Anti-Vaxxers Ignore the Past

Munch, The Sick Child

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Tuesday

I’ve recently been immersing myself in 19th century novels and am struck by the frequent mentions of death by disease. Perhaps such deaths were more prominently featured than in previous centuries because the Victorians sensed, thanks to the scientific revolution, that the future held answers. And if that were the case, illness was no longer all in the hands of God but had a human dimension, which is what novels specialize in.

Victorian optimism has in fact been borne out as we no longer fatalistically resign ourselves to death by the plague, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, smallpox, measles, polio, and other once dreaded diseases. I think of a passage from Mary Oliver’s visit to a dying friend at “University Hospital, Boston” where she reflects back upon those Civil War doctors who

did what they could, longing
for tools still unimagined, medicines still unfound,
wisdoms still unguessed at…

Yes, they longed—as previous centuries had not—because medical science gave them reason to believe cures were possible. For her part, Oliver longs for yet one more tool or medicine that will save her friend.

Could these doctors have predicted that future Americans, having benefited from “these wisdoms still unguessed at,” would then want to reject them? With Robert Kennedy, Jr., of all people, demonizing these wise men and women, it behooves us to acknowledge all that we have achieved. Reading novels where characters die of illnesses is one way to remind ourselves why we don’t want to go back.

I single out Kennedy because he appears to be running against Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination and is polling somewhere between eight and twenty-one percent. In a New Yorker article/interview, editor David Remnick notes that Kennedy “is roiling with conspiracy theories: S.S.R.I.s like Prozac might be the reason for school shootings, vaccines cause autism.” Remnick says that Kennedy’s 2021 book The Real Anthony Fauci accuses Fauci, who was vital in ending the A.I.D.s epidemic and who played a major role in fighting Covid, of helping carry out “2020’s historic coup d’état against Western democracy.”

I don’t know enough about Kennedy to know about the various ways he himself has benefited from modern medicine, from his mother’s delivery onward—reportedly he had his own children vaccinated—but crusaders like him don’t pay attention to science’s benefits. Instead, for reasons of their own, they focus their attention on this or that cure, perhaps to boost their profiles or scratch some paranoid itch. I think of them as parasites, getting free rides on the herd immunities society has achieved and using that freedom to attack the host. It’s a syndrome not unheard of in people who have lived lives of privilege.

What we do know is that, if they are influential, they can end up with blood on their hands. For instance, a Kennedy-founded organization, Children’s Health Defense, spread misinformation in Samoa about a measles vaccine that contributed to an outbreak that killed over 50 babies and toddlers. And perhaps 200,000 fewer Americans would have died if people like Kennedy had supported rather than attacked Covid vaccines.

But rather than cite statistics, which can feel lifeless, here are some passages from 19th century novels that remind us what life used to be like. I’ve also included passages from an 18th century and a 20th century novel so that we can add the bubonic plague and polio to the mix. To lighten this otherwise grim subject, I’ve turned this into a quiz, identifying the works only at the end of the post. Can you identify them?

Bubonic Plague

While the bed was airing the mother undressed the young woman, and just as she was laid down in the bed, she, looking upon her body with a candle, immediately discovered the fatal tokens on the inside of her thighs. Her mother, not being able to contain herself, threw down her candle and shrieked out in such a frightful manner that it was enough to place horror upon the stoutest heart in the world; nor was it one scream or one cry, but the fright having seized her spirits, she—fainted first, then recovered, then ran all over the house, up the stairs and down the stairs, like one distracted, and indeed really was distracted, and continued screeching and crying out for several hours void of all sense, or at least government of her senses, and, as I was told, never came thoroughly to herself again. As to the young maiden, she was a dead corpse from that moment, for the gangrene which occasions the spots had spread [over] her whole body, and she died in less than two hours. But still the mother continued crying out, not knowing anything more of her child, several hours after she was dead. It is so long ago that I am not certain, but I think the mother never recovered, but died in two or three weeks after.

Typhus

Miss Temple’s whole attention was absorbed by the patients: she lived in the sickroom, never quitting it except to snatch a few hours’ rest at night. The teachers were fully occupied with packing up and making other necessary preparations for the departure of those girls who were fortunate enough to have friends and relations able and willing to remove them from the seat of contagion. Many, already smitten, went home only to die: some died at the school, and were buried quietly and quickly, the nature of the malady forbidding delay.

Cholera

After that appalling things happened, and the mysteriousness of the morning was explained to Mary. The cholera had broken out in its most fatal form and people were dying like flies. The Ayah had been taken ill in the night, and it was because she had just died that the servants had wailed in the huts. Before the next day three other servants were dead and others had run away in terror. There was panic on every side, and dying people in all the bungalows.

Childbirth

As Oliver gave this first proof of the free and proper action of his lungs, the patchwork coverlet which was carelessly flung over the iron bedstead, rustled; the pale face of a young woman was raised feebly from the pillow; and a faint voice imperfectly articulated the words, “Let me see the child, and die.”…

The surgeon deposited it in her arms. She imprinted her cold white lips passionately on its forehead; passed her hands over her face; gazed wildly round; shuddered; fell back—and died. They chafed her breast, hands, and temples; but the blood had stopped forever. They talked of hope and comfort. They had been strangers too long.

Tuberculosis

There were tears in many eyes, but not in Carol’s. The loving heart had quietly ceased to beat, and the “wee birdie” in the great house had flown to its “home nest.” Carol had fallen asleep!

Scarlet Fever
With tears and prayers and tender hands, Mother and sisters made her ready for the long sleep that pain would never mar again, seeing with grateful eyes the beautiful serenity that soon replaced the pathetic patience that had wrung their hearts so long, and feeling with reverent joy that to their darling death was a benignant angel, not a phantom full of dread.

When morning came, for the first time in many months the fire was out, Jo’s place was empty, and the room was very still. But a bird sang blithely on a budding bough, close by, the snowdrops blossomed freshly at the window, and the spring sunshine streamed in like a benediction over the placid face upon the pillow, a face so full of painless peace that those who loved it best smiled through their tears, and thanked God that Beth was well at last.

Smallpox
It’s turned wery dark, sir. Is there any light a-comin?”

“It is coming fast, Jo.”

Fast. The cart is shaken all to pieces, and the rugged road is very near its end.

“Jo, my poor fellow!”

“I hear you, sir, in the dark, but I’m a-gropin—a-gropin—let me catch hold of your hand.”

“Jo, can you say what I say?”

“I’ll say anythink as you say, sir, for I knows it’s good.”

“Our Father.”

“Our Father! Yes, that’s wery good, sir.”

“Which art in heaven.”

“Art in heaven—is the light a-comin, sir?”

“It is close at hand. Hallowed be thy name!”

“Hallowed be—thy—”

The light is come upon the dark benighted way. Dead!

Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, right reverends and wrong reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day.

Polio

[Bucky] could hear a siren in the distance. He heard sirens off and on, day and night now . . . These were the sirens of ambulances going to get polio victims and transport them to the hospital, sirens stridently screaming, “Out of the way—a life is at stake!” Several city hospitals had recently run out of iron lungs, and patients in need of them were being taken to Belleville, Kearny, and Elizabeth until a new shipment of the respirator tanks reached Newark.

In Journal of the Plague Year, Defoe talks about quacks, those forerunners of people pushing Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, who

had the folly to trust to their own medicines, which they must needs be conscious to themselves were good for nothing, and who rather ought, like other sorts of thieves, to have run away, sensible of their guilt, from the justice that they could not but expect should punish them as they knew they had deserved.

To them and to all anti-vaxxers—including those responsible for the children in Samoa and all the unnecessary Covid victims— I repeat Dickens’s outrage:

Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, right reverends and wrong reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day.

Answer Key

Bubonic Plague – Daniel Defoe, Journal of the Plague Year
Typhus – Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre
Cholera – Frances Hodgson Burnett, The Secret Garden
Childbirth – Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
TuberculosisKate Douglas Wiggin, The Birds’ Christmas Carol
Scarlet FeverLouisa May Alcott, Little Women
SmallpoxCharles Dickens, Bleak House
PolioPhilip Roth, Nemesis

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Soames: Sacrifice Mother, Not Baby

Lewis, Batarda as Soames Forsyte and Annette

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

Two weeks ago, as I was (1) reading the first volume of John Galsworthy’s Forsyte Saga and (2) reflecting upon the first-year anniversary of the anti-abortion Dobbs decision, I noted that Soames Forsyte’s belief that he possesses his first wife (Irene) is characteristic of many so-called right-to-lifers: they are more interested in power over women than in the fate of the unborn. After all, they lose all interest in the children once they are born, at least if those children are poor and require social services.

An episode in In Chancery, the second volume of Forsyte Saga, actually bears out this point by presenting Soames with an abortion decision. Soames by the end of the novel has finally given up his attempts to reassert his control over his “property”—Irene prefers to live in poverty rather than return to him—and, following a divorce, has remarried Anette, a pretty French woman. After all, without a wife he can’t get a son to whom he would pass on his wealth and name. He finds his plans balked a second time, however, when Annette faces a birth crisis: the doctor tells Soames that, if she doesn’t get a late term birth abortion (although he doesn’t use the phrase), she could die.

Compounding the dilemma is the fact that, regardless of what happens, Annette will never be able to have children again. Here’s the doctor:

“This is the position, Mr. Forsyte. I can make pretty certain of her life if I operate, but the baby will be born dead. If I don’t operate, the baby will most probably be born alive, but it’s a great risk for the mother—a great risk. In either case I don’t think she can ever have another child. In her state she obviously can’t decide for herself, and we can’t wait for her mother. It’s for you to make the decision, while I’m getting what’s necessary. I shall be back within the hour.”

Although I’d like to think that most of us would put the mother’s life first, we’re learning from increasing numbers of cases in post-Dobbs America—at least in its red states—that this is no longer case. There are mothers experiencing versions of Annette’s situation, their health sacrificed because doctors are not allowed to perform previously allowed abortions.

And in fact, Soames makes a red state call. We can foresee this in his mental wrestling. Notice the use of the word “perhaps,” which Galsworthy italicizes:

On the one hand life, nearly certain, of his young wife, death quite certain, of his child; and—no more children afterwards! On the other, death perhaps of his wife, nearly certain life for the child; and—no more children afterwards! Which to choose?

Soames’s thoughts on the matter, while they start with what is best for Annette, always circle back to what’s best for himself. He’s even vaguely aware of this:

What would she wish—to take the risk. “I know she wants the child,” he thought. “If it’s born dead, and no more chance afterwards—it’ll upset her terribly. No more chance! All for nothing! Married life with her for years and years without a child. Nothing to steady her! She’s too young. Nothing to look forward to, for her—for me! For me!” He struck his hands against his chest! Why couldn’t he think without bringing himself in—get out of himself and see what he ought to do?

And further on:

He looked at his watch. In half an hour the doctor would be back. He must decide! If against the operation and she died, how face her mother and the doctor afterwards? How face his own conscience? It was his child that she was having. If for the operation—then he condemned them both to childlessness. And for what else had he married her but to have a lawful heir?

In the end, he decides to gamble with his wife’s life, rationalizing, “Annette can’t die; it’s not possible. She’s strong!”

When he communicates this decision to the doctor– “She’s strong, we’ll take the risk”—the doctor replies, “It’s on your shoulders; with my own wife, I couldn’t.”

The tortured rationalizing continues even after the die has been cast. If the situation were reversed, he thinks, Annette wouldn’t hesitate to choose the child over him:

If it were his own life, would he be taking that risk? “But she’d take the risk of losing me,” he thought, “sooner than lose her child! She doesn’t really love me!” What could one expect—a girl and French? The one thing really vital to them both, vital to their marriage and their futures, was a child!

As it turns out, the gamble proves successful and both mother and child survive. Galsworthy adds one further ironic twist, however. Soames desperately wants a boy but the child—the only one he’ll ever have—turns out to be a girl. Furthermore, the doctor informs him that had he gotten what he really wanted, his wife would have died. Which is to say, a boy would have killed her:

“I congratulate you,” he heard the doctor say; “it was touch and go.”

Soames let fall the hand which was covering his face.

“Thanks,” he said; “thanks very much. What is it?”

“Daughter—luckily; a son would have killed her—the head.”

At this point, the only agony that Soames considers is not his wife’s but his own:

Relief unspeakable, and yet—a daughter! It seemed to him unfair. To have taken that risk—to have been through this agony—and what agony!—for a daughter! 

I am reminded of those GOP legislators who are angry when confronted with horror stories stemming from their anti-abortion votes. To cite one instance that is back in the news, when a nine-year-old Ohio rape victim had to go to Indiana for an abortion, Ohio legislators (this according to an NBC report) “appeared to be grappling with how to respond — from confusion to blaming the media.” Note their own tortured responses:

Many expressed shock that it was even biologically possible for the 10-year-old child to become pregnant. Some said they were torn “morally” about whether abortions should be allowed in cases of incest or rape, as in the Ohio case. And others tried to turn the conversation to the undocumented immigrant who prosecutors allege raped the girl. [Update: It’s no longer “alleged”—last week the man plead guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

“I’m amazed a 10-year-old got pregnant. … You really wrestle with that. That’s a tough one,” Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said Thursday.

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., said, “I can’t imagine being 10 years old” and pregnant, adding: “I don’t think I was even able to have children when I was 10 years old. … It’s just awful. It’s awful all the way around.”

Said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas: “I’m a pro-life guy, OK? And God’s in charge on this. … We’re all God’s children. This is a tough call, and I don’t know if I know that answer right now, because now you’ve got another baby involved: She’s pregnant. … She’s a baby.”

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, head of the House Judiciary Committee, was one of those blaming the media and trying to refocus the story on the rapist’s immigration status.

Notice how none of these legislators took responsibility. Soames, for all his flaws, at least is willing to acknowledge, “I may have her death on my hands,”—although he then spoils the moment by backtracking: “No! it was unfair—monstrous, to put it that way!” So, in the end, the Man of Property arrives at the same point as today’s anti-abortion GOP. It is more important for them to control a woman’s body than to allow her to choose what she judges best for herself. Possession trumps even the prospect of death.

For his part, Galsworthy gives us an alternative vision as to what is possible. Soames’s first cousin Jolyon Forsyte, an admirable man who has fallen in love with Soames’s first wife Irene and who is loved in return, reflects upon the Forsyte obsession to possess:

Could he trust himself? Did Nature permit a Forsyte not to make a slave of what he adored? Could beauty be confided to him?…“We are a breed of spoilers!” thought Jolyon, “close and greedy; the bloom of life is not safe with us.”

He resolves to be a different kind of Forsyte, saying to himself, “Let her come to me as she will, when she will, not at all if she will not. Let me be just her stand-by, her perching-place; never—never her cage!”

And further on:

“Let me,” he thought, “ah! let me only know how not to grasp and destroy!”

America has a choice: to cage these women or respect them. We know where the graspers and destroyers stand.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

MacDonald’s Loving Vision of Christ

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Sunday

As I’ve immersed myself in Victorian novels recently, I’ve been struck by how religious many of them are. To be sure, not all novelists talk about God—Emily Bronte, Charles Dickens, and Wilkie Collins barely do so, for instance—but there are others for whom faith is a central theme. I particularly think of Charlotte Bronte, Elizabeth Gaskell, and (today’s subject) George MacDonald.

While I loved MacDonald’s Princess and the Goblin and Princess and Curdie when I was a child, I wonder what I would have thought of MacDonald’s more religious Sir Gibbie, which I missed reading only because my father had mistakenly filed it in the adult section of our family library. In any event, I read it this past year after my friend Lani Irwin mentioned it and loved his Christian vision.

In fact, it sent me to the internet, where I learned that MacDonald, at one point a Congregationalist minister, was essentially fired by his flock for not being judgmental enough. Refusing to ascribe to the Calvinist tenet that only the elect will be saved, MacDonald believed that true repentance is attainable by all. According to his biographer William Raeper, whose views are summed up in Macdonald’s Wikipedia entry, MacDonald “celebrated the rediscovery of God as Father, and sought to encourage an intuitive response to God and Christ through quickening his readers’ spirits in their reading of the Bible and their perception of nature.”

One could add that MacDonald, perhaps the preeminent Victorian fairytale author, used his children’s literature to quicken those spirits–although as he saw it, “I write, not for children, but for the child-like, whether they be of five, or fifty, or seventy-five.”

In MacDonald’s view, Christ came to earth to help us deal with “the disease of cosmic evil.” MacDonald’s God is not an angry deity seeking to punish us for our sins but a loving one who wishes all of us to discover the love within. As MacDonald rhetorically put it, did Jesus “not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease?” In so doing, Jesus cleared the way for us to become “at one” with God.

One sees the process at work in Sir Gibbie, which is the story of a boy, born mute and in poverty, who discovers that he is of Scottish nobility. Rather than let this go to his head, however, he follows his generous spirit, which may be shielded from fallen society in part by his handicap. He is a natural Christian before encountering the Bible, and when he learns about Jesus, he finds in him a kindred spirit.

At an early age, Gibbie is orphaned in a large city, from which he flees after a friend is murdered. Finding himself in the Scottish mountains, he hears Bible stories from the poor farmers who provide refuge after he is cruelly beaten. MacDonald makes clear that the father who reads the scripture each night gets closer to the essence of the faith than do more theologically sophisticated Christians:

Now he was not a very good reader, and, what with blindness and spectacles, and poor light, would sometimes lose his place. But it never troubled him, for he always knew the sense of what was coming, and being no idolater of the letter, used the word that first suggested itself, and so recovered his place without pausing. It reminded his sons and daughters of the time when he used to tell them Bible stories as they crowded about his knees; and sounding therefore merely like the substitution of a more familiar word to assist their comprehension, woke no surprise. And even now, the word supplied, being in the vernacular, was rather to the benefit than the disadvantage of his hearers. The word of Christ is spirit and life, and where the heart is aglow, the tongue will follow that spirit and life fearlessly, and will not err.

The mother of the household, meanwhile, bypasses theology and talks about Jesus in a way that comes from the heart:

So, teaching him only that which she loved, not that which she had been taught, Janet read to Gibbie of Jesus, talked to him of Jesus, dreamed to him about Jesus; until at length—Gibbie did not think to watch, and knew nothing of the process by which it came about—his whole soul was full of the man, of his doings, of his words, of his thoughts, of his life. Jesus Christ was in him—he was possessed by him. Almost before he knew, he was trying to fashion his life after that of his Master.

About which MacDonald comments,

Should it be any wonder, if Christ be indeed the natural Lord of every man, woman, and child, that a simple, capable nature, laying itself entirely open to him and his influences, should understand him? 

“Doing the will of God leaves me no time for disputing about His plans,” MacDonald writes elsewhere, and Janet lives her own life this way:

Being in the light she understood the light, and had no need of system, either true or false, to explain it to her. She lived by the word proceeding out of the mouth of God. When life begins to speculate upon itself, I suspect it has begun to die. And seldom has there been a fitter soul, one clearer from evil, from folly, from human device—a purer cistern for such water of life as rose in the heart of Janet Grant to pour itself into, than the soul of Sir Gibbie. But I must not call any true soul a cistern: wherever the water of life is received, it sinks and softens and hollows, until it reaches, far down, the springs of life there also, that come straight from the eternal hills, and thenceforth there is in that soul a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Serving the family as shepherd, Gibbie finds the solitude of the mountains conducive to his spiritual growth. Love of nature becomes a pathway to God:

[A]s the weeks of solitude and love and thought and obedience glided by, the reality of Christ grew upon him, till he saw the very rocks and heather and the faces of the sheep like him, and felt his presence everywhere, and ever coming nearer.

Eventually Gibbie’s parentage is discovered and he is taken back to the city, where he lives with the Anglican rector who tracked him down. This leads to various satiric episodes, including one where he comes upon the man and his wife quarreling. His response first irritates but then shames them:

A discreet, socially wise boy would have left the room, but how could Gibbie abandon his friends to the fiery darts of the wicked one! He ran to the side-table before mentioned. With a vague presentiment of what was coming, Mrs. Sclater, feeling rather than seeing him move across the room like a shadow, sat in dread expectation; and presently her fear arrived, in the shape of a large New Testament, and a face of loving sadness, and keen discomfort, such as she had never before seen Gibbie wear. He held out the book to her, pointing with a finger to the words—she could not refuse to let her eyes fall upon them—“Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.”

This is far from Gibbie’s only social faux pas. He insists on mingling with the lower-class urban dwellers, sometimes (with thoughts of Jesus and the tax collector in his mind) bringing them to the Sclater dinner table. He also, much to their horror, makes friends with fallen women.

If, in Ivan Karamazov’s mind (I’m thinking of Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor parable), the world would reject Christ if he were to come again, in MacDonald’s story the Christ-like Gibbie transforms the world. When he ultimately becomes lord of his Scottish estate, he turns it into a refuge

of all that were in honest distress, the salvation of all in themselves such as could be helped, and a covert for the night to all the houseless, of whatever sort, except those drunk at the time. Caution had to be exercised, and judgment used; the caution was tender and the judgment stern. The next year they built a house in a sheltered spot on Glashgar, and thither from the city they brought many invalids, to spend the summer months under the care of Janet and her daughter Robina, whereby not a few were restored sufficiently to earn their bread for a time thereafter.

C.S. Lewis, who owes a huge fantasy debt to MacDonald–one sees the influence throughout the Narnia books–says that his sermons were just as influential:

I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself. Hence his Christ-like union of tenderness and severity. Nowhere else outside the New Testament have I found terror and comfort so intertwined. …

G.K. Chesterton, meanwhile, has noted that “only a man who had ‘escaped’ Calvinism could say that God is easy to please and hard to satisfy.”

Last Sunday I wrote about how Anglicans engage in theology, not systematically, but through literature. Though not an Anglican—in fact, he had theological battles with his Congregationalist congregation—MacDonald does use his literature to sort through his Christianity. While some will find his novel preachy—and perhaps I would have had I encountered it earlier—I now find myself buoyed by his vision.

Further note: I find fascinating Wikipedia’s list of authors who have been influenced by MacDonald, from Lewis Carroll—MacDonald apparently persuaded him to publish Alice in Wonderland—to Madeleine L’Engle and Neil Gaiman. Here’s the list:

W.H. Auden, David Lindsay, J.M. Barrie, Lord Dunsany, Elizabeth Yates, Oswald Chambers, Mark Twain, Hope Mirrlees, Robert E. Howard, L. Frank Baum, T.H. White, Richard Adams, Lloyd Alexander, Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Robert Hugh Benson, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O’Connor, Louis Pasteur, Simone Weil, Charles Maurras, Jacques Maritain, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Ray Bradbury, C.H. Douglas, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Walter de la Mare, E Nesbit, Peter S. Beagle, Elizabeth Goudge, Brian Jacques, M.I. McAllister, Madeleine L’Engle and Neil Gaiman.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

It’s World Chocolate Day–Treat Yourself!

Binoche as Vianne in Chocolat

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Friday

Did you know that today is World Chocolate Day, 7 July 1550 supposedly being when chocolate was first introduced to Europe? This gives me an excuse to revisit Joanne Harris’s delightful novel Chocolat.

The novel is an assault on ascetic Christianity, with the owner of a chocolate shop in southwestern France pitted against the village’s Catholic priest. (Perhaps afraid to offend fundamentalists, the movie version of Chocolat pulls its religious punches, with an incoherent conflict the result.) Desiring that his parishioners give up all sensual delights for Lent, Father Reynaud regards Vivianne Rocher as an emissary of the devil. Chocolate, in his eyes, is a pagan concoction, which it so happens is how Vivianne regards it as well.

But because he is so repressed, we get some of the most vivid descriptions of Vivianne’s chocolate shop from him. As I’m celebrating chocolate by sharing some of Harris’s scrumptious passages, here’s one of him describing La Praline:

I looked into the display window this morning. On a white marble shelf are aligned innumerable boxes, packages, cornets of silver and gold paper, rosettes, bells, flowers, hearts, and long curls of multicolored ribbon. In glass bells and dishes lie the chocolates, the pralines, Venus’s nipples, truffles, mendiants, candied fruits, hazelnut clusters, chocolate seashells, candied rose petals, sugared violets… Protected from the sun by the half-blind that shields them, they gleam darkly, like sunken treasure, Aladdin’s cave of sweet clichés. And in the middle she has built a magnificent centerpiece. A gingerbread house, walls of chocolate-coated pain d’épices with the detail piped on in silver and gold icing, roof tiles of florentines studded with crystallized fruits, strange vines of icing and chocolate growing up the walls, marzipan birds singing in chocolate trees… And the witch herself, dark chocolate from the top of her pointed hat to the hem of her long cloak half-astride a broomstick that is in reality a giant guimauve, the long twisted marshmallows that dangle from the stalls of sweet-vendors on carnival days…

One of Vivianne’s business secrets is her ability to match up her chocolates with her clientele. She says she gets it from her mother, a wandering fortune teller:

I know all their favorites. It’s a knack, a professional secret, like a fortune teller reading palms….I like their small and introverted concerns. I can read their eyes, their mouths, so easily- this one with its hint of bitterness will relish my zesty orange twists; this sweet-smiling one the soft-centered apricot hearts; this girl with the windblown hair will love the mendiants; this brisk, cheery woman the chocolate brazils. For Guillaume, the florentines, eaten neatly over a saucer in his tidy bachelor’s house. Narcisse’s appetite for double-chocolate truffles reveals the gentle heart beneath the gruff exterior. Caroline Clairmont will dream of cinder toffee tonight and wake hungry and irritable. And the children… Chocolate curls, white buttons with colored vermicelli, pain d’épices with gilded edging, marzipan fruits in their nests of ruffled paper, peanut brittle, clusters, cracknells, assorted misshapes in half-kilo boxes… I sell dreams, small comforts, sweet harmless temptations to bring down a multitude of saints crash-crash-crashing among the hazels and nougatines….

For Vivianne, making chocolate involves a magic that goes back centuries to the Americas:

There is a kind of alchemy in the transformation of base chocolate into this wise Fool’s Gold, a layman’s magic that even my mother might have relished. As I work, I clear my mind, breathing deeply. The windows are open, and the through draft would be cold if it were not for the heat of the stoves, the copper pans, the rising vapor from the melting couverture. The mingled scents of chocolate, vanilla, heated copper, and cinnamon are intoxicating, powerfully suggestive; the raw and earthy tang of the Americas, the hot and resinous perfume of the rain forest. This is how I travel now, as the Aztecs did in their sacred rituals: Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia. The court of Montezuma. Cortez and Columbus. The Food of the Gods, bubbling and frothing in ceremonial goblets. The bitter elixir of life.

The book opens on Mardi Gras and concludes on Easter with a great chocolate festival. In between, Vivianne must struggle not only with the ascetic priest and his narrow vision of Lent but also with anti-gypsy sentiments (their version of our anti-immigrant prejudices) and tyrannical patriarchy. Her chocolate calls upon the world to be more open, more accepting, and more joyful.

Her victory occurs on Easter eve when the priest, maddened by the temptation, breaks into the shop to destroy it, only to gorge himself instead on the candy. Caught out by his congregation, he flees and his hold on the town is broken. First, however, we get his rich description of the special Easter display that is meant to greet the town the following morning. I quote liberally so that you can lose yourself in his sense of wonder:

It is an amazement of riches, glacé fruits and marzipan flowers and mountains of loose chocolates of all shapes and colors, and rabbits, ducks, hens, chicks, lambs, gazing out at me with merry-grave chocolate eyes like the terra-cotta armies of ancient China, and above it all a statue of a woman, graceful brown arms holding a sheaf of chocolate wheat, hair rippling. The detail is beautifully rendered, the hair added in a darker grade of chocolate, the eyes brushed on in white. The smell of chocolate is overwhelming, the rich fleshly scent of it drags down the throat in an exquisite trail of sweetness….

The air is hot and rich with the scent of chocolate. Quite unlike the white powdery chocolate I knew as a boy, this has a throaty richness like the perfumed beans from the coffee stall on the market, a redolence of amaretto and tiramisù, a smoky, burned flavor that enters my mouth somehow and makes it water. There is a silver jug of the stuff on the counter, from which a vapor rises. I recall that I have not breakfasted this morning….

My hand lingers in spite of itself; a hovering dragonfly above a cluster of dainties. A Plexiglas tray with a lid protects them; the name of each piece is lettered on the lid in fine, cursive script. The names are entrancing: Bitter orange cracknell. Apricot marzipan roll. Cerisette russe. White rum truffle. Manon blanc. Nipples of Venus. I feel myself flushing beneath the mask. How could anyone order something with a name like that? And yet they look wonderful, plumply white in the light of my torch, tipped with darker chocolate. I take one from the top of the tray. I hold it beneath my nose; it smells of cream and vanilla. No one will know. I realize that I have not eaten chocolate since I was a boy, more years ago than I can remember, and even then it was a cheap grade of chocolat à croquer, fifteen percent cocoa solids- twenty for the dark- with a sticky aftertaste of fat and sugar. Once or twice I bought Süchard from the supermarket, but at five times the price of the other, it was a luxury I could seldom afford. This is different altogether; the brief resistance of the chocolate shell as it meets the lips, the soft truffle inside…. There are layers of flavor like the bouquet of a fine wine, a slight bitterness, a richness like ground coffee; warmth brings the flavor to life, and it fills my nostrils, a taste succubus that has me moaning….

Again I linger over the names. Crème de cassis. Three nut cluster. I select a dark nugget from a tray marked Eastern Journey. Crystallized ginger in a hard sugar shell, releasing a mouthful of liqueur like a concentration of spices, a breath of aromatic air where sandalwood and cinnamon and lime vie for attention with cedar and allspice… I take another, from a tray marked Pêche au miel millefleurs. A slice of peach steeped in honey and eau-de-vie, a crystallized peach sliver on the chocolate lid.

Be kind to yourself today and treat yourself to your favorite brand of chocolate. World Chocolate Day demands it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Boys That Don’t Fit the Gender Stereotype

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Thursday

Just a week before the Supreme Court ruled that it’s okay for Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, news broke that a fifth grade Georgia teacher is being fired for reading to her class Stuart Scott’s My Shadow Is Purple. Her infraction is teaching “divisive concepts.” The book is about a boy who likes both traditionally boy things (trains) and girl things (glitter).

As Washington Post commentators Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman observe, the book’s conclusion is that “sometimes blue and pink don’t really capture kids’ full interests and personalities — and that everyone is unique and should just be themselves.” The offended parent complained, ““I would consider anything in the genre of ‘LGBT’ and ‘Queer’ divisive.”

The “divisive” in Georgia’s law is apparently whatever an affronted parent considers to be divisive. Sargent and Waldman point out that the vagueness of the law is part of the point, allowing rightwing parents to object to—well—pretty much anything. Don’t look to the law itself for examples since those it provides all have to do with race, not gender.

“Divisive,” according to these examples, includes “the idea that the United States is ‘fundamentally racist and that people should feel ‘guilt’ or bear ‘responsibility’ for past actions on account of their race.” But despite the failure in the law to mention anything regarding gender, the school decided to adopt that parent’s complaint as policy and to sacrifice Katherine Rinderle.

Also sacrificed are those students who would benefit from the book’s message. Speaking for myself, I desperately needed this assurance when I was that age. As a bookish child who didn’t like fighting or football (a religion in Tennessee), I remember thinking that a mistake had been made somewhere. Maybe I was a girl in a boy’s body.

I’ve written in the past how I was drawn to books in which there are versions of the purple shadow drama. Frances Hodgson Burnett’s Little Lord Fauntleroy was particularly important to me, featuring as it did a boy with long hair (crewcuts were the fashion in the 1950s) whose mother dressed him in velvet and lace collars—and yet who was (as I was) a very fast runner. I thus related to the following scene:

Mr. Havisham found himself leaning out of the window of his coupe with a curious feeling of interest. He really never remembered having seen anything quite like the way in which his lordship’s lordly little red legs flew up behind his knickerbockers and tore over the ground as he shot out in the race at the signal word. He shut his small hands and set his face against the wind; his bright hair streamed out behind.

“Hooray, Ced Errol!” all the boys shouted, dancing and shrieking with excitement. “Hooray, Billy Williams! Hooray, Ceddie! Hooray, Billy! Hooray! ‘Ray! ‘Ray!”

“I really believe he is going to win,” said Mr. Havisham. The way in which the red legs flew and flashed up and down, the shrieks of the boys, the wild efforts of Billy Williams, whose brown legs were not to be despised, as they followed closely in the rear of the red legs, made him feel some excitement. “I really—I really can’t help hoping he will win!” he said, with an apologetic sort of cough. At that moment, the wildest yell of all went up from the dancing, hopping boys. With one last frantic leap the future Earl of Dorincourt had reached the lamppost at the end of the block and touched it, just two seconds before Billy Williams flung himself at it, panting.

I also was riveted by the figure of Tip in The Land of Oz (the second of the Oz books), who is in actuality Ozma of Oz, having been transformed into a boy by a wicked witch. And then there was the episode in one of the Superboy comic books where Kent finds himself transformed into a girl. It turns out to have been a dream, but in that dream his mother renames him Clare Kent and he adds “female intuition” to his superpowers.

The work that had the most profound impact on me was Twelfth Night. When I was in 7th grade, I developed a case of mono, probably caused by stress over the civil rights battles our town was undergoing at the time. My father brought home Shakespeare on records from the English Department’s collection, and I listened to Viola’s gender crossing adventures over and over. I most related to the scene where Viola is confronted by an amusement-seeking Sir Toby Belch, who wants her to duel the cowardly Sir Andrew Aguecheek.

I knew exactly how Viola—female inside, male outside—felt when pressured to fight. This particular scene captured my painful reality while a follow-up scene provided me with a fantasy wish fulfillment: although the first fight is interrupted, in the follow-up challenge Sir Toby mistakenly targets Viola’s twin brother, who proceeds to beat the crap out of both him and Sir Andrew. This unexpected reversal is a version of the fantasy that appeared in the ads at the end of our comic books, where a wimp lifts barbells (which you could order) and thrashes the bully who has kicked sand in his face.

Now, I was drawn to all these stories, not because I wanted to be a girl, but because the 1950s stereotype of boys didn’t match up with my internal reality. What I needed were narratives that honored gender complexity. Shakespeare, who understood human beings as well as anyone ever has, provided me with one.

So will Georgia now fire teachers for teaching 12th Night? All it takes, apparently, is for one parent to call it divisive.

Georgia teachers would definitely face trouble for recommending a book that my wife found in England and gave to our 11-year-old grandson. David Williams’s The Boy in a Dress is about a 12-year-old boy who, missing a mother who has left, tries out her dresses and reads copies of her Vogue magazines. As one thing leads to another, Dennis befriends a sympathetic girl, who helps him in his attempt to pass himself off as a girl at school.

He is caught and expelled but, because he is the soccer team’s star player, his teammates don dresses in a show of solidarity and with his help come back from six goals down to beat their rival. That this other team is notorious for playing rough and dirty—in other words, they’re driven by toxic masculinity—helps make the book’s point that children need to explore alternative narratives.

It so happens that my grandson, who loves to dress up, has sometimes experimented with wearing a skirt to school. He assures me that his pronouns are still he/his and I assure him that I will love him regardless of pronoun. But he may well be, as he currently thinks, cisgender. After all, he’s like his father, who as a boy wore his hair long and who once, for Halloween, passed himself off as a creditable girl in one of Julia’s dresses. He also played Bianca in a cross-dressing version of Taming of the Shrew while studying theatre in London.

Years ago, a University of Hawaii biologist left our college Gender Studies colloquium with a quote I have never forgotten. Milt Diamond noted that not everyone is limited to either the XX or the XY chromosome combination: apparently there are some trisomies (XXX, XXY, XYY), even some tetrasomies (XXXY, XXXX), and yet still other possibilities. And if one adds to the mix those XXes who loves other XXes and those XYs who love other XYs (and I’m only getting started), one can nod vigorously to the observation Diamond shared with us: Nature loves variety, human society hates it.

 If you want to see real perversity, look at those people quashing—sometimes through shame, sometimes through worse—their children’s identity explorations. Some of the actual groomers we hear about, including some GOP politicians, were denied healthy avenues of expression as children. What they repressed returned as something monstrous.

If we want our children to grow into mature, well-balanced adults, we need teachers like Katherine Rinderle.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Lindsey Graham as Willy Loman (or Not)

Lindsey Graham, booed at a recent Trump rally

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Wednesday

I flashed on a passage from Death of a Salesman recently after encountering an account of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham getting booed at a Donald Trump rally. Now, I sympathize with Willy Loman and not at all with Graham so the parallel doesn’t go very far. Still, it provides some insight into those politicians who have sold their souls to ride on the Trump train.

Graham was once regarded as a relatively principled senator who would work across the aisle on Supreme Court nominations and who would speak his mind in memorable ways. I enjoyed his remark about the execrable Ted Cruz, that if you killed him “on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” In 2015 he once described Trump as “a race baiting, xenophobic religious bigot” while at the same time calling Biden “as good a man as God ever created.”

Then he became a Trump groveller. To be sure, he briefly reclaimed his previous principles after the January 6 insurrection, announcing to his fellow senators, “Trump and I, we had a hell of a journey. I hate it being this way. I hate it being this way. All I can say is count me out.” Since then, however, he has returned to his previous sycophancy.

Authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat observed recently, however, that there is no room for waffling in a fascist movement. One response and one response only is allowed: “You say whatever benefits the leader and increases his glory.”

And that’s why Graham faced hostility in Trump’s recent rally. Those present knew their senator’s uneven history. According to commentator Dean Obeidallah, “Lindsey Graham getting booed, called a “traitor”—and worse–for six minutes while trying to speak at Donald Trump’s rally Saturday is the worst reaction I’ve ever seen from an audience.”

It’s how Graham responded to that booing that makes me think of Willy Loman. Here’s Willy’s longtime friend Charley reflecting on his life at the funeral:

BIFF: He had the wrong dreams. All, all, wrong…

CHARLEY: Nobody dast blame this man. You don’t understand: Willy was a salesman. And for a salesman, there is no rock bottom to the life. He don’t put a bolt to a nut, he don’t tell you the law or give you medicine. He’s man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back — that’s an earthquake. And then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory.

What Obeidallah witnessed was a politician, who is a kind of salesman, panicking when the audience stopped smiling back. Here’s his account:

The booing and jeering began as soon as Graham was introduced to the Trump faithful. At first, Graham appeared amused by the crowd’s boos—even laughing about it.   However, Graham soon began to grasp that a large segment of this Trump crowd was not kidding around. That is when Graham went into grovel mode as he tried to win over the audience with lines like, “Just calm down for a second. I think you’ll like this.” Graham then told the audience, “I was born in this county,” adding, “I live 15 miles down the road. This is a place where people pay the taxes, fight the wars, and tell you what they believe.”

Graham even tried a joke to get the crowd on his side, stating “I found common ground with President Trump…it took a while to get there, folks.” He then quipped, “I come to like President Trump and he likes himself…and we go that in common.”  (Pro tip: If you are bombing with an audience don’t mock the person the crowd loves!)  After six minutes of boos that effectively drowned Graham out, he slinked off the stage.

I learned something important about Trump politicians from applying the Miller passage. They are so hungry for the adulation that comes from high office that they will do anything to get it, including attaching themselves to someone as corrupt as the former president. It doesn’t matter if they must compromise their integrity to get it. Like an addict, they’ll do anything to achieve that high. Correspondingly, they feel as if they are nobody if the electorate rejects them.

Not all politicians are like this. I remember some Democrats who voted through Obamacare, even though it cost them their seats in Congress, figuring that they had done something so important that it was worth the cost to themselves. And there are those principled Republicans who lost elections because they refused to join the Trump cult. What they saved was their dignity.

One of George Orwell’s most important insights in 1984 is that authoritarian leaders lie, not because they expect to be believed, but because they are testing the loyalty of their followers. The more outrageous the lie, the greater the test and the more opportunity their followers have for demonstrating their loyalty. Republicans these days must either demonstrate blind loyalty or they will get the Graham treatment. They’re riding on a smile and a shoeshine, with the constant fear that an earthquake will rock their world and the bottom will drop out.

Dast we blame them? Given that they are supposed to be public servants rather than fascist enablers, hell yes!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Hughes’s Message More Urgent Than Ever

Langston Hughes

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Tuesday – July 4

After the Supreme Court’s latest attacks on African Americans, the LGBTQ+ community, impoverished college students, and clean water—not to mention its reassertion of control over women’s bodies a year ago— Langston Hughes’s “Let America be America Again” seems the best July 4th poem for 2023. Much of what he says about America’s failure to live up to its original promise is only too timely.

By stacking the court with radical Catholics and by having billionaires shower them with gifts so that they remain in the far right bubble, the right has found a way to roll back the progress we were making towards all having equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor is it only the Supreme Court that is acting up. As Ruth Ben-Ghiat, one of the foremost authorities on authoritarianism points out, the GOP generally has been transformed by “cult dynamics” that

dictate how party elites behave and what kinds of individuals find a foothold there. Day after day, we witness one of the largest political parties in the world remake itself as an autocratic entity, discarding the values, norms, and rituals of democracy.

Analyzing Donald Trump’s continuing hold on the party, Ben-Ghiat observes,

Authoritarians don’t just hollow out democratic institutions, but also debase the meaning and the practice of politics, reducing it to lies, leader worship, and violence against enemies. That’s why authoritarian parties become havens for a toxic mix of craven opportunists, racist bullies, and amoral individuals who are attracted by partnering with a leader who has no limits or restraints.

Hughes points out what should be obvious–that we were never supposed to be a country where “kings connive [or] tyrants scheme/ That any man be crushed by one above.” The goal, rather, has been to be a nation where “opportunity is real, and life is free,/ Equality is in the air we breathe.” The question he asks could be easily be directed at our rightwing justices:

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

To be sure, Hughes would not be surprised at the justices’ behavior. As a Black man in America, he had few illusions about the country he was living in. “There’s never been equality for me,” he laments, “Nor freedom in this ‘homeland of the free.’”

But because of that, his call to action resonates all the more:

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America…

In 1787 Benjamin Franklin, asked whether America had just set itself up for a monarchy or a republic, famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Hughes’s dream is our republic living up to the vision expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Few poets have understood the urgency of such dreaming better than Hughes.

Let America Be America Again
By Langston Hughes

Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments closed

Affirmative Action & Lessons in Chemistry

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Monday

Julia and I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed Bonnie Garmus’s bestselling Lessons in Chemistry, with its indefatigable heroine Elizabeth Zott. The novel took on an added significance this past Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court’s struck down down affirmative action. Although the novel is about white women, not African Americans, it makes clear how universities and research institutes must make a special outreach to groups that they have historically excluded. As Zott, who wants to be a scientist in 1950s America, puts it,

Too many brilliant minds are kept from scientific research thanks to ignorant biases like gender and race. It infuriates me and it should infuriate you. Science has big problems to solve: famine, disease, extinction. And those who purposefully close the door to others using self-serving, outdated cultural notions are not only dishonest, they’re knowingly lazy.

Zott is a feisty, can-do woman who refuses to be kept down. Unfortunately for her, she regularly experiences discrimination and worse. In graduate school, her advisor tries to rape her, and she is then kicked out of the program for defending herself (she perforates his intestine with a #2 pencil). Another employer, attempting the same, has a heart attack when she pulls a knife out of her purse. “When it came to equality,” the book tells us, “1952 was a real disappointment.”

Zott is clear about the problem. But (and this is where affirmative action and Title IX are particularly relevant), Zott is under the impression that she can make it on her own, without help from anyone. It’s a particularly American illusion, and one can’t help but admire how Zott uses the belief to prod herself into action. She won’t get married to her partner, a famous scientist that she loves and who adores her, because she doesn’t want special favors. When she lands a cooking show, she inspires women across the nation with her can-do spirit. At one point she tells her audience,

Whenever you feel afraid, just remember. Courage is the root of change – and change is what we’re chemically designed to do. So when you wake up tomorrow, make this pledge. No more holding yourself back. No more subscribing to others’ opinions of what you can and cannot achieve. And no more allowing anyone to pigeonhole you into useless categories of sex, race, economic status, and religion. Do not allow your talents to lie dormant, ladies. Design your own future. When you go home today, ask yourself what YOU will change. And then get started.”

This is all very well. But how can you make progress when the deck is stacked against you? Her partner is worried about her:

It was a form of naïveté, he thought, the way she continued to believe that all it took to get through life was grit. Sure, grit was critical, but it also took luck, and if luck wasn’t available, then help. Everyone needed help. But maybe because she’d never been offered any, she refused to believe in it.

He tries to lay this out for her, at one point observing that “life has never been fair, and yet you continue to operate as if it is—as if once you get a few wrongs straightened out, everything else will fall into place. They won’t.”

It’s not that Zott is unaware of the depth of the problem. At one point she acknowledges that the problems run deep, telling her television audience that

the reduction of women to something less than men, and the elevation of men to something more than women, is not biological: it’s cultural. And it starts with two words: pink and blue. Everything skyrockets out of control from there.

She also observes that if “a man were to spend a day being a woman in America, he wouldn’t make it past noon”—an observation that could be extended to a White Person being Black for a day.

This is what systemic sexism and racism looks like. But though Zott recognizes the problem, she thinks her own determination and smarts will help her triumph. That proves not to be the case. While her drive gets her a certain distance, time and again she succeeds only because others support her. Her partner secretly makes sure that their institute gives her the resources she needs, a neighbor comes to her rescue when she needs childcare, and a secret benefactor makes sure she can return to science after she leaves her television show.

Which is the whole point of affirmative action. Rather than propping up mediocrity, as its critics accuse, it makes sure that those who have been systematically deprived of support get the education they need to succeed. Clarence Thomas would not be a supreme court justice today if programs had not reached out to him, thereby ensuring that someone with his talents would be recognized. Thomas Gray lays out what could have happened without such programs in “Elegy on a Country Churchyard”:

Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
         The dark unfathom’d caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flow’r is born to blush unseen,
         And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

Watching Zott, one can see why Thomas is dismissive of affirmative action. After all, if much of your drive comes from feeling that you need to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps—that you must help yourself because there’s no one else to help you—then to be told that you succeeded only because others helped you feels like a slap in the face. Joy Reid, the brilliant MSNBC host who was interviewed the other night by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, said that when she got to Harvard thanks to affirmative action, she was told by other students that she wasn’t there on her merits.

But Reid, despite such putdowns, is not afraid to acknowledge that affirmative action was critical in her success, despite such putdowns. Thomas’s crime, as Hayes observed the other night, has been to pull up the affirmative action ladder after he himself made use of it.

Zott, one feels sure, will not do the same. Supportive of others, she reflects at one point,

Humans need reassurance, they need to know others survived in hard times. And unlike other species which do a better job of learning from their mistakes, humans require constant threats and reminders to be nice.

And allow me to expand this discussion from affirmative action and Title IX to cancel culture. The Washington Post recently had an article about three professors who lost their jobs because of remarks they made. The faculty argued that their free speech rights were violated and two got their jobs back (the third retired), but what struck me was how their biases could easily undermine their teaching effectiveness. If they see only a stereotype rather than a person in front of them, they cannot detect hidden strengths and abilities. I quote from the article to show how each is blinded by prejudice:

–Past controversies — such as one in which [Indiana University at Bloomington economist Eric] Rasmusen argued on a blog that gay men shouldn’t be hired as school teachers because they could prey on children — had faded from attention.

A tipping point came in 2019, when Rasmusen tweeted a link to an article titled “Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably.” He highlighted a quote from the article, which claimed “geniuses are overwhelmingly male.”

–[S]he [a Black student of University of Central Florida psychology teacher Charles Negy] was disturbed by his suggestion that, “statistically speaking, minorities are just not as smart as other people.”

–In December 2020, the Jewish News of Northern California reported that the Twitter account of Abbas Ghassemi, a teaching professor in the engineering school at the University of California at Merced, was awash with antisemitic tropes. A cartoon diagram of the “Zionist brain” there depicted a “frontal money lobe,” a “Holocaust memory centre” and a “world domination lobe.” Another post said the interests of “Zionists and IsraHell” had “embedded themselves in every component of the American system,” including banking and media.

I doubt that these men offer much reassurance to students from the vulnerable populations they denigrate. And while the Clarence Thomases and Joy Reids, like Elizabeth Zott, succeed in spite of them, not all students are as strong. For some, feelings of inferiority become confirmed by such teachers and they become discouraged and underperform.

I can testify that I’ve seen many, many African American students from impoverished backgrounds succeed at my college and go on to live productive and prosperous lives. Affirmative action and supportive teaching were critical.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments closed

Why Jesus Used Parables

Note: If you wish to receive, via e-mail, (1) my weekly newsletter or (2) daily copies of these posts, notify me at [email protected] and indicate which you would like. I promise not to share your e-mail address with anyone. To unsubscribe, send me a follow-up email.

Sunday

Julia and I have joined a weekly group that engages in the practice of Lectio Divina, a “traditional monastic practice of scriptural reading, meditation and prayer intended to promote communion with God and to increase the knowledge of God’s word” (Wikipedia). Each week we discuss a Biblical passage and musical selection chosen by the organizer of the group, which includes some very insightful people with extraordinary backgrounds. The sessions so far have been rich and rewarding.

Our first reading three weeks ago provided a perfect introduction. It included the parable of the mustard seed, itself one of Jesus’s most mind-bending stories, but what most caught my eye was a meta moment where Matthew reflects on the practice of using parables itself:

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’ He told them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.’ Jesus told the crowds all these things in parables; without a parable he told them nothing. This was to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth to speak in parables’. (Matthew 13:31-35)

The prophet Matthew has in mind is the psalmist:

I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old…(Psalms 78:2).

It’s as though, by watching Jesus pile parable upon parable, Matthew feels the need to comment on the process. Why employ this method rather than express his point straightforwardly?

You know, of course, where I stand on this issue: literature (including stories) gets at truths that escape straight exposition. In fact, I read the whole Bible this way: Genesis does not provide us with a literal account of creation but rather provides us with a story that articulates the wonder of our origins. It also, as great stories do, raises issues that we wrestle with to this day. Religion is better served by leaving Big Bang and DNA theories to scientists and focusing rather on what our existence means.

I think also of Emily Dickinson’s admonition to “tell the truth, but tell it slant.” In her account, desiring to get the truth straight would be like Semele in Greek mythology getting obliterated after seeing Zeus in all his glory:

Tell all the truth but tell it slant —
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind —

Jesus, good teacher that he is, knows that his audiences can’t see everything that he sees and so finds a way to lead them in the right direction. Like any creative storyteller, he uses stories to involve them in the exploratory process. As reader response theorist Wolfgang Iser points out, literature is filled with gaps or indeterminate elements that readers must fill by active participation. Jesus’s auditors would have internalized the parables in a deep way by applying their own experiences to them.

Mark’s reflections remind me of an important lecture that Rob MacSwain, a C.S. Lewis scholar who teaches at Sewanee’s Theological Seminar, gave to our Adult Sunday School. You can read my full account of it here but, to sum up the highlights, it discussed Lewis’s contributions to Anglican theology.

Which at first didn’t seem like much. For one thing, as MacSwain noted in starting out, Anglicans/ Episcopalians don’t do theology.

This would distinguish them from Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Mormons, Moravians, and various other denominations, and looking at Anglicanism’s history one can see why. Fighting over matters of doctrine was a recipe for civil war in Tudor England, which Queen Elizabeth wanted to avoid at all costs. How did one keep Catholics and radical Protestants from cutting each other’s throats? One sidestepped theological battles. As Elizabeth said at one point, “There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.”

Theology, which is intent on bringing everything into logical order, often concerns itself with these trifles. MacSwain said that Anglicans are particularly uninterested in systematic theology and in the currently fashionable analytic theology, which is suspicious of metaphor and ambiguity as it strives for the clearest account possible of God and religion.

After having contended that Anglicans don’t “do” theology, however, MacSwain then reversed course and said they in fact engage in it at a very deep level. They just do it through literature. He mentioned figures like John Donne, George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, Alfred Lord Tennyson, T.S. Eliot, and W. H. Auden before turning to his own focus on C.S. Lewis.

To this list, by the way, I would add Edmund Spenser, Sir Philip Sidney, Jonathan Swift, Joseph Addison, William Cowper, Christopher Smart, William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, John Keble, Gerard Manley Hopkins (who became Catholic but started off Anglican), Christina and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Anthony Trollope, George Eliot, Dorothy Sayers, Charles Williams, R.S. Thomas, John Betjeman, Malcolm Guite, Madeleine L’Engle, Richard Wilbur, and Mary Oliver. Some lean more to low church or evangelical Anglicanism, some to high church Anglicanism or even Anglo-Catholicism, but all grapple with spiritual issues in one way or other.

For his part, Lewis sometimes used poetry, sometimes fantasy (the Narnia books), sometimes science fiction (his space trilogy), sometimes other fictional forms (e.g., The Screwtape Letters) to explore issues of faith. Through literature, he and these other authors capture the emotional as well as the intellectual dimensions of spirit. What they lose in philosophical rigor (although literature has its own form of rigor), they gain through fictional immersion.

To sum up, Jesus used parables because stories engage audiences and provide truths in a way that more literal approaches cannot. Touching on buried meanings as they tap into the unconscious, they tell the truth slant. In so doing, they get us closer to God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments closed