THE HARPIES

HARP ON SOUTHERN CULTURE, POP CULTURE, HIGH CULTURE, LOW CULTURE, NO CULTURE

[theharpiesharp]

On Compromise

by Pamela

With all the partisan rumblings both at the local and federal level, citizens are left asking, “How did anything ever get done in government?”

It used to be that Republicans and Democrats had contrasting views on everything. This has not changed. A bipartisan policy is mostly a farce. Sure, politicians will choose something universally agreed upon, like education, to show cooperation. But the reality is, even those policy issues show fundamental differences in ideology. Republicans are forcing the privatization of schooling through programs like school choice  and vouchers, while Democrats are rallying behind free education at the postgraduate level. Everyone wants a better education system, but the Republican and Democratic ideologies could not be more different.

This is not to say it is a bad thing. The differing viewpoints, even within the parties, create a spectrum of conservatism and liberalism which allows for checks and balances. When it comes to the issue of cooperation, it is almost impossible in the current social media climate for lawmakers to concede anything to the opposing party. Before the mainstream internet, voters just did not know that their elected Democrat agreed to oil drilling on federal land in order to push through funding for Planned Parenthood.

We need politicians that will form consensus. The Washington Post argues that the Republican establishment will choose Trump over Cruz just because of his ability to compromise. Even Trent Lott and Tom Daschle have written a book claiming that bipartisan governing is possible if lawmakers just develop relationships with each other and communicate. But the issue is much deeper than that. The electorate has always been fanatical. Before social media and sound bites from Washington, the constituents did not know how far the leveraging and compromise went against party platforms. What was read in the paper had context and delay. The constituents would still freak out, but separation between those in power and the people allowed collaboration without fear of immediate reprisal. Were some scandals probably swept under the rug? Absolutely. But need to build advertising revenue through clicks created a journalism zeitgeist that can no longer be contained. Is it the fault of journalism, or is it the fault to the listicle-happy consumer? Probably both. But the problem will not be solved by the people. It is the institutions that have to develop guidelines and push through change.

Although social media allows the fleshing out of policy ideas, the reason we elect a representative government in a republic rather than a true democracy is to allow momentum. Do politics really need to be more accessible in order to be more accountable? As the old adage says, ‘Too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth.’

January 21, 2016

[theharpiesharp]

On Certification

by Pamela

I need to professionally certify my labor.

Grow your skills.

How else will occupations police themselves?

Like a board certified doctor. Not like those below the border doctors.

We took away their funding.

Keep people out. Aim for the gold watch.  Pension paid.

Premium paid.

Certification is authentic. I hold it in my hand. I paid for it.

First on my resume. Filtered through search engine optimization.

Your accomplishments vetted. In twelve point font.

My vitae is only as strong as the keywords.

My title is authentic.

 I need to experientially certify my labor.

Grow your skills.

How else will they know I am qualified?

Every so often spoken like a Southern Baptist preacher.

Find your path. Scratch that. Find your path.

Make something artisan.

The Sumatran beans are authentically roasted a block away.

You don’t need no schoolin’, Son!

You’re a master of your minimum wage.

Genuine pay for true labor.

My labor is only as pure as the product.

My experience is convincing.

January 19, 2016

[theharpiesharp]

On Stereotypes

by Pamela

Stereotypes are ingrained in culture and society. Based on both physical and latent qualities, stereotypes represent both the best and worst of the characterizing group. The can be negative- blondes are dumb, or positive- Asians are smart. They are never neutral.  Although they appear at face value to represent patterns of the average of a group, stereotypes reveal more about the group making the inference.

The stereotypes of people of color are perpetuated by the predominant white culture, despite the rising population of non-white citizens. These stereotypes might change with new demographic trends, but for now, the stereotype of the lazy brown person permeates cultural memory. Whether it is a sleeping Mexican in a sombrero yard art, or the omnipresent lazy Welfare queen myth, these stereotypes are strictly associated with people of color. This essay argues that the stereotype is not essential to the afficted group, but that it is a reflection of the pro-work labor economy immortalized by Big America.

White people characterize these groups with laziness, not because they are lazy, but because they do not or cannot work. With such a high priority on hard work and profitable labor, American society devalues any type of unemployment or idleness. And it is not just devaluing, but a detesting of all nonwork. Whether or not they are allowed equal access to labor (they aren’t) is less important than the projection of laziness on an entire group of people. People of color were not stereotyped as lazy because of nonwork. The enslaved African American population single-handedly built the wealth of an entire nation from their labor. They were stereotyped as lazy because the dominant group needed to project negative cultural values on the subordinate group to maintain supremacy. People of color had no access to work and were pigeonholed as lazy. Once their cultural identity was synonymous with laziness, they could not be hired even if there were jobs available. The purposeful stereotype based on white cultural values maintained a societal hierarchy based less on class and more on race. This is unique to American culture because the laziness stereotype paradigm is bolstered by the primacy of capitalism.

January 15, 2016

[theharpiesharp]

On Hollywood

by Pamela

Hollywood does not deserve redemption. The film industry continues to perpetuate the same stereotypes and inequalities that drive neocapitalist globalization. Although some players within the industry see themselves as creators of art, moviemaking is about the bottom line. The almighty dollar. This is not a surprise. Creativity is sparked from either hubris or greed. It just depends on how it is marketed.

After winning his Golden Globe last night, Leonardo diCaprio pontificated on the plight of the First Nations peoples in the United States. Leo follows in the steps of Marlon Brando, who in 1973 declined an Academy Award citing the negative treatment of Native Americans in film. But does any of this really matter? Has their quality of life improved? The NFL team in our nation’s capital still flies the defamatory flag.

The problem is not the capacity to recognize the First Nations, but the will to do it. Canada integrates First Nations into every political and social facet with purpose. The old stereotypes of Native Americans are fading with the coming generations, mostly because the native populations are not visible. Numbering a little over 5 million, the Native American groups make up only 2% of the population.

One can argue the feasibility of reparations or the utility of affirmative action, but the redemption of the white man’s soul begins with a meaningful recognition of the genocide and systematic repression. The presence of Native Americans in this country has to permeate the social and cultural consciousness. This means more than historic markers dotting the highways through the South. Admitting fault is one thing. Making it right is another. If Hollywood money really wanted to influence policy, they would lobby through their creative channels. A soundbite at a self aggrandizing awards show every 40 years is not redemption.

January 11, 2016

[theharpiesharp]

On Commuting

by Pamela

The National Bureau of Economic Research published a January 2016 research study indicating that high income workers are moving back to the city center to increase their centrality to leisure activities. They argue that skilled workers are working more hours, and therefore have less leisure time. The workers try to mitigate their lack of extracurricular time by downsizing their commute. The authors insist that the rise in housing prices in the urban core, and corresponding price decrease in the periphery, is directly related to workers choosing to live proximal to the city center. The increased demand and cost for urban dwellings displaces lower income residents. Basically, more work=> less fun time=> move downtown=> gentrification.

This is not a criticism of the methodology (some lame statistical modeling), or the general consensus that skilled workers are moving into urban areas increasing prices and pushing out unskilled non-workers. (Is that the correct terminology? Because if one group is skilled workers, as indicated by the authors, then the adverse is unskilled non-workers. I’m sure there’s a spectrum between, but not all skilled workers are high income. I digress.)

The problem is the emphasis on “the time scarcity of high income households as the explanation for the reversal of suburbanization…” Yes, these workers want to be close to the city center in order to be in close proximity to various extracurricular diversions. Agreed, workers are increasingly trying to commute their commutes. But, the changing cultural norms cannot be reduced to something as simple as wanting to reduce commuting time. How is the desire for recreation in 2015 city centers any different than the desire of 1950’s suburbanites? The preferred idleness might have changed, but the desire has not. Leisure has always been a prized commodity.

A confluence of factors motivates the shift back to dense urban living. These factors include: changing family units, decrease in family size, a delay in child rearing, desire for a different living experience than their childhood, change in recreational preferences, the extended adolescence of everyone born after 1980, as well as commuting time. Many of these were mentioned by the authors. The cultural shift is a normal cyclical ebb and flow of generational norms. People want a change in experience. This is completely anecdotal, but most people I know live in urban core areas and commute over 30 minutes to their jobs. The choice to live in the city center is based on cultural preference and often supersedes the desire to live near work.

We cannot reduce a demographic shift to a single variable.Maybe this is more of an argument against using positivist methodology to explain cultural nuances.

Article: “Bright Minds, Big Rent: Gentrification and the Rising Returns to Skill”

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21729

January 7, 2016

[theharpiesharp]

On Big America

by Pamela

I’ve had multiple conversations in the past 24 hours with successful 30-something upper middle class white people who have expressed deep regret and existential angst about the state of their being. Well, you say, everyone has a midlife crisis of some sort. No one’s life turns out exactly how they expect. This is universal!

But I am here to argue that it is not universal. The malaise, melancholia, and general ennui of a wide swath of United States citizens are perpetuated by the hovering and unrelenting presence of ‘Big America’.

Big America is what I call the confluence of ideology and cultural norms maintained by mainstream society in the continental United States. The term ‘big’ refers to a holistic, encompassing view of something so gigantic and obtuse that we can’t even begin to define its boundaries or interconnections. It is something that is beyond the reach and scope of change by any one individual (see: Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc.). The networks are so pervasive and complex in their intersectionality that it is difficult to reduce it to simpler terms. But in the same regard, any native has an acute understanding of what this means without much explanation. See, you’ve already got it.

The term ‘America’ is purposely irreverent and meaningful at the same time. As we all know, America is the term for the two connected continents in the Western hemisphere, North America and South America. This includes some 916 million people who could all adopt the moniker ‘American’. Although it is vast land mass of over 16 million square miles covering slightly less than 30% of the planet’s entire surface, the term ‘America’ has been co-opted by citizens of the United States of America without any regard for the rest of the inhabitants of the American continents, and with little or no shame or remorse. It is really the last part, no shame or remorse, which defines the attitude of ‘Americans’.

It could be that despair and despondence endure throughout time in other cultures and within gender, class, and ethnicity, but I believe that the American experience of disquiet anxiety is exceptional. Because it’s America. Go big or go home. Even in your despair. Yes, America is superior in its doldrums, worthier of its weakness, preeminent in its distress. Even our wealthy are miserable. It is never enough. Because of Big America.

Let me explain. Big America is primarily based on the capitalist ideology that you can sell your labor, either as an employee or entrepreneur, for money, which you use to provide for your basic needs, and if you have any left over, to consume everything. But, in Big America, work is at the forefront. And not just any work, hard work. Hard, long, arduous work that leads to success. If it doesn’t lead to success, i.e. envious job title, wealth, lots of possessions, you are a failure. Over 99% of Americans are failures. But Big America doesn’t care. Big America wants you to work. All the time. Just keep working and you might get there. You hate your job; well at least you make money. Work longer and harder and you will make more money. Oh, the only job available is 1000 miles from everyone you know and love? It’s worth it to move there to make more money. The job will offer 2 weeks paid vacation, but you better not take it or people will think you are not committed to the work.

Americans are, by large, miserable because they cannot live up to the expectations of Big America. Humans cannot work all the time without respite. In the long run, even fulfilling basic needs does not make you happy. In Big America, if you do not sell number one records, pitch for the Cardinals, or have your own Netflix comedy special, you are a failure. It is not enough to exist. You must excel. The idea of Big America is built on greatness. The value is placed on wealth, no matter the means to that wealth.

Where does that leave the rest of us? The poor, the working class, the middle class, the “I make six figures and still hate my life” class? It leaves us downcast and somber under the guise of Big America. Trudging along, alone. Giving up hope for excellence. Resigned to mediocrity.

That is, until we have children… maybe our kids will be great!

All hail, Big America!

January 6, 2016