Paul Stoller2013-05-24T19:56:05-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=paul-stollerCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Paul StollerGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Social Life of Music -- in Malitag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33137052013-05-21T15:09:01-04:002013-05-21T15:03:27-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
When Islamic militants took over large swaths of northern Mali they forced the local inhabitants, who tend to follow moderate Sufi approaches to Islam, to accept a reactionary Taliban version of The Prophet's religion. When they occupied Timbuktu, they destroyed the shrines of Sufi saints and attempted with partial success to destroy the priceless medieval manuscripts of Timbuktu's famed libraries.
Morality patrols enforced proper dress codes and monitored what people ate. Spies reported "seditious" or "sacrilegious comments. The militants also banned music.
The armed militants sent death threats to local musicians; many were forced into exile. Live music venues were shut down, and militants set fire to guitars and drum kits. The world famous Festival in the Desert was moved to Burkina Faso, and then postponed because of the security threat.
While French and Malian forces largely swept the militants from Timbuktu and other northern towns earlier this year, the region is a still a battleground. Cultural venues remain shuttered. Even more musicians in the north are leaving the country because they fear vengeful acts by the Malian Army, whom they accuse of discriminating against northern peoples. The music has not returned to what it once was.
As an anthropologist who has spent more than 30 years living among and thinking about the peoples and cultures of Sahelian West Africa, the death of music in Mali is a terrible cultural loss. As Fernandes suggests, music is the force that establishes and reinforces social relations among Sahelian peoples. Aside from playing musical instruments, usually the kora (the African harp) or the ngoni or mollo (the Sahelian lute) the griot appears at rituals like weddings to chant family genealogies or sing the versus of long cultural epics that recount the heroic glories of the past. As such, griots and their music not only link past to present, but also build bridges to the future, for their most fundamental charge is to make sure that cultural memories are not forgotten.
In the same New York Times piece, Fernandes made a powerful point:
One thing that the events in Mali have taught us is that music matters. And the potential loss of music as a means of social bonding, as a voice of conscience and as a mode of storytelling is not just a threat in an African country where Islamic militants made music a punishable offense. We would do well to appreciate music's power, wherever we live.
Music is a pulse, an energy that wordlessly transports us back to the past, makes us sensuously aware of the present and compels us to think about the future. As in other art forms -- literature, sculpture, painting, and performance -- music slips into the deep recesses of our being. Sometimes it moves us. Wherever it is performed, music enhances our humanity and enriches our social lives
Why would anyone want to ban music, literature, sculpture, painting or performance? The power of the arts has always been a threat to powerful elites. Plato sought to expel the artist from his Republic, for the artist threatened to steer people toward the emotions of the heart rather than the logic of the head. In the 13th century, conservative Muslim clerics, who followed a strict interpretation of Sharia Law, condemned Konya's whirling dervishes whose spiritual approach to Islam challenged the reigning Islamic orthodoxies of the time. The same scenario, of course, is being played out in Mali and other Sahelian West African nations.
The conflict between narrow-minded orthodoxy and open-minded creativity, of course, is ever-present in the politically charged cultural discourse of U.S. politics. In the name of religious or market orthodoxy, conservative politicians have cut funding for the arts, humanities, and social sciences. In their view artists and scholars often produce works that are wasteful, morally questionable, or downright offensive. Such work in the arts also raises questions that powerfully challenge a political orthodoxy that is based upon fictive principles. Republican Governors are attempting to dumb-down their public universities -- by cutting the social sciences and humanities -- to create what amounts to technical training centers that will supply local industry with skilled "follow-the-rules" workers. Congressional Republicans now want to second-guess the funding decisions of the National Science Foundation on projects about which they have little or no expertise.
When orthodoxy is used to declare war on music, the arts, the humanities and the social sciences, we undermine the foundation of our society and diminish our humanity.
In the absence of provocative art, music, and science, we deplete our souls and are forced to live in a place, like contemporary Mali, in which platitudes have sapped our imaginations, a place in which hope dissipates into the dry air.
The power of orthodoxy is great, but so is the force of the arts to contest it with new thoughts and innovations. The results of this fundamental conflict will shape the quality of our lives in the future.]]>April Is the Cruelest Monthtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30852272013-04-15T16:56:06-04:002013-04-15T16:56:13-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
In the past, university people seemed able to weather cruel April storms. You hunkered down and believed that your considerable efforts would be appreciated. When you huffed and puffed your way across the academic finish line sometime in May, you could look forward to a summer job or to some travel. You might begin a new research project or develop a new course. You might work on an essay or a book. In the fall you'd return energized for the new academic year.
These have long been the rhythms of college life.
Times have changed on our college campuses. There is an increasing lack of respect for the intellectual rhythms of college life. Many elected officials, for example, like to disparage public universities. Narrow-minded governors like Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Perry and North Carolina's Pat McCrory believe that public funds to higher education should go to job-producing technical programs. In other words, they would like to transform public higher education into a set of competitive job-training programs. Such short-sightedness, which grants low-priority to higher education, has resulted in reductions in student support and elimination of academic programs. In public higher education, it has led to an increase in the number of poorly paid -- and poorly treated -- temporary faculty and a concomitant decrease in the population of tenured professors. These trends threaten to transform, if not destroy, a system of higher education that has been the envy of the world.
Although mindless budget cutting, misguided austerity and anti-intellectual political posturing pose serious external threats to the future of college life, there are also internally generated threats. These threats, which may well be partially stimulated by widespread derision of "intellectuals," sometimes emerge from an administrative distrust -- and disrespect -- of faculty competence.
In case there are readers who think I am overstating the case, consider the ever-present issue of outcomes assessment -- measuring student performance. For several years now, college faculty members have been compelled to spend more and more time preparing documents -- mission statements, and assessment measurements -- to determine if students are successfully mastering the course materials in their classes. These tasks, of course, take precious time away from course preparation, research, writing and thinking -- the real substance of life on our campuses.
Outcomes assessment is an epistemological quagmire, a problem unnoticed by many of the practice's strongest advocates. Here's why. Faculty members assign grades to students at the end of every course. Either (1) we know that on the whole those grades accurately measure the degree to which a student has mastered the course material and achieved the objectives of the course, or (2) we do not know. The very idea of outcomes assessment is predicated on Option 2...
According to Professor Hales, then, assessment assessors don't believe that grades sufficiently measure student outcomes, which means that they have put into the practice a convoluted set of instrument designs and procedures to measure "real student success." Grading is certainly not a perfect instrument to measure "outcomes," but to distrust it's validity is rather insulting to those who teach the courses, design the exams, read the research papers, and assign the grades. Do I need an outcomes assessor to tell me that a student who writes a poorly researched essay should or should not get a failing grade? Is that failing grade not an indicator of student mastery of the subject matter?
If you have been a college professor for more than 10, 20 or 30 years, how would you feel if an assessor, who holds the power of "program revision" (potential reduction or elimination for poor outcome measures) over your head, sent you a list of words to use to develop outcomes assessment tools?
Several months ago, I received such a list: "Terms to use to articulate learning outcomes: what students will be able to do or think." Here's a small sample. Under the heading of Remember you are asked to use words like "describe," discuss," "classify," and "recognize." Under the heading of Apply they recommend using words like "change," "construct," "manipulate, and "prepare." Under the heading of Understand they suggest using words like "comprehend," "defend," "explain," and "exemplify."
Such a list reinforces the perception that (1) faculty grades are not good measures of student performance and (2) professors lack the linguistic wherewithal to pick the correct "terms" to measure student performance. What kind of message does this send to those of us who have dedicated our lives to research, writing, thinking and teaching?
Sadly, these external and internal threats to the intellectual climate on our campuses seem to reinforce the destructive idiom: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." If we don't value and support the dedication, competence and expertise of college professors -- tenured and non-tenured, permanent and temporary -- the quality of intellectual life on our campuses will precipitously decline -- a very dear price to pay when our goal is to prepare students, who represent the future, to think in and adapt to a complex and changing world.
April is the cruelest month. The headwinds we face are very stiff. As we move forward to a new academic year, we'll need to be persistent and resilient to slow the erosion of intellectual life on campus.]]>Northern Lights/Global Activismtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29494692013-03-25T17:13:53-04:002013-03-25T17:16:54-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
Sadly such mindlessness has global dimensions -- even in relatively progressive and prosperous countries. Consider an important example from Norway.
Most readers of The Huffington Post have probably not heard of the town of Tromso, which is situated on a beautiful island in the far north of Norway. Tromso is remote. To get there you have to take a two-hour flight from Oslo. In this space of surreal northern lights, majestic fiords, and long, dark and snowy winters you can also find the northernmost university on the planet: the University of Tromso, an unlikely place to discover, of all things, a thriving center of Visual Cultural Studies (VCS).
Sometimes the most wondrous things in life are found in the most unexpected places.
The University of Tromso's program in Visual Cultural Studies has long trained documentary filmmakers from all over the world -- Japan, Thailand, Russia, Romania, Canada, the U.S., not to forget a healthy contingent of students from Mali and Cameroon. Graduates of the VCS program have made hundreds of documentary films about their home countries. Many of these films have made important contributions to local social and political discourse. Indeed, several VCS graduates have produced award-winning films. In short, the work of the VCS program has brought much distinction, if not prestige, to the University of Tromso.
Despite this enviable record, administrators at the university wanted to shut down the VCS program. Looking at the balance sheet of a relatively prosperous institution in a very prosperous nation, these decision-makers, whose orientation to higher education seemed remarkably similar to that of Rick Scott, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Pat McCrory, argued that the costs of the VCS program outweighed its benefits.
The institutional demise of a world class program of study didn't make much sense to the VCS faculty, staff and students. Faced with imminent elimination, they decided to fight back. They asked their former students as well as colleagues in the global community of anthropology and documentary filmmaking to protest such a mindless proposal. They created a website, Save VCS in Tromso, and asked people to post a photo indicating support for the program. Supporters met the call with a robust response. From all over the world people sent in their messages -- in images and words. VCS shared these messages with people in their social networks, and action that exponentially increased the response. In two weeks VCS received more than 1,000 protest messages from former students as well as from senior scholars of international distinction (see Save VCS Tromso on Vimeo). This tactic proved to be effective. Indeed, the political impact of social media and visual representation convinced the administrators to change course. At a meeting on March 11, they voted to support the future of VCS at the University of Tromso.
This Norwegian example is a potent illustration of how university faculty, staff, and students can fight back against the mindless, destructive and disrespectful application of business models and cost-benefit analysis to university education. There is much beauty to be found in Tromso's northern light and global activism. In U.S. higher education, we should follow this model to preserve our most essential obligation: the development of young minds to meet the philosophical, political, economic challenges of the future.]]>The Real News of Anthropologytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27445512013-02-26T12:49:26-05:002013-04-28T05:12:01-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/publicly stated that anthropology, his daughter's undergraduate major, was a subject without value. Governor Scott's demonstration of boastful ignorance sparked an outcry from anthropologists who fought back by presenting to the media many powerful examples of the economic utility of anthropological study and practice. That rebuttal hasn't seemed to have changed media or public perception of Margaret Mead's profession. Second, Kiplinger and Forbes, two business publications, par excellence, rated anthropology as the worst undergraduate major for getting a job. Taking their cue from these "facts" the triumphant trio of prudent governors, Rick Scott, Scott Walker and Rick Perry, now want to slash wasteful higher education funds for programs of study that don't prepare students for jobs in the real world. If those budget cuts weaken pesky disciplines, like anthropology and sociology, which produce critical thinkers and political activists, so much the better!
These are hard times in the humanities and social sciences, times made much worse -- at least in the world of the media -- by the latest anthropological flare-up over the publication of Napoleon Chagnon's new memoir, Noble Savages. If nothing else, Chagnon is a master of self-publicity. He has produced a work tailor-made for the contemporary media. In this tale, he is a heroic figure and his detractors, who don't understand him or the strictures of science, are villains. The perceptual brilliance of Chagnon's tactic is refracted in Emily Eakin's New York Times Magazine story, "How Napoleon Chagnon Became our Most Controversial Anthropologist. " Not mentioning the fact that most contemporary anthropologists don't give a hoot about what Professor Chagnon is doing, Eakin begins her piece with an evocation of a mythically brave anthropologist who knows how to deal with the privations of the jungle and the "primitive" natives who live there.
Among the hazards Napoleon Chagnon encountered in the Venezuelan jungle were a jaguar that would have mauled him had it not become confused by his mosquito net and a 15-foot anaconda that lunged from a stream over which he bent to drink. There were also hairy black spiders, rats that clambered up and down his hammock ropes and a trio of Yanomami tribesmen who tried to smash his skull with an ax while he slept. (The men abandoned their plan when they realized that Chagnon, a light sleeper, kept a loaded shotgun within arm's reach.) These are impressive adversaries--"Indiana Jones had nothing on me," is how Chagnon puts it--but by far his most tenacious foes have been members of his own profession.
Eakin goes on to suggest that Chagnon "may be this country's best known living anthropologist; he is certainly its most maligned." To make matters even more mythical, the essay features a recent photo of Chagnon, wearing an Indiana Jones fedora, but looking more like an anthropological curmudgeon than Steven Spielberg's swashbuckling archeologist. These images are fodder for a hungry media that delights in tales of heroism, primitivism, lost tribes and "fierce" Neolithic people. Chagnon's tale quenches our collective thirst for adventure among the "stinking brutes," who want to smash your skull in with an ax.
The problem for Chagnon and for anthropology is that although these stereotypes of heroic anthropologists and "primitives" are painfully persistent, they have become profoundly anachronistic. There are no more "lost tribes," no more missing links in the evolutionary chain. Even the Yanamano can no longer escape the long reach of transnational global networks. Even so, Chagnon wants to revive the past and cleanse his image. Consider Elizabeth Povinelli's review of Noble Savages, also published in the February 15 edition of The New York Times. Writing of the pain and suffering of the Yanamano, which was brought on in some measure through contact with of American (social) scientists, she writes:
...Does their pain and grief matter less even if we believe, as he seems to, that they were brutal Neolithic remnants in a land that time forgot? For him, the 'burly, naked, sweaty, hideous' Yanamamo stink and produce enormous amounts of 'dark green snot.' They keep 'vicious, underfed growling dogs,' engage in brutal 'club fights' and -- God forbid! -- defecate in the bush. By the time the reader makes it to the sections on the Yanamano's political organization, migration patterns and sexual practices, the slant of the argument is evident: given their hideous society, understanding the real disaster that struck these people matters less than rehabilitating Chagnon's soiled image.
Other anthropologists have voiced their concern. Once again the anthropological establishment has been forced to defend the besmirched media image of anthropologists and anthropology. In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, American Anthropological Association President Leith Mullings critiques Ms. Eakin's article as profoundly inaccurate. In so doing she defends a discipline that long ago put to rest the kinds of issues that Professor Chagnon has revived.
I'm afraid that these protestations will have little impact on the public perception of anthropology or, for that matter, the social sciences and humanities. For the moment, these counter-arguments can't compete with the deeply mythical texture of the life and times of Napoleon Chagnon. In the sweep of time, though, Chagnon's work is but a blip on the screen. In the nanosecond reality of the media universe, Chagnon's ideas and struggles will quickly revert back to what they are: "very old news." The real news in present-day anthropology is the ongoing work on structures of poverty and social inequality, work that exposes how contemporary economic practices trigger widespread real world suffering. That scholarship produces results that are politically threatening to men like Rick Scott, Scott Walker and Rick Perry. That's why they're slashing higher education budgets. What better way to undermine anthropology, sociology, and the humanities and protect their economic and political interests?
Now there's a story worthy of media attention.]]>Future Conversationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27203832013-02-21T14:17:10-05:002013-04-23T05:12:01-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/Pinocchio. We arrived about 15 minutes early -- to get good seats -- and had a bit of time to kill before the beginning of the performance. With nothing to do but wait, the seven-year-old kids looked around the theater and began to fidget. The little boy asked me if I had a phone.
"I do," I answered.
"Can I use it?"
I gave him my iPhone which he started to manipulate, his frustration growing by the minute. He tugged my sleeve.
"Can I make a recommendation? " the precocious boy asked.
Stunned, I said nothing.
"You should really download some games," he suggested.
"You think so?"
"What are you going to do when you get bored?"
I tried to strike up a conversation with the young lad, but he quickly became bored. We lapsed into an uncomfortable silence.
From an early age many contemporary children are immersed in social media, which steal their attention. They have iPads and other devices on which they can play "games." When they travel in cars, they sit in their car seats and watch monitors that play videos of their favorite programs. They seem to live in worlds of continuous stimulation in which interpersonal conversation has become increasingly infrequent. When adults are around, many kids want to be left to their device.
Children, of course, are not the only folks who seem to have been technologically mesmerized into quasi-uncommunicative states. My university students are a case in point. They come to class with their various devices, most of which are mercifully turned off once class begins. When I ask a question, I invariably receive a one word answer. When I suggest it would be better for them -- in class and in life -- to answer questions in complete sentences, they shrug and put forward yet another sentence fragment. As soon as class ends, most of my students usually don't engage one another in conversation. Instead, they take out their devices to listen to whatever messages they might have received during the 75-minute class period.
To make matters even more challenging, most of my students don't read newspapers or magazines -- even those that are on-line. Many of them have never seen a play in a theater. Few of them go museum exhibitions. What's more, they don't go the movies very much. If they read a book, it's more than likely a text that someone like me has assigned as a class reading. My students rarely, if ever, come to see me for a person-to-person interchange in my office, where I usually sit alone during the five hours a week I am supposed to be there. In short, these narrowly focused activities have produced an increasingly large group of "educated" university students who appear to be ignorant of the world in which they live.
At first glance my commentary has all the makings of common inter-generational complaint. Will these kids ever learn how to get beyond their boredom? Will they be able to take part in a give-and-take conversation or debate? Will they ever become cultural as well as cyber citizens?
I don't mean to belittle the wonders of social media that have and will continue to transform -- in positive ways -- our system of education, our access to information networks as well as the texture of our social relations. And yet as a scholar of social life, I wonder what the future will hold?
There will be countless new devices that will accelerate information transfers, sharpen the images we see on our phones and tablets -- devices that will reduce further our attention spans. In universities technological innovation will create a mass audience of distance learners who may never enjoy an eye-opening face-to-face exchange with their professor--one of the priceless experiences of the university experience. If debates in Congress are indicative, emergent patterns of communication may create vast networks of disconnected people who find it difficult to communicate or, worse yet, compromise.
Confronting an incredibly seductive array of "devices" we sometimes forget that the foundation of any society is the ability of its members to interact, communicate, and compromise for the common good. If we lose our capacity to engage in civil and meaningful dialogue and debate, what can we expect when we get bored and have only old "games" to play?
As a professor who has been in the trenches of higher education for more than 30 years, I feel it is the charge of the university to create a real space for dialogue, debate and meaningful social interaction so that our future conversations will ensure the quality of social life as we slip into challenging new worlds. Will our politicians and university administrators support this important mission?]]>Mali Meditationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25264312013-01-23T14:15:02-05:002013-03-25T05:12:01-04:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
It is now Mali's turn to be in the spotlight. Mali, once the jewel of West African democracies, has unfortunately slipped into the news. Al-Qaida affiliated Islamist groups have overtaken and now control the northeastern provinces of the Sahelian nation, In towns like Timbuktu, a great center of Islamic scholarship and Gao, the place from which 16th Songhay emperors ruled over an empire that stretched across most of West Africa, the Islamists, many of whom are not even Malian, have established sharia law, which they enforce ruthlessly on the traditionally moderate Muslims of the region. The political anemia of the international community, not to forget that of the Malian state, has enabled the Islamists to reinforce their power. Could Mali turn into a rogue Islamist state like Afghanistan, or Somalia from which terrorists could plan European and North American attacks?
The Islamists, who are well armed and well supplied, have now moved their offensive to the south, inching closer to the Malian capital of Bamako. Those recent troop movements have finally compelled French and West African military intervention. The French and West African forces have bombed Islamist strongholds and attacked Islamist outposts. True to the form of other civil conflicts in Africa, the escalating chaos has provoked a Malian exodus from the region. Thousands of people have abandoned their homes and fled to the Malian south, to Burkina Faso and to Niger where authorities are ill equipped to deal with this latest humanitarian crisis.
Two important elements get lost in the here and now of the mainstream news shuffle. News stories about Islamists in Mali rarely take a historical perspective. The peoples of the northeastern provinces Mali are no strangers to Arab invasions from the North. In the late 16th century an Arab army marched across the Sahara and put an end to the Songhay Empire, installing a pasha to govern the region. From the perspective of Songhay people I've known over the years, the conflict between north and south, between "red-skinned" people from the north, and "black-skinned" peoples from the south has deep historical roots.
Spread through the oral tradition of epic poetry that is now performed on radio and television, the West Africans I've known have a deep and detailed sense of history. That historical vision is focused not only on the distant past but also on the far-off future. It is a vision that considers the slow, but eventual shift of historical winds.
The other element that is lost in the news shuffle is the social and cultural resilience of West African peoples. What has impressed me repeatedly during many years of research among a variety of West African populations is their capacity to adapt brilliantly to the considerable challenges of everyday life. No matter the challenge, most of them have been able to meet it. If they feel the pain of poverty, illness or dislocation, to borrow from the title of Scott Youngstedt's recently published book about urban life in Niger, they are nonetheless Surviving With Dignity.
I cannot predict the outcome of what may turn out to be a long lasting military conflict in Mali. Even so, it is worthwhile to pay attention not only to the short-term news of military maneuvers and human suffering, but also to the long term stories of human resilience. Those stories remind us that even in the direst circumstances, human beings have the capacity to meet existential challenges with a measure dignity and well-being.]]>End of Year Reflections on American Culture and Politicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23849322012-12-30T16:15:36-05:002013-03-01T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
Here is my anthropological take.
Most anthropologists distinguish between social change, which usually fosters new configurations of families, communities, or institutions, and cultural change, which reflects fundamental shifts in beliefs and attitudes, which, in turn, prompt changes in every day behavior. Social change tends to be immediate. People need to respond immediately and directly to changing social circumstances. If your daughter loses her job or a loved one becomes incapacitated, they might have to move in with you, which would alter the social make-up of your household. Cultural change proceeds at a much slower pace. Despite the many social and technological changes that have occurred during the past 100 years, many of our ideal attitudes about family life, gender, religion, race and individual liberty, all of which have an impact on how we behave, have remained unchanged.
Consider President Obama's significant re-election. You would think that the re-election would have finally granted him a measure of legitimacy. He was elected twice with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. But millions of Americans still cannot seem to live with the idea of an African American President. Longstanding attitudes about race, state's rights, limited government, individual liberty, which are interconnected in various ways, are difficult to change. Despite the economic and social consequences of the "fiscal cliff" and the upcoming debt ceiling debate, this set of attitudes has been and probably will be a prescription for political dysfunction.
Consider the reaction to the slaughter of children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. Here again the immediate reaction is a call for stricter gun control legislation, which has already resulted in a debate about guns in American culture. The advocates of gun control are seeking social and legal solutions to the significant problem of violence on our streets and in out schools. The NRA and other gun rights supporters advocate more guns -- armed police in every schools, armed teachers in university classrooms and so on. Their advocacy for more guns comes from the deep-seated American frontier belief, rooted in particular interpretations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that guns are a symbol of individual liberty. If President Obama takes away my guns, to underscore the illogical fear of many American gun owners, then he'll take way the remainder of my individual liberties. Even though the Newtown killings profoundly disturbed all of us, many people don't see why it should create a scenario in which the Federal Government can continue its quest to undermine individual liberty. Because of the tragic cultural symbolism of the Newtown school shootings, Congress may pass some form of gun control legislation. But given the recalcitrance of cultural conflict, which usually gives rise to ongoing political gridlock, it is likely that such legislation will be watered down. No matter the extent of the legislation or the passion of the debate, the extensive and culturally contoured fear of gun loss will compel millions of American to buy more guns -- including assault rifles.
Finally, consider the reaction to Superstorm Sandy. The immediate response to the devastating storm, the most destructive weather event in American history, was overwhelming. Millions of people donated millions of dollars to disaster relief. Americans take cultural pride in volunteering their services or donating their hard-earned money to help the victims of various kinds of natural disasters. But such heart-felt spirit has not yet translated into significant action to slow down and ultimately reverse the devastating consequences of climate change. Climatologists tell us that given the human-induced rise of global temperatures, we can expect many more events like Superstorm Sandy. Even so, millions of Americans do not trust the findings of these non-partisan scientists. They say that climate science is a sham that will enable the government to increase its regulation of business and, by extension, American social and cultural life.
In 2013 will ongoing social change prompt significant cultural change? Probably not. In the short-term, we are probably in store for more political gridlock and economic stagnation.In the not so distant future, however, the sweep of social and technological change will eventually result in a cultural and political landscape that will be a more accurate reflection of the cultural evolution of our multilingual and multicultural society.]]>Fearing a Diverse Futuretag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22742512012-12-11T11:27:13-05:002013-02-10T05:12:02-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
The shock of political loss continues in the GOP. In the wake of President Obama's resounding victory, there are many people in the GOP base who refuse to accept the election results, let alone the legitimacy of President Obama. Some of them still think he's not a real American (a God-fearing white man) but a "foreign other" who is really a socialist, inexorably leading America toward godless Communism. Consider what Sarah Palin, who represents the ideological foundation of the GOP base, recently said to Sean Hannity on Fox News.
So I say, Republicans, go back to what the planks in your platform represent ... It represents reining in government, putting back the power and the responsibility in the individual, not in the state, not in government. Again, that gets us towards socialism. What goes beyond socialism, Sean, is Communism. I know I'm going to get slammed for speaking so bluntly about what's going on here, but that is exactly what is going on.
Millions of Americans share Palin's concern. What gives?
Pundits have put forward a number of explanations. When it comes to shifting demographics, several analysts argue that the GOP inner circle hadn't bothered to read the 2010 census data, which suggests that America is rapidly becoming a multilingual and multicultural society. Many of the people who make up the GOP base, according to several commentators, live in an alternative universe in which social reality has more in common with life in the 1950s than in the social realities of 21st century America. It is a universe of climate change deniers, creationists, anti-science crusaders, and conspiracy theorists. When it comes to denying the election results or President Obama's legitimacy, many pundits have suggested that large swaths of the GOP base harbor racist sentiments.
Considering the range of GOP reactions to President Obama's re-election from an anthropological vantage, my guess is that the GOP disconnect results from two culturally contoured emotions that are interconnected: 1) a fear of change; and 2) a fear of difference.
Very few people like change of any sort. Change unsettles your life and leads you to an uncertain path. Indeed, most people find it difficult to live with uncertainty. So when people in the GOP say that they want to "take America back" they are fueling a nostalgic desire for a kinder, simpler, and more certain society in which people (minorities) know their place, in which immigrants want to assimilate into the American mainstream (white and Christian), in which difference is suppressed. The statement also signals a powerful fear of an American future in which non-white populations will become much more economically, socially, culturally and politically powerful. The latter sentiment, of course, is linked to a fear of difference, a fear of people who look different, speak languages other than American English, or practice religions other than Christianity.
Change is frightening, but anthropologists have long argued that a society that cannot adapt to changing social or technological environments is destined lose its spark and fade way. Although the widespread fear of difference is real, it is empirically unfounded. Consider Roger Sanjek's award-winning book, The Future of Us All. In that work, Sanjek reports on his anthropological study of one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse neighborhoods in America -- Elmhurst-Corona in Queens, New York, a community that provides us a glimpse into the diverse American future. Sanjek wonders how so many people of such diverse language and cultural background could ever get along. Wouldn't such linguistic and cultural and racial diversity bring endless misunderstanding, conflict and social dysfunction? After more than a decade of research in the neighborhood, Sanjek found that diversity had little negative effect on the community. Indeed, he discovered that that people of Elmhurst-Corona were able to blend the strengths of their diverse social and cultural traditions to create a robust community that has flourished economically and socially -- a model of the future in a multicultural and multilingual and multiracial America.
So what happens if the GOP's fear of change and difference persists even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence that demonstrates that American society is rapidly becoming a multilingual, multicultural? If the past is indicative, the GOP may, like other social groups that resisted change and refused to incorporate difference, slowly implode leaving its traces in the dustbins of history.]]>Changing Culture in Higher Educationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21559542012-11-26T08:59:40-05:002013-01-26T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
From my vantage in the trenches of public higher education, I fear that there is something terribly amiss in the culture of our colleges and universities. As class sizes have increased arithmetically, faculty workloads have increased exponentially. Those workloads have less to do with the number of classes taught or the number of office hours required. These days administrators, many of whom have adopted business models for running the university, expect faculty member to perform a wide variety of administrative tasks: endless and time-consuming program and curricular assessments, incessant professional evaluations of tenured, non-tenured and temporary faculty--both full and part time--and a never ending stream of departmental, and university meetings about pedagogy, the tenure and promotion process, and information technology and teaching.
What's more, if you actually want to do research, your project must be cleared by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB), which ensures that human research subjects will be protected. To get IRB clearance at my institution, which must be granted before the start of any research project, you need to complete on-line NIH protection of human subjects training, present a certificate of NIH training completion, fill out a long application and provide examples of informed consent documents that research subjects must sign before participating in the project.
In the same vein, if you jump through enough administrative hoops to get authorization to hire a new faculty member, the process is unnecessarily cumbersome. Administrators have to okay the language of the position announcement, accept an instrument for candidate screening, agree with justifications for dropping unqualified applicants from the candidate pool, give an accord for a telephone interview instrument, and give their consent to a standardized final candidate interview instrument.
Such an obstacle course is enough to trigger a serious case of fatigue, if not scholar's remorse.
I recently agreed to serve on a university committee that evaluates research proposals. In the past, you would read the proposals, write comments, meet and discuss the merits of the various research projects and then recommend which proposals should be funded. Now, we are given a five-page evaluation rubric with a set of weighted categories that need to be scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Once you score each category and multiply the score by that category's weight, you add up the total. Indeed, there are rubrics for just about every institutional task at colleges and universities.
The ever-expanding system of convoluted assessments, endless evaluations and sinuous program and planning requirements has given some university administrators--certainly not all--a degree of hubris about their university roles. Consider the recent experience of one of my colleagues. Because her distinguished record of social science research has an international scope, an administrator asked if she would like to present a research paper at an upcoming university conference about international education.
My colleague was happy to participate.
"Wonderful," the administrator said.
"What do I need to do?" she asked
"Send us a paragraph about your paper, provide audio-visual equipment and schedule a room and a time."
My colleague, a respected and distinguished scholar, declined the administrator's "generously" disrespectful offer.
In many, if not most institutions of contemporary higher learning a troubling irony has emerged. In those scholarly institutions, there is an increasingly limited pool of institutional respect for scholars and the results of their hard and time-consuming labor--scholarship.
This reservoir of morale depleting disrespect is the result of a gradual and increasingly powerful cultural shift--the use of business models to run universities. Having witnessed this gradual shift over the past 30 years, I fear that these cultural changes, which tend to have longstanding consequences,, threaten to undermine the heart and soul of the university--a respect for the construction and articulation of knowledge. It takes time and considerable effort to develop courses, craft a research proposal, conduct research, or to write essays and monographs that report research findings. In the corporate culture of the contemporary American universities--a virtual minefield of administrative obstacles--time and patience are in increasingly short supply.
Such a cultural climate discourages student creativity and makes a career in the academy less and less attractive to our best and brightest. Such a culture will not change until university administrators and their corporate and political benefactors truly return to the belief that the vitality of their institutions is inextricably linked to the creativity, productivity and morale of their faculties.
I'm afraid that our current cultural course is destined to lead us into an educational wasteland that no one wants to confront.]]>Quick Fixes in Life and Politicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20693012012-11-04T20:49:16-05:002013-01-04T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
Given the social context of impatience, we have one presidential candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, who promises us a quick fix to our economic and social problems. Trust me, Mr. Romney is saying, because I have a plan, the details of which remain unknown, that will restore 12 million American jobs in four years. Given the impatient nature of our society, such a quick fix has wide ranging appeal. We all want a better life and a better society and if we can achieve these goals -- quickly and without pain or struggle -- that's a good deal. Indeed, millions of Americans appear to believe in Mr. Romney's mysterious plan for a quick fix.
President Obama, however, has never promised us a quick fix. He took office during an almost unparalleled economic meltdown and his policies are slowly beginning to turn around the American economy. His program seeks not only to stabilize our economy but prepare it for the future. Such important work takes time. In essence, the result of the 2012 election will ultimately depend on questions of trust and patience. Will the proposed quick fix make things better -- or worse?
In my life I know a thing or two about quick fixes. When I did fieldwork among the Songhay people in the Republic of Niger, the elders there liked to criticize my youthful impatience. They routinely said that it would take me a lifetime to learn the whys and wherefores of their culture.
"Life," they liked to say, "is patience."
I didn't fully understand the wisdom of this adage until many years later, when my father decided to have back surgery. Suffering for many years from scoliosis, he no longer wanted to live with continuous pain. Despite suggestions from family members, he refused message therapy did not take yoga classes and saw no benefit in acupuncture, which meant that he didn't give himself the chance to see if those activities might gradually ease his pain. Despite his advanced age and his kidney condition, he steadfastly believed that surgery would be a quick fix for his pain. Tragically, he died from complications following the back surgery. He died from a quick fix.
When I learned in 2001 that I had cancer, I too wanted a quick fix. Who wouldn't want a quick fix from cancer? Wasn't there a pill or a procedure that would just make it disappear -- without pain or suffering? My oncologist calmly and quickly disabused me of any such belief. He outlined a long, difficult and, yes, painful regimen of chemotherapy. In chemotherapy you drip poison into the body to make it better and stronger, but it usually does not result in a cure. At the end of a course of cancer treatment, in fact, most patients enter the netherworld of remission. You are no longer "sick" but are told that the cancer might very well return. In such a state, you are somewhere between health and illness. When it comes to cancer, quick fixes become irrelevant. They are quickly replaced by dignified resolve and a profound resilience.
In the face of serious illness, life is patience.
The same wisdom can be applied to politics. Most non-partisan economists and even the editorial board of the politically right of center Economist believe that Mr. Romney's economic quick fixes will not work. If they are put into effect, ideas designed as a rapid and pain-free solution to our woes are likely to have the opposite impact -- the inexorable spread of needless economic and social suffering.
President Obama talks to the American people in much the same way as my oncologist talks to me. We have made progress, but there is much more we have to do. Like cancer, our problems are complex. Like cancer, they require long-term solutions and an investments in the future. Indeed, President Obama understands that there are no quick fixes to our economic and social problems.
If we are impatient and vote for Mr. Romney and his quick fix, our shortsightedness will condemn us to repeat and relive the mistakes of our recent past. If we reject the snake oil salesmanship of the quick fix and opt for Mr. Obama's unsentimental reasonableness, his dignified resolve and his profound resilience, we'll follow an uncluttered path leading to a socially just and economically robust 21st century.
In the face of serious social and economic problems, life is patience, and President Obama has the intelligence and foresight to meet the challenges of the future. A vote for him on November 6 moves us away from the past and propels us toward the future.]]>Say What You Mean and Do What You Saytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20344172012-10-28T11:42:51-04:002012-12-28T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
"In life," that voice used to say, "character counts."
"The betrayal of trust," that voice would suggest, "almost always ruins a friendship."
These wise statements are not empty words. I first heard them and took them to heart as a young anthropologist conducting research in an isolated corner of the Republic of Niger in West Africa.
In that poor and desolate part of the world, an old man, Adamu Jenitongo, had asked me to "sit" with him to learn about traditional healing. When I began to learn from him, he set the moral compass of our relationship.
"If you want to learn about healing and power," he said, "you and I have to create a relationship of trust. If your character is clean, our trust will grow strong. If your character is dirty, our trust will be betrayed and our relationship will be broken. In time, I will know the depth of your character which will tell me if we should move forward together."
"I hope that will be the case," I said.
"In everything you do," he said pointing his finger at me, "remember this: 'Say what you mean and do what you say.' "If you do that," he continued, "people will know who you are and will trust you to heal them."
Thinking back to that prophetic lesson, I wonder whether President Obama or Gov. Romney can heal a dysfunctional political system that has torn to shreds the moral fabric of our society. Beyond all the rhetoric, the talking points and the manicured sets of statistical data, beyond the messaging that has been contoured to this or that focus group, do these men say what they mean and do what they say?
While President Obama has pursued policies that have often disappointed and sometimes outraged his followers, he has demonstrated a steady hand in both domestic and foreign affairs. Whether you agree or disagree with his policies, he has been consistent and resolute. When he has had to make hard decisions that have affected the lives of people he has wisely relied on the advice of a wide range of advisers. In the end, though, he alone has had to make tough choices and accept moral responsibility for their consequences. Before he was president Mr. Obama said that given the right set of circumstances, he'd go after Osama bin Laden. When those circumstances presented themselves last year, President Obama made the decision to "take out" the world's most wanted man. Before making the decision, he didn't call for a vote of his advisers or commission of survey that would predict that decision's political consequences. Instead, he looked deeply into his being and risked his presidency to do the right thing. That is saying what you mean and doing what you say.
Governor Romney is a good man but we can only speculate how he might have handled the Osama bin Laden situation. We do know that in terms of policy positions, he has been endlessly inconsistent -- for and against abortion, first against deadlines for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and then for the deadlines, first against the auto bailout and then claiming some credit for Detroit's economic comeback.
Beyond the blather that is commonplace in most political campaigns, Governor Romney has not presented a set of coherent philosophical principles that would give us some insight into how he would make decisions, especially those hard choices he would have to make in the in the presidency's lonely zone. What kind of man is Governor Romney? Is he resolute? Is he principled? Does he have the courage to make life or death decisions? In short has he demonstrated the character to be our president?
My mentor used to say: "You must always listen to what a person says, but pay special attention to what he or she does." A true test of a person's character, he taught me, is whether he or she stands up for what is right even when doing so risks the displeasure of friends and allies. A person fails the test if he or she is expedient -- a choice that avoids the lonely discomforts of the unpopular path.
Based on the public record, my mentor would rate President Obama as a man of principle who speaks with one mouth and one heart. He would rate Governor Romney as an expedient man who speaks with two mouths and two hearts.
"You can never trust a man who speaks with two mouths and two hearts," my mentor taught me long ago. "Such a man," he told me, "destroys trust and harmony. Such a man should never become a healer" -- or, I would add, a president.]]>Educational Futurestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19678732012-10-16T17:51:34-04:002012-12-16T05:12:02-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
Consider the case of Mona, a 17-year-old high school senior who is currently applying to colleges. As a friend of her family, I've known Mona for most of her life. Over the years, I've happily watched her become a thoroughly engaging and accomplished young woman. In high school Mona has maintained a 4.02 grade point average. In addition, she's an athlete who competes -- quite successfully -- in track and field. In recognition of her broadly based excellence in the classroom and in athletics, the newspaper of her city named Mona to the All-Metro Academic Team for 2011-12. In 2011, her classmates elected Mona the president of her school's junior class. If that's not enough, she donates much of her spare time to community service.
Given this record of accomplishment, you might think that Mona's life has been easy. It hasn't. She's a child of divorce. What's more her family has faced stressful financial challenges. This summer her maternal as well as her paternal grandfather died, one after a long debilitating illness, the other quite unexpectedly. In the finely crafted essay that she wrote for college admission applications, she didn't dwell too much on her impressive array of achievements. Instead she reflected rather philosophically on the meaning of loss in her young life. The rich examples of her grandfathers' lives, she wrote, have steeled her resolve to be more compassionate, to honor her promises and to complete what she starts no matter the degree of the difficulty.
Mona's compassionate determination embodies our social future. She is an exceptional young woman, but there are thousands upon thousands of young people who are like Mona. Like her, they are smart and full of excitement and energy -- about their future, our future. What will become of them?
They are at a critical juncture. If we invest in them, we secure their future as well as our own. Once more fully supported, investment in education has now sailed into the troubled waters of contemporary politics. Bent on cutting budgets sapped by unnecessary and counter-productive tax cuts, local and state governments have laid off teachers, and cut funding for education. GOP officials, including Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, would like to severely reduce or eliminate federal education programs, like Pell grants. Those grants help students -- kids like Mona -- to afford the ever-expanding cost of higher education, an education that will secure their future as well as own.
Our society, of course, is also at a critical junction. If Governor Romney gets to enact his state-rights, "free enterprise" vision of education, which is, in essence, a set of 19th century ideas designed to confront the complex reality of 21st century education, our schools and colleges will be eviscerated and millions of students will not have the wherewithal to better their lives and contribute to our collective future.
Like most middle class kids, Mona cannot follow Governor Romney's out-of-touch suggestion to ask her family for the money to go to the world class college of her choice. In these hard times, her family doesn't have the resources to support fully their child's higher education. How sad it would be if budget cuts would deny Mona the educational opportunities that she clearly merits. Indeed, supporting Mona's world class education is a social investment worth making.
Before you consider your choices on election day, take time to think about kids like Mona before your vote. Your vote will shape her future -- and ours as well.]]>Reading in Dim and Dimmer Legislative Lighttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19140412012-09-25T16:09:40-04:002012-11-25T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/ThinkProgress, here's what Senator Rouzer said:
When I served in the executive branch for about year and a half, and learned how the bureaucrats operate. It gives me a lot of insight to defund them and get rid of them. When I went over to the Department of Energy one day, you walk down the hall and most of them are drawing 6-figure salaries are sitting there reading books and reading magazines. Ladies and gentleman we can devolve, get rid of the Department of Energy and move some of those responsibilities back the states. Department of Commerce, same thing. HUD, Housing and Urban Development same thing. If you look at the decline of education, it started when the federal government got involved in it. That's another agency.
If you consider the indelicacies of Senator Rouzer's grammar, his disdain for Department of Energy civil servants who actually read books (perhaps scientific reports) and actually read magazines (perhaps scientific journals), or his ignorance of the significance of the word "devolve," you might conclude that instead of being the GOP standard bearer for North Carolina's 7th congressional district, he'd be better suited as a nominee for an Ignoble, or better yet, a Darwin Award. Sadly, Senator Rouzer is the epitome of a trend toward American educational devolution that encourages a know-nothing, anti-intellectual suspicion of scholarship in the sciences, social sciences and humanities. In fact, Senator Rouzer, according to Scott Keyes... "has made a career of stymieing scientific knowledge. He grabbed headlines earlier this year when he pushed a bill through the North Carolina Senate that banned the state from using scientific models of sea-level rise that would affect the state."
Ignorance of scientific, social scientific and humanistic knowledge is solidly entrenched in contemporary American society. Millions of Americans, for example, following the dictates of creationist dogma, believe that the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. As reported by Dylan Lovan of the AP, a June Gallup Poll "found that 46 percent of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form about 10,000 years ago." Indeed, laws have been enacted in Tennessee and Louisiana that allow the teaching of creationism in public schools. Reacting to these Bill Nye, also known as "the science" guy made the following statement in Lovan's article:
If we raise a generation of students who don't believe in the process of science, who think that everything we've come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you're not going to continue to innovate.
Innovation, of course, requires creative outside-of-the-box-thinking, a kind of thinking that is completely absent in the unscientific absolutisms of creationism. Innovation and invention also require broad and deep reading. When it comes to reading, however, there is troubling news from The College Board which this week reported a decline in SAT reading and writing scores. In fact, the 2012 SAT reading scores are the lowest since 1972. In a press release College Board President Gaston Caperton said: "Our nation's future depends on the strength of our education system. When less than half of the kids who want to go to college are prepared to do so, that system is failing."
As one who has been a university educator for more than 30 years I would add
that our nation's future depends on the capacity to nurture our students, to demonstrate to them the benefits of reading widely and thinking deeply. Such reading and thinking triggers our imagination and broadens our perspective in a digitally interconnected world. And yet, we cannot nurture our students unless our society decides to fully support educational programs and institutions that not only enhance reading and writing but demonstrate the profundity of scientific and social scientific knowledge. In the classic sense, such knowledge should lead us toward wisdom--the knowledge that makes life sweeter.
When students enter my classroom I am often struck by how many of them seemed dazed and distracted. Their eyes appear dull, unfocused and uninterested. I am equally struck by their lack of curiosity. They don't seem to read very much, are unfamiliar with names let alone the works of Plato and Aristotle, and haven't even seen important films--both past and present. Each semester, my challenge is to reach these students. Sometimes I fail, but when I succeed it is thrilling to observe how the light of awareness enters into their minds, generating a gentle sparkle in their eyes. At that moment I know that these students will make their way in the world and contribute significantly to their families, their chosen profession and to their communities
And yet the odds are prohibitively against such educational connection. In public education, we teach in increasingly crowded classrooms. We also teach in an intellectually hostile climate in which administrators and legislators, who control public educational budgets, give priority to the promotion of skill acquisition over the development of critical thinking. If you add to this portrait the impact of public servants like Senator David Rouzer who want to "devolve" scientific institutions, you get the full picture: the legislative light grows dimmer and dimmer directing us toward the darkness.
Even in the dim and dimmer glow of legislative light, however, the potential of my students remains remarkably impressive. Having been in the educational trenches for a very long time, I know that if we give these students our support, if we invest our resources in them, we ensure our future.]]>Presidential Debates and the Culture of Expediencytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18922522012-09-18T13:07:44-04:002012-11-18T05:12:02-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
"How many languages did Moussa say he spoke?" he asked me.
"Four."
"Hah, " he said. "I know he speaks only two languages.
"What!"
So I went over to see Moussa, also a shop owner. He admitted that he spoke only two languages.
"Why did you tell me you spoke four languages?" I asked.
"What difference does it make?"
He laughed so hard his entire body shook. "How many languages did Mounkaila say he spoke?" he asked.
"Two, " I answered.
"Hah! Moussa exclaimed. "I know for certain that he speaks only one language."
"What!"
So I went back to Mounkaila's shop and discovered that, indeed, he spoke only one language.
"How could you lie to me?" I asked.
Mounkaila shrugged: "What difference does it make, Monsieur Paul?"
Given this turn events I thought it prudent to check up on the other 178 interviews I had recorded. I discovered that everybody had lied to me!
What difference did it make?
In the culture of expediency, you lie to protect yourself, as in the West African case, or you lie to procure an advantage in a competitive environment. Expedient behavior, of course, is not limited to my West African example. It seems as if we in America have wandered into the boundless netherworld of expediency in which our buzzword has become "whatever."
Some my students engage in the culture of expediency. They often select courses that are "easy," meaning that minimal effort magically produces maximum results. When students learn that they have to write two or three research papers in a number of my classes, many of them drop the course, usually citing time constraints. On some occasions I discover that students buy research papers on-line and turn them in as their own work. In the culture of expediency, these on-line research paper clearinghouses do a booming business. It is an expedient way to cut corners and still perform brilliantly in the increasingly competitive classroom. The massive cheating scandal at Harvard University, of all places, is a case n point.
What difference does it make?
Expedient behavior, however, may well reach its zenith in the arena of contemporary American politics. Politicians of all persuasions, few of whom are candidates for "profiles in courage," usually take the expedient path. In their presentations and platforms, they omit, misdirect, and even lie--all to stay on message. Staying on message, they think, will garner the votes that will lead them to an all-important victory.
Although the Obama campaign engages in expedient behavior, the chutzpah of Romney-Ryan ticket has redefined the culture of expediency in America. Here are some well-known examples:
-----Unlike all presidential candidates in recent times, Governor Romney refuses to make public the last ten years of his tax returns. It is not expedient to expose financial details that the opposition might criticize. Resisting pressure even from allies in his own party, it appears that Governor Romney will remain steadfast in his refusal. What difference does it make?
-----Romney-Ryan continue to peddle the beneficence of trickle down economics even though the historical data show irrefutably that cutting taxes has not produced an economic boom--quite the contrary. And yet they keep reciting the same old mantra. What difference does it make?
-----Both Romney and Ryan have a consistent record of "fixing the truth." It has been widely reported that Ryan's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was filled with misleading information and lies. The exposure of these misleading statements, half-truths and lies hasn't seemed to bother Mr. Ryan. For his part, Governor Romney's craven reaction to the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was factually incorrect, but gave him an opening to criticize President Obama as a sympathizer of radical Islam. Thinking that his false message was a vote winner, Governor Romney has refused to correct himself. Sounding like George W Bush on speed, he has "doubled-down" on the factually incorrect narrative of Obama as a president who "apologizes" for America. If this "made-up" narrative gets him the votes he needs, why should he care about its truthfulness?
What differences does it make?
Sadly, this list scratches the surface of a GOP alternate universe in which there is no proof of climate change, in which sustainable technologies that will secure our energy and protect our planet are mocked, in which Darwinian evolution becomes heretical, in which teaching critical thinking endangers "family values."
What difference does it make?
It makes a profound difference because in a universe in which falsehoods, half-truths and lies are pooh-poohed or given "whatever" status the universe becomes an illusory world without foundation. Indeed, the disastrous record of George W Bush's Administration is a sober reminder of the economic, political and existential ramifications of a groundless worldview.
The upcoming presidential debates will no doubt showcase politically expedient behavior, which means that viewers will be compelled to isolate a few rivulets of truth from a flood of fiction. In so doing, they might want to evaluate the debate in accordance with a wise adage from the Songhay people of the Republic of Niger:
"You cannot walk where there is no ground."]]>Thinking About Lance Armstrongtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18537282012-09-05T12:53:57-04:002012-11-05T05:12:01-05:00Paul Stollerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-stoller/
How will these developments alter Lance Armstrong's public impact?
Consider my indirect relationship to Lance Armstrong. I've never met him, but my brother served as President and CEO of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. During his tenure my brother oversaw the LIVESTRONG-wristband campaign, which, using the celebrity of Lance Armstrong and the potent symbolism Tour de France 'yellow," raised millions of dollars for the Foundation, the central purpose of which is to give aid and encouragement to millions of people who suffer--directly and indirectly--from the ravages of cancer. My brother's association with Lance Armstrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation made me very proud.
Like more than 10 million cancer patients, I am also connected to Lance Armstrong through our mutual experience of the dreaded disease. I began treatment for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in 2001, six months or so after Armstrong had won his second Tour de France. Could I be like him and make myself strong enough to confront cancer? I didn't know, but reading his book, It's Not About the Bike, and watching clips of his great achievements encouraged me during some of the low points of my cancer treatment program--months of five-hour chemotherapy and immunotherapy sessions as well as bouts of fatigue, bone and joint pain, numbness in the extremities and other debilitating side effects. If someone could come back from cancer and win the Tour de France, I told myself, then I could certainly try to get through the physical and emotional challenges of cancer treatment and steel my resolve to restore a life that the cancer had turned upside down. During dreadful moments of the utter loneliness that cancer patients often experience, I sometimes envisioned Lance Armstrong streaking up a steep hill or crossing the finish line in Paris. Looking back, I can say unequivocally that for me no doping allegation will ever wash way the memory of Armstrong's triumphs. They provided me deep comfort during treatment and profound encouragement during remission..
I don't know if Lance Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career. I do know that his tireless work for people like me, who must live everyday in the shadow of cancer, has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and cancer outreach. On a more existential level, his tireless efforts have made life sweeter for a large and ever-increasing community of people touched in some way by cancer.
When I next ride my bike along a trail that runs along the beautiful Brandywine River in Wilmington, Delaware, I will be thinking about Lance Armstrong--with deep gratitude,