Margeret Thatcher: A Legacy for All People

The politically liberal, Marxist, essentialist feminists out there are about as eager to jump on the corpse of the late Baroness Thatcher as vultures on a recently dead animal. It is claimed that the late Baroness did nothing to represent the collective interests of women; that she reduced the size of the welfare state and somehow harmed women in the process (See the Guardian article below).

I have a bit of news: there is no such thing as the collective interests of women. There is no characteristic of the feminine gender which renders women less capable of supplying their own needs than men.

Only the most disgusting ideological essentialism says that women are inherently weak and need the state to protect them, thus justifying state aid to raise them above the squalor of poverty.

Women have volition. They can choose how to act and behave as rational actors who defend their own self-interest in the free market. The fact that one is born a woman does not determine one’s status in life and does not make one automatically deserving of the aid of the community.

It is often said that the feminist movement(s) have a choice between attempting to elevate domestic work to the same status as labor outside the home or arguing that women should be allowed to leave the domestic realm and engage in non-domestic labor.

For those who want to elevate domestic labor and all of the other essentialized qualities of women to the same status as work outside the home, Margaret Thatcher is a bad example of a feminist.

A woman who had children and yet bridged the gap between being a mother and a politician doesn’t make for a great example of the oppressed woman that the Marxist feminists are looking for.

It is equally true that Thatcher is not the historical norm. In her day, many women with children found it very difficult to have a life outside the home while also raising children. If anything, that should make Thatcher a great example, a heroine of sorts for women who do have children.

If Thatcher did not want to be recognized as a woman, but for the policies she implemented, all the better. That suggests that she did not view her gender as a significant marker of her identity and we would all be the better for living in a world where everyone felt that way about their gender.

In any case, it is wrong to villainize Thatcher as anti-feminist because she believed in free market principles. One does not have to support a ‘feminist ethic of care’ in order to believe that one should not be discriminated against on the basis of one's gender.

  

In fact, I would argue that it is far more productive to look at women as essentially equal and capable of representing themselves in a free market place than it is to coddle them with state subsidies to help them overcome the supposed barriers imposed by gender.

One can be a libertarian feminist; it’s just not in style these days in an academy dominated by the fragments of Marxist and Frankfurt-style political thinking.

And I have to add as a student of communication that if ever you thought there was such a thing as the “feminine style” of communicating; that women somehow communicate differently (perhaps more kind and understanding?) than men. Or if you think that women cannot wield power in a ‘manly’ way, then please purge your essentialist mind and watch this video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVt_1ByddUQ

Rest in Peace Baroness Thatcher, may your spirit chastise those members of your own gender who haven’t the sense to realize your contribution to their own liberation.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-no-feminist

A much better article that describes Thatcher in more sympathetic terms:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-feminist_n_3036864.html

Accusations of Racism in the Academy

When you accuse someone of racism, you are making a very bold claim about the character of the person you allege to be a racist. But we do not treat it as a bold claim any longer, racism is not taken seriously. The claim itself is usually made flippantly.

It is not made flippantly in the office or the public sphere, where there are entities that mediate that claim and subject it to critical analysis. It is made flippantly in the classroom. When one student accuses another of “exercising white privilege” in an argument or using “hegemonic white logic/rationality” they are fundamentally making the claim that the accused individual is a racist.

As a person who is frequently accused of  this kind of so-called racism, I must candidly say that I take it very personally. It takes me aback every time because when I contribute an argument to a classroom discussion, I anticipate that my colleagues will respond using reason (which permits them to disagree with me) but instead, what I receive is essentially an attack on my character.

I believe that rational analysis of an issue is a method of inquiry open to all of us, white or black, male or female and to have such an attack made on me (almost weekly in one class) forces me into a position to do one of two things: I can accept the accusation in silence or fight it.

The truth is, I am only in a position to do the former. I know how to argue that reason is not white or how to explain that you should judge my arguments based on their merits not on their “whiteness” but the form of class discussion does not permit me to defend myself.

My colleagues are either ignorant of the claim being made against me, or are otherwise prepared to accept it. When it comes to accusations of racism, we are not prepared to engage in deliberation concerning the charge.

My colleagues seem to want a quick judgment, a snap assessment of the situation. And I am white (or at least that is the color of my skin) so I must be invested in the power structure of privilege, therefore, I must be a racist who is using privilege and hegemonic rationality to dominate the world.

The charge attaches to me because I am white, as it could against any white person. That ought to be a comment on the validity of the charge but it isn’t these days. In reasoned debate we say that such charges do not “bite” i.e. they are not linked to anything that the accused has actually done or said.

When such charges are made, they shut down my contribution to discussion as I am forced to consider if there is anything actually racist about my position (because I abhor racism, and would never want to exercise a privilege I had not earned). Indeed they are a conversation stopper for all reasonable people who might disagree because they too fear that the academic polis will convict them of its most heinous crime: racism.

Thus, I am left to merely accept the charges lain against me because the Athenians are not prepared to hear my plea but are ready to rhetorically lynch me on the spot, and short of taking the hemlock of silence I do not know how to deal with them.

I am tempted to say to race and gender studies what Aristotle said to Athens when it was prepared to lynch him “I will not permit this [discipline] to commit a second sin against [rational discourse]” and leave off applying my ideas to race and gender permanently. But that seems to be the coward’s way out, so rhetorically lynch me as you will, you will not make me leave the classroom. 

Maybe one day I will become so accustomed to being accused of racism that I snap back faster. And to those ivory tower academics who think we have access to some privileged process of analysis, consider whether our classrooms treat accusations of racism as stringently as the oft decried mass media do.   

*Everything I have written also applies to accusations of sexism, racism is just the charge du jour.

Les Miserables: My Review of the Performance

I have some advice for people who may have recently viewed Les Miserables at the movie theater: open your internet browser of choice, point the browser to youtube.com, in the search field enter “Javert’s Suicide,” click on the first result it returns. The man you see on the screen is Philip Quast, an Australian actor and theater teacher. If you view all five minutes and twenty-four seconds of the video, you will now have experienced a small sample of the real, genuine musical.

The difference between Quast’s performance and Russell Crowe’s in the recent made-for-film musical may not seem that drastic, but Les Mis lovers will find something wanting in the film.

Before I review the actors and the songs, I think it is worth adding this caveat, the film’s worst problems are not the added or omitted lines (though there are some problems there) or the action scenes used to make it more suitable for that medium. The problems arise out of the singing and the acting, not the necessary adaptations made for the screen.

First, while I generally consider Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe to be impostors on the musical scene, it cannot be denied that the film has some hidden gems of talent. A good guide for the talent in this film is: the bigger the name, the smaller the talent. The following well-known actors absolutely botched their characters in the film: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. The only exception to this rule is Anne Hathaway’s performance.

While I’m not prepared to say that her version of “I Dreamed a Dream” is equal to that of Ruthie Henshall or even Susan Boyle, it is not as far from the mark as are so many of the other performances in the film. Moreover, she redeems herself in many of her other performances throughout the film, though she still does not measure up.

As for Jackman and Crowe, they both lack the same thing, the ability to hit the high and low notes respectively. Perhaps this was an intentional element of the performance, but I found that neither of them seemed to give the same kind of range to their voice that other performers in the same roles have. Compared to one another, Crowe makes Jackman sound like a regular Orpheus, staged, as Jackman is, beside such an impoverished voice.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter ruin the roles of Thenardier and his wife, though Bonham Carter very much looks the part. In both of their cases, their characters sang less sharply, less subtly and were much more comical when compared to, for instance, the tenth anniversary performance of the musical where their characters are portrayed as much more comic, bumbling and witty. It’s nevertheless true that they were not given as much stage time as in the musical, the film omits Thenardier’s solo “Dog Eats Dog” and shortens “Beggars at the Feast” to omit the less politically correct lyrics which betray their characters’ racism and homophobia. Perhaps, they are simply forced into this role but they seem very cartoonish on the big screen.

The real gems of the film are: Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks and Daniel Huttlestone. Among these, I would rate Samantha Barks’ (Eponine) performance the highest with Eddie Redmayne (Marius) coming in a close second.

It is not because they are true to the ‘original’ performance that I rate these actors higher. In fact, they make substantial changes to the way the musical has been performed in previous years, but these changes are not deleterious. For instance, Eponine’s “A Little Fall of Rain” as performed by Barks outright trounces Jackman’s performance of “Bring Him Home” which does not adequately express the desperation of Valjean and is at times flat, nasal and whiny. Similarly, Redmayne’s performance is much more alive than and represents an improvement on the singer who was cast as Marius in the 25^th anniversary performance.

It is also worth mentioning the child actor Huttlestone’s performance as Gavroche which is quite effective and an improvement I think on the musical.

I did not know that Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe could sing before viewing this movie but the truth is I’m still not sure either of them can.

On the whole, the best thing about the film was the orchestra’s performance. I strongly recommend finding a copy of the orchestral music from the film, it was enough to make me reluctant to turn on the radio as I left the theater.

It is possible that the film’s many shortcomings are due to the fact that it has descended into the pop culture realm of film from the high art world of musical theater.

The screen does not capture large, dramatic performances well, stage acting is usually much bigger and more vocal, whereas acting and speaking for the camera is subtle and more nuanced. Thus, perhaps it is possible that Crowe’s Javert is less dark and dramatic; Jackman’s Valjean is less passionate and panicked because of the constraints imposed by the medium, not because of the failings of the actors. This problem might also explain the problem of portraying the Thenardiers, who are essentially caricatures in the musical and don’t translate well onto the screen.

In any case, for a musical that is so brilliant and which conveys such powerful feeling, I think a connoisseur should try to see it in person; it’s much more striking that way.  

Big Government Inefficiency at the Smallest Level: A Personal Matter

When a medieval serf wanted to travel to a different area, he or she would need to obtain permission from their Lord in order to do so. The same was true of many activities outside of travel. For instance, they needed permission to marry or plant new crops. To acquire such permission they might seek an audience with their Lord or his Steward.

Obviously, American society is not composed of Serfs and Lords. Instead, we have citizens and petty bureaucrats. Citizens are ostensibly free. Petty bureaucrats exist to give force to the ‘ostensibly’ in the preceding sentence. If one needs a license to drive, hunt, purchase a gun or practice one’s trade; one must seek to obtain an audience with the relevant petty bureaucrat.

Their feudal domains are not geographically divided; they are divided according to the service they provide. I suppose this might represent an innovative, new form of government provided to us as part of the fallout of the enlightenment.

In any case, much like the medieval serf, the modern citizen does not see his or her government operating at the grand level. There is much talk of the problems of ‘big government’ which most people roughly equate to taxes on the wealthy or government regulations of industrial activity.

Although this does harm even the poorest of citizens in ways he or she may not imagine, the more obvious forms of government oppression come at the lower levels where the citizen’s activity is overseen by petty bureaucrats.

I recently decided to attempt to obtain a license and tag in the state of Alabama, where I live, work and vote. What follows is a brief list of the various ways in which my individual liberty as a citizen of this state has been overseen by petty bureaucrats.

1. I went to the tag office, where I was informed that I would need a state license to obtain a tag.

2. At the licensing office, I was informed that I needed certain documents in order to transfer my license from another state to Alabama.

3. The documents provided, I was informed that due to an (alleged) unpaid ticket from 2009, acquired in the State of Louisiana, I would need to provide additional documentation proving I had paid it.

4. After many calls to Louisiana (where someone humorously asked me if my name was spelled ‘Duc’) I was advised that the ticket had been paid (in 2009, before it was due) and that I would need to appear in person to obtain the said documentation which cannot be transmitted over the ‘unreliable’ internet.

5. Upon the obtaining of said documentation, I will tentatively, be forced to pay $100 to secure a ‘reinstatement’ of a license I never had in Alabama following an interview to determine whether I am a ‘safe driver.’

Let me briefly outline for my readers what this will cost me in terms of non-incidental costs alone.

1. $300                  The approximate amount of the initial ticket, paid in 2009.

2. $100                  The cost of the gas for the trip from Tuscaloosa, AL to Baton Rouge and back.

3. $100                  The cost of the reinstatement fee.

The Distance I must Travel in Order to Improve my Government Experience

For five-hundred dollars and a great deal of inconvenience, I can obtain an Alabama license. It is fortunate that my employment does not require any specific hours of labor and that I have the luxury of my own time.

Were I employed on an hourly basis, I would most assuredly find it more difficult to find the time to make the trip. Imagine also the hours I would have to spend waiting for the petty bureaucrat to have time to attend on my case. The opportunity cost would soar and my employer might find someone else who did not need so much time off from work to fill my job. Let us not even begin to think of the toll this will take on my aging car.

There are two competing views on how to solve the problems created by such incidents. The first is exemplified by a quotation from President Obama: “What we should be asking is not whether we need a big government or small government, but how we can create a smarter and better government.” I like to think of this as the ‘Better Government’ solution, which accepts that all systems oppress people and attempts to make the system less oppressive than it might otherwise be.

The second view, and the one I hold to, is that there should be no system which unjustly oppresses people. The unjust oppression I speak of arises not out of unavoidable problems but out of predictable inefficiencies. It is predictable that the states should miscommunicate regarding the status of my ticket, it is predictable that the system should not allow a fax or email of the same document I must pick up in person, it is predictable that even at the lowest level government should operate inefficiently.

An economist of some note, Milton Friedman, who is very often quoted wrote: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.” Although the only shortage in my case is a lack of common sense and justice, the quotation still applies. Government, lacking any competition is inefficient. There is no reason why Louisiana’s Office of Motor Vehicles should consider using that system of tubes that we call the internet, there is no reason why Alabama’s Department of Motor Vehicles should obtain more staff to reduce waiting lines.

More importantly, there is no reason why either of the two should work toward the resolution of the problem of miscommunication because I am not a customer, I am a citizen. A customer is a first-class citizen in a place of business; a citizen is a second-class customer in the office of a government department. Every person who has ever been to a government office to acquire any product is aware of this fundamental truth.

If I was a medieval serf, I might consider offering my Lord a ‘gift’ to make the problem go away. The same solution might be cheaper to attempt than the enormous feat of travel I shall have to attempt in order to resolve this matter. 

In the same speech, President Obama also said: “Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe.” This age-old assumption, that the government should administer the maintenance of roads and the right to travel on them is one which we should seriously reconsider.

But the purpose of this brief article is not to discuss the specific issue of government administration of the highway system, it is to point out that even at the lowest level, government is inefficient. Government cannot be made better or less oppressive, it cannot improve in the same way that a business can because no individual has any interest in its improvement. Although our methods of oppressing people have changed since feudal times, this fundamental truth remains: when the government attempts to regulate any activity such as marrying, hunting or travelling the inevitable outcome is injustice.

Classical (rhetoric) Magic Test

Maybe you will find these funny, more likely you will think: why did he spend his time doing this? The answer, he was avoiding finishing the last two questions on the exam. :) 

The test reimagined as though Harry Potter had been on our reading list. 

# 1 

What might have caused Cicero to believe that his On the Ideal Orator was superior in style and quality to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series? Compare the two in terms of their style and readability.

# 2 

Between Hermagoras, Hermogenes and Hermione, whose style do you believe has the most charms? Be sure to indicate an understanding of the differences and similarities between a stasis system and a stasis spell.

# 3 

Do you suppose that Tacitus’ birth as a squib was what motivated him to reject magic/rhetoric and become a historian? Do you feel that his attitude was of the ‘sour grapes’ variety?

# 4 

When Cicero first discovered that ‘rhetoric’ was really a code word for magic in ancient texts, he remarked: “Rhetoric without magic has been of little help to states, but magic without rhetoric has often been a great obstacle and never an advantage…” Consider whether Harry Potter and his contemporaries might have benefited from the ability to give speeches that lasted for hours and entrapped their audiences using spellbinding language.

# 5

Consider how St. Augustine used ‘rhetoric’ to convert the muggles to Christianity. Why do you think he focused on the non-magical aspects of rhetoric? Do you think that these aspects of rhetoric are the closest thing to magic for a muggle?

Bonus Question: 

Compare the Latin terms used by Rowling in Harry Potter to describe magical spells to the Latin terms used in textbooks to describe the Roman rhetorical system, note any similarities. If you had to choose between the ability to cast an “engorgio” charm and the ability to conduct a “copia”  speech, which would you choose?

The Zeitgheist of Defeat at Bama

     Wearing a garment of that shade of red favored by the locals, I am standing on a street corner and watching them exiting that place from which so much fame and glory has originated, today the scene of their tragedy. The general attitude is subdued, their eyes downcast, avoiding each others' gaze, as if looking into another person's eyes might cause them to realize the tragedy once more. the adults are depressed, sullen even. The smarter children know better than to laugh in the presence of defeat, those that do not are quickly silenced. There is no jovial laughter, there are shouts of anger between familiars. Grimness pervades their aspects.
      The authorities have been forced to deploy themselves to restore order, likely to prevent a riot. Houndstooth purses and are tucked tightly under arms, possibly to prevent theft, or is it out of shame? But no one of them can disguise themselves from the phantom of defeat which I see hovering over and chastising their crimsoned torsos, heads and spirits. I saw none of them bleeding physically from wounds to the body, but their crimson exteriors were the perfect symbols for their bloodied spirits, sullied by the A&M.

      On a side note, I'm sure that this defeat was totally insignificant, but I could not help commenting (and dramatizing) the spirit of defeat I have witnessed, especially when compared to the audible celebrations I am forced to endure. A little humility never hurt anyone, not even the Crimson Tide.