empower.