United States

American Express

The recent story of Rachel Dolezal, the (now former) President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, being outed as white is fascinating and sad to me. She has been accused of posing as a black woman which, given her heretofore leadership position at the NAACP, makes her quite controversial.Dolezal’s choice to identify as a black woman had journalists investigating her family for some revelations. Her racial heritage was exposed, which called into question cultural experiences and expressions, and what constitutes valid expression of identity.

As this story exploded over the weekend and continues to unfold, many are more disturbed by her being a fraud, than by her choice of identity. Still, many find her identity choice rather curious, and further evidence of white privilege.

I find the issue fascinating as it brings to the forefront the cultural constructs we have for race, while pretending that it’s merely biological and physical. Moreover, it relates to how we have been stuck in tribalism. Even the word tribe conjures up traditional societies, often with biological origins and/or ethnic ties that have been distinguished from other political/socio-economic entities. Modern nation states consider themselves beyond the tribal wars of earlier eras or distant locales, but the tribal instinct seems to be universal and eternal.

If we are to truly evolve, we have to look at our own tribalism. Even when we identify with a particular ethnic group, or regional culture, we may inadvertently clutch in such a way that reinforces our identity by clinging inwardly and asserting that belonging is not a choice. It’s ethnic and historic, and one’s actions are not as significant as one’s biological and historical roots. Membership has it’s privileges: Others are excluded, and possibly ridiculed or disparaged (or worse). Sometimes, the identification with the particular ethnic group or tribe is more important than anything.

Except it isn’t. We’ve seen Balkan wars in Europe; tribal wars in Africa; Sunni and Shia in the Middle East; genocide, ethnic cleansing, segregation, and separate subcultures across modern democratic societies that have become increasingly insular, despite social diversity and acceptance of differences in an ever more diverse and globalized world.

There is still a lot of insider-ness by those who descended from those of outsider status. The MOT (Member of the Tribe) conversations among Jewish people is often nothing more than acknowledging someone’s Jewish heritage, but the very existence of the acronym MOT is troubling to me. I understand the reflex toward tribalism and identifying with a group or sub-culture. Ultimately, though, the inherent exclusion that comes with that identification is what triggers negative reactions regardless of tribe or social or ethnic group.

Americans pride themselves on self-expression. We profess individual freedom and the right to express oneself, but we rarely face our own tribalism, and the ways in which that gets expressed.

Different histories of repression and privilege seem intrinsic to our identifications.Physical features certainly provide the most obvious characteristics to link to a lineage and history and culture. We profess not to judge individuals based on their physical features, but we quickly identify individuals with a group.

Our politics is so tribal. Our institutions claim to be at least legally beyond tribal, but usually exist with sub-cultures and divisions. We may self segregate (or be forced to segregate due to historical policies that ensured certain divisions even if they are no longer legally mandated). Americans are not comfortable looking at the realities of our own tribalism and the ways in which we exclude and degrade—regardless of status. We understand our history of racism, but we are still clinging to group identities that we claim supports our own expression.

So the story of Rachel Dolezal is fascinating and sad to me. Her story raises so many questions about American expression of tribalism and individual choice and circumstance, as well as the convoluted situation of race that we are currently struggling with so profoundly. Perhaps her story, which is unique as it pertains to her specific life and family, is also one that highlights our American tribalism. Our American expression of freedom is always diminished when we retreat to our tribal instincts.

Name Calling

Call me Caitlyn. Call me Ishmael. Call me Irresponsible. Call me maybe. Don’t call me Shirley! But back to Caitlyn….

Jenner’s transformation is astonishing. The Vanity Fair cover is astonishing, as Jenner has been the physical representation of our cultural gender references for male and now, female. I couldn’t help but wonder if despite her phenomenal physicality and youthful appearance (and name), is Jenner showing her age by not showing her age in such an extraordinary manner?

First names go in and out of style (in America), with each generation. With cultural diversity, we have seen a dramatic shift in first names over the course of the last generation. Traditional anglo names are among a much broader array of names today. First names have traditionally been signifiers of gender, ethnicity, tradition, family, and sometimes era. Of course, we name others, except when we tweak our own name with a preferred nick-name.

Traditionally, a woman’s surname changed to her husband’s family name upon marriage. The surname identified the clan. The children would have the same surname as the father (and mother, until recently). This was always the assumption (until the1970s), with the exception of artists and performers. Even before the feminist movement of the 70s, women in show business kept their own last names. (Lucy Arnaz is the daughter of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Lucille Ball was not known as Lucy Arnaz!) The 70s brought hyphens and choices about names that were previously not mainstream. And of course, we were introduced to Ms.  Women didn’t have to be identified by marital status anymore—just like the guys.

For women, choosing a name for themselves (or keeping their birth names) was (is) empowering. Names became choice and autonomy, even when the choice is to share the spouse’s surname. It is not automatic anymore, just as a woman’s identity is more than a relation to a spouse (or lack thereof).

Our shameful history of denying and degrading cultural roots through assigning new names to slaves and to immigrants is important. Names have stories and significance and are choices—sometimes assigned; sometimes self generated. It is only in the last generation that we have seen tolerance for names (and recognized our cultural intolerance to cultural differences).

But we still judge names. Names are our credit. We still have associations that we make upon hearing/seeing names. We may be more tolerant, but we still form opinions (consciously or not) and/or have associations almost instantaneously upon hearing/seeing a name.

And gender identification (and what that may imply) is still very much a part of our encounter with the world. We may not realize the extent to which we experience the rest of the world in terms of gender. You may read articles differently, based on the writer’s name. I intentionally use a gender neutral name—Lou. I prefer to explore ideas as gender neutrally as possible. Gender informs our lives, but seeing beyond gender and our cultural constructs allows us to expand—to see beyond ourselves.

Back to Caitlyn….Jenner’s extraordinary transformation as seen on the cover of Vanity Fair with the headline, “Call Me Caitlyn”, was striking beyond the gender change. She identifies with the most girlish aspects of being female, and the most culturally retro. I understand that this is her debut, and of course the culturally feminine signposts are going to be accentuated, but I wonder if this is also somewhat generational. As we become more expansive of our understanding of gender, and the much broader experiences of gender over time, name calling will surely change more dramatically in future generations.

The Era of an End

The Me Generation birthed the iPeriod, which begat the Age of the Selfie. The epoch of the individual is now narrated by tweets and posts and snapshots of ‘epic’ moments.

From the Me Generation to the Age of the Selfie (and everything i in between), the self indulgence and endless self promotion has been the dark side of choice. “Free to Be You and Me”, which celebrated individual differences and diversity that is actually necessary for a healthy life and society, has been lost (or never gotten) by too many who distort individuality to having ‘the right’ to do ‘whatever I want whenever I want’ within (or without) the law.

Meanwhile, the laws have changed so that a corporation is a person under The Constitution, and Big Money defines politics more than the general electorate could. An individual’s vote is far less significant than a corporation’s donation to a SuperPAC.

Big Brother may be corporate or government, as our individual smart phones and tablets and devices, as well as our plastic currency, are hardly private. We live in a strange time of hyper-individualism with little privacy.

The conflicts between personal privacy and public safety are real and serious. Capturing dangerous behavior on a smartphone might be a life saver. Most agree that police with body cameras would be better than police with tanks.

Of course, this era of compromised privacy for greater security was ushered in with 911. National security against international terrorism was a collective cause, until collecting individual data with undue cause began to make us individually insecure. Policing the authorities has become as important an issue as policing everyone else.

Interestingly, the iPeriod began with iTunes and the iPod, which appeared in 2001,within months of the worst terrorist attack on American soil in American history. (Facebook appeared in 2004;You Tube appeared in 2005; Twitter appeared in 2006;and the iPhone appeared in 2007.) Seems like eons ago.

As all these technologies have become ubiquitous and refined, and more social media platforms and apps continue to be rolled out and shared at seemingly warped speed, the sense of I seems at once dominant and on the verge of extinction. Individualism and compromised privacy must coexist now.

The pervasiveness of these technologies in our lives over the last several years has allowed us to adjust and recalibrate our own possibilities and limits. Social norms have changed in a virtual world, and we are getting better acclimated to this reality. Individual behavior is perhaps captured more frequently and shared, and we are adapting. We are reconsidering our limits for public and private concerns and safety, and can gradually implement necessary measures to ensure that everyone is accountable. Where there was overreach, we can now modify. We must constantly be amending.

 

Even amendments. While we embark on the bumpy ride of the 2016 election, we need to reclaim our individual votes and our democracy from being bought out as a result of the ironically (or is it cynically?) named Citizens United. When our individual-ness as independent citizens is so thoroughly compromised, we need to usher in a new era to end Citizens United.

In this epoch of the individual, we have been trying to find our balance, as we have seemed very off kilter so much of the time. As we adapt to the connectivity and instantaneousness that new technologies have created, and rein in some of the messiness and excesses, we can easily access electronic means of democracy and virtually (and really) end the era of Citizens United. The iPeriod must favor individual people’s votes over Big Money. The Era of an End to Citizens United will be ushered in by individual people like you. Period.

 

B’More

The Gray Matter–The matter of 25 year old Freddy Gray’s death from a severed spine after being in police custody last week, has inspired peaceful protest for police reform, as well as outrageous violence, rioting, looting and arson. Gray was arrested by Baltimore Police 2 weeks ago. What exactly happened after he was taken into police custody is unclear, or at least unanswered to the public. The issue of police brutality has been painted in black and white, and the recent high profile cases of deaths occurring at the hands of police officers has much of the public outraged by excessive violence from the police.

The police departments have suggested that these tragedies have occurred within the confines of the law, and that violent suspects,or suspects near violence, have caused the police reactions. Kill or be killed. Is it just the rogue cop or two (in each precinct)? It’s got to be more than that.

Those who say that they understand the rage underneath the current violence in Baltimore because there are no longer decent jobs due to globalization, must be younger than I (and/or unaware of history). I was born and raised in B’more, and lived there until I was 17. Baltimore always seemed deeply segregated to me. Racially, economically, ethnically…..and there was a terribly impoverished inner city long before globalization. I moved from Baltimore in 1981. It was always an extremely dangerous (and sad) place to me, despite its other charms. There are beautiful areas, historic, cultural, quirky, and also the hideous stuff that provided the stories for “The Wire” and “Homicide”.

It is easy to lump all the recent police brutality incidents together; all these racially charged incidents together; impoverished areas with high crime rates together. There are indeed similarities and patterns.There also seems to be an unwillingness to acknowledge the entrenched tragedies on all sides: thugs who are cops and thugs who are not cops; an entrenched system of economic failure and a culture of violence; lack of vision; lack of hope; lack of change; lack of leadership; lack of decent homes, schools, or jobs; not being more.

The violence following the protests and funeral for Freddy Gray yesterday were disturbing and sad, but sadly, not unfamiliar nor unexpected. We wanted B’more to BE MORE. We want all of our communities to BE MORE for all of us. We want our police to BE MORE for all of us. We want our elected officials to BE MORE for all of us. We want our schools and medical facilities to BE MORE for all of us.

Maybe the takeaway from B’More is just that. Be More than your circumstances. Be More than your fears. Be More than your anger. Be More than your habits. Be More than your desires. Be More than you’ve been, or than you might have been. Be more for all of us.

It Is What It Isn’t

It isn’t bigotry; it’s freedom of religion. It isn’t mass murder; it’s Depression. It isn’t diplomacy; it’s appeasement.

It isn’t rape; it’s drunken sex. It isn’t obstruction; it’s Democracy. It isn’t murder; it’s self defense. It isn’t spying; it’s security. It isn’t union busting; it’s the right to work. It isn’t about public health; it’s about private choice.

It seems like we actually spend our lives on what something or someone isn’t. We have a tradition of distinguishing ourselves from others by emphasizing other-ness. Even with our history of civil rights and feminism, expanding rights for all sorts of people once excluded, the current zeitgeist is not one of inclusion and expansion. Critical thinking has largely been distorted into oppositional thinking.

Say it isn’t so!

We’ve shifted from what it is to what it isn’t, as we’ve been bombarded with challenges to our assumptions:

It’s a slam-dunk! (for which we are paying unimagined consequences in the Middle East).

It’s a no brainer!

It’s a sure thing!

It’s a 10!

It’s a boy!

It’s complicated.

The truth is, it is complicated. There are different views and facets and understandings and expressions of much of life. Concepts of gender, of life, of liberty, of religion, and so many constructs that were historically entrenched….are still evolving. It doesn’t feel like evolution when we seem so mired, and it is easy to feel despair.

It is what it is. The sigh of stalemate. We don’t hear “c’est la vie”  any more. We say “it is what it is”, like pop zen masters (or Winnie the Pooh). When we don’t know what else we can do, we can acknowledge that it is what it is. Move on.

We don’t seem to be moving on by what it isn’t. It isn’t right. It isn’t safe. It isn’t about you (or me). It isn’t working.

So many articles are written to sound as though previously held notions were naive, or misguided, or wrong. It’s as though some people think they sound smarter by debunking anything we’ve known prior to now. It seems as though everything you thought was true isn’t. It is what it isn’t. Aside from being able to eat butter and drink coffee now, this new moment of deconstruction requires critical thinking, not just being critical.  Some previously held ideas and constructs that seemed to be true and even natural deserve to be queried. But, not everything must be turned inside out or dismantled.  In fact, there seems to be a dearth of common sense and wisdom, much less decent behavior. And there is certainly a lack of common good.

So how do we move beyond it is what it isn’t? Acknowledge that it is what it is, but doesn’t always have to be this way or simply the mirror opposite (that way). Movement happens between (and/or beyond) those points–where there is space to move. We know there is a better way, isn’t there?

Fine Lines, Wrinkles and Age Spots

The wrinkles in Brian Williams’ story (stories?) have caused his six month suspension, and plenty of outrage on social media. Some on the left have said that his embellishments are less serious than the embellishments and lies that are regularly put forth by politicians and other news outlets.(I say, that’s no excuse.)  Of course, the story points to the iconic role of the American news anchor(man) on network broadcast news–a model that has weathered feminism (sort of), but not the information age.

Perhaps it’s a fine line between an embellishment and a lie, but it seems clear now, that if Williams was not even in the same helicopter that was under fire, his story constitutes a lie. The wrinkle for Williams is that his job is based on trust. The public depends on accurate reporting and truth. Mistakes happen, but knowingly reporting falsehoods is not a mistake. It’s just wrong.

The anchor is the person or thing that provides stability and confidence, particularly during uncertain situations. Jon Stewart, anchor of The Daily Show, has always maintained that he is a comedian/satirist (and has since added writer/director to his resume), but over the last 17 years, has become a real anchor. His faux news show has been more truthful, and taken more seriously, than many non-comedic news programs. His recent announcement that he will leave The Daily Show will undoubtedly be a wrinkle for Comedy Central, but the program, or whatever will replace it, will probably have an audience. He built trust and kept us informed and giggling through extremely uncertain, and often painful, times.

What is most revealing in these two stories that played out this week, practically back to back, is our profound need for an anchor. We may not necessarily need the 6:30 or 7:00 Nightly News, as our lives have changed so dramatically from the days when that was the news time. There have been many wrinkles for broadcast news that have rendered the past and current broadcasts beneath their tasks. The fine lines between news and entertainment continue to be injected with fillers. The comedians do a much finer job of treating wrinkles in the news stories. They may be entertaining first, but the intelligence and integrity are apparent, and engage us completely. It’s what the news programs used to do–anchor us.

Spotting the need for an anchor is one that we might not have thought about in previous  generations. Each age of television has had its anchors and standard bearers in news and entertainment. The broadcast news and late night talk shows have endured with their basic formatting for a few generations now. The Daily Show combined those formats and blended the faux news show with a talk show type interview (think Jack Parr) that has been must see tv or wherever for young and young at heart for about a generation and a half in tv years. It remains to be seen if the Daily Show will continue beyond Stewart, but his leaving has left so very many feeling adrift.

The age of The Daily Show has been one fraught with formerly unimaginable craziness and extreme everything–political,environmental, social, religious climate change. This, of course, has intersected with the internet age and the miracles of googling, wikipedia, youtube–all standard and in the palm of one’s hand–rendering network television news quaint, at best. At worst, well…..that’s what we have now.

What I noticed with the surprise and sadness this week, and the profound need for an anchor, is that despite the sense that many have that we are in a steady decline in practically every domain, we have not lost our sense of excellence. We want mensches–those who can discern the fine lines between embellishment and lying, and then be truthful. We can spot truthiness (thank you Stephen Colbert), and in this day and age, we need all the intelligence, rich vocabulary, critical thinking, challenging questions, compassion, integrity  and generosity that has been on display on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. These attributes are what anchor us.

So, while there may be some wrinkles to be smoothed out, we know that what’s true for the ages will keep us anchored. And laugh lines are beautiful.

Speech Pathology

While away visiting family and friends, I was not away from the horror of the terror that enveloped Paris. I may have been some 5,600 + miles from Paris, but I could be in the same zone of interest, despite the difference in time zones. I could converse via email with a cousin in Paris, and watch cable news and read analyses on my ipad, and post my sympathies.

Our extraordinary abilities to communicate through fiber optics, cables and signals anywhere, anytime, has transformed civilization in terms of immediate access, but what makes our civilization civilized is our capacity for consideration and compassion. Our advancement in technologies have allowed for an unprecedented flow of communication and movement, which has enabled expressions of hope as well as of hate .

Lately, the pathologies that have distorted and infected our lives with hate have manifested in abuse and violence in carefully orchestrated attacks upon innocents. The hostage takers at the kosher market in Paris spoke fluent French, yet did not speak the same language as their French hostages. The terrorists’ nihilism and dehumanization, was uttered using the same vocalized sounds and words that other French nationals would be familiar with, but there was no connection.

Some have argued that while there is absolutely no justification for violence or abuse, there must be social causes for such disaffection that would enable so many to seek a dangerous and violent path and wage war against Western Civilization. In essence, these people are looking for the pathologies in modern democratic societies that might explain the pathology of terrorism. Freedom, and lately our free speech, whether in the form of a silly comedy movie, or political cartoons, has been threatened with silencing. This is speech pathology!

Often, in cases of medical speech disorders, there is an auditory component. In order to learn language and speak effectively, one must have clear and accurate perception, as well as the structures and strength to create clearly understood speech. Too often, when toddlers are not articulating adequately, there is a hearing deficit. The relationship between being able to hear and speak is inextricable. Even without hearing, there is a capacity for language and communication. Sign language is every bit as expressive, and depends upon perception.

Those who don’t want to hear are seeking to silence the rest of us.This cultural speech pathology has affected those whose perception has them seek to destroy rather than to construct. The speech pathology that we have been witnessing has been so painful because our capacity for communication is so closely intertwined with our humanity and our culture. The pathology of repression and hate, expressed through abuse and violence must always be countered. There is certainly a deficit of hearing and a surfeit of misperception when such pathologies of repression and hate cause those to silence speech and fear freedom.

As I was en route to the airport to head home yesterday, I saw a sign for the “Museum of Tolerance”. I was struck by the idea of exhibiting tolerance. The thought that tolerance as a relic–something housed in a museum– was disturbing. Of course, using historical events as examples of tolerance (and intolerance) are powerful displays of human capacities (and pathologies). Then again, exhibiting tolerance is what we need to do in our daily lives. It’s a sort of speech therapy for the speech and hearing pathologies that have been so threatening.

The Sony Clause and the Gift of Humor

White Christmas. Miracle on 34th Street. Home Alone….The Interview?? Will The Interview forever be associated with Christmas?  What would have been a silly, adolescent sort of flick became an international issue just in time for Christmas. The shutting down of a comedy film, then it’s release in selected theaters as well as streaming online, has become a Christmas gift after all. Regardless of the quality of The Interview as a film, it now stands for freedom and peace on earth. Taking liberties with comedy has become giving liberty, after it felt  like our liberties were being taken. 

Sony had to confront the awful embarrassment and vulnerability of being hacked and threatened by North Korea. I appreciated the responsibility (and embarrassment) that the execs at Sony had to face, although I was rather disappointed with their decision to cancel showing The Interview (even if I had no intention of seeing the movie prior to this). Now, behold a Christmas miracle: The Interview will be shown!

Many have suggested the possibility that this is a brilliant marketing strategy by Sony. More likely, it is a Christmas Miracle for Sony. The reviews for The Interview have not been great, but now EVERYONE wants to see it. It’s practically a patriotic act.

Last week, President Obama expressed his disappointment with Sony’s initial decision to pull The Interview from theaters. He seemed to reflect popular sentiment that a threat by North Korea over a silly movie was truly an insult to everything we stand for, including Hollywood! Ultimately, Sony execs reconsidered.

“We have never given up on releasing The Interview and we’re excited our movie will be in a number of theaters on Christmas Day,” said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Entertainment. “At the same time, we are continuing our efforts to secure more platforms and more theaters so that this movie reaches the largest possible audience.”

Sony, in an attempt to save some face, or wash some egg off, reminds us with the clause that they are continuing to “secure more platforms”…. The issue of security, whether it’s their own internal e-security, or our cyber security, or our physical well being –especially in a movie theater on Christmas– makes everyone a bit jittery. Adding a clause about security (even in the most generic sense) is the best justifier for anything.

Parents have historically added security clauses after their own temper tantrums. (“I did it for your own good.”) Now we can know that Sony (and perhaps other corporations) can make decisions that are of geopolitical significance as well as corporate economic significance, because of the security clause. Sony was merely protecting us from North Korea.

We appreciate corporate responsibility, and the Sony hacking was revealing in its breadth as well as its rather uninspired (and racist) execs. Aside from the embarrassment that they suffered just from exposed emails, the embarrassment of being vulnerable had to be overcome. The subsequent threats if The Interview were shown, made it easier for Sony to focus on security for everyone’s sake.

But after the initial discomfort over the Sony hacking, Americans didn’t feel justifiably threatened;certainly not by North Korea. If anything, Sony’s initial decision to pull The Interview from theaters felt threatening. Could a corporate decision, about frivolity no less, threaten our freedom more than an enemy government or terrorist?

The Sony Clause gave us the opportunity to see (or not see) The Interview on Christmas or during the holiday season.  The opportunity (more than the movie) may not be a Christmas miracle so much as a gift. Opportunity is a gift, as is humor. We sadly said goodbye to The Colbert Report last week, before Sony shifted to show The Interview. What better gift, especially after the end of The Colbert Report, than the Sony Clause, ensuring more secure platforms, to give liberty to taking liberties!  The incident of The Interview may remind us of the gift of humor this Christmas.  Giggling is always the sound of freedom. Happy Holidays!  Wishing you laughter, joy and peace!

Ghost Busters

It’s easy to feel dispirited by the news. But yesterday’s news of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA’s interrogation “techniques” following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, has me feeling somewhat positive– that is, between bouts of nausea.

The reports of torture are of course not entirely new, but they remain nauseating and shameful. In the 13 years since 9/11, these ghosts have been haunting us. Our own torturers have been lurking among us, but yesterday those ghosts got busted!

Even when we’ve been saddened and furious by seemingly misguided legal decisions–most recently in Ferguson and Staten Island, and before that in Sanford, Florida, as well as other similar cases– those calling for peace, non-violence, racial equality, accountability, dignity, life….you know….what we think of as fundamental to decent society… have essentially been ghost busting!

A country that formally stands for civil rights has seen too many incidents recently that seem to contradict that stance, and too often the negative spirit of racism hovers. The contradiction is unsettling.

If there’s somethin’ strange in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call? GHOSTBUSTERS!

If it’s somethin’ weird an it won’t look good, who ya gonna call? GHOSTBUSTERS!

Many will say that racism isn’t strange. Nor is police brutality. Nor the extreme version, as seen in the reports of CIA torture. Abuse is all too common, and until busted open, often legal.  (The same is true for sexism and sexual abuse.) But we know that the strangeness inherent in abusive behavior isn’t that it is rare; it is that such behavior is vile, and makes most of us extremely uncomfortable (as it should). The ghosts of racism and sexism and abuse of power still haunt us, but the current manifestations of these ghosts are getting busted.

I ain’t afraid a no ghost. I ain’t afraid a no ghost.

While some fear the possibility of inciting terrorists by revealing the Senate report on torture, ultimately it is better that we bust those ghosts of ours. Until we confront our own sanctioned behaviors and assumptions, conscious and unconscious, legal and moral, we will be haunted by ghosts.

I’ve never subscribed to what is often classified as “paranormal”. But if para-normal is actually beyond normal, then we can certainly move beyond the normal indignities that have accrued and caused distortions and fear and exaggerated reactions.

Each generation has its ghost busters. We must encourage this one and the next one. Hey–I hear there’s a new “Ghostbusters” movie in the making. Maybe ghost busting is in the air?

Holding Pattern

We’ve been watching cops and robbers in black and white. “I can’t breathe” is the current verbal meme that expresses the equivalent of the arms up–don’t shoot–gesture.    The incidents in Ferguson and in Staten Island are tragic in so many ways, but even worse, they seem to present a pattern.

We have been stuck in a pattern of not only racial mistrust (on all sides) and mistrust of authority (in most institutions), but also a pattern of exaggeration and fear mongering, leading to even more over reaction. We are also stuck in a pattern of hatred and reflexive actions rather than reflective ones.

Some don’t see patterns, but merely behaviors. When it’s cops and robbers, some think that robbers deserve whatever they get by cops. It’s black and white, except when it’s about cops and robbers who are white and black. Then some don’t see cops and robbers; they just see race and a history of inequity.

Even these narratives are patterns. But something happened after the most recent Grand Jury decision not to indict a cop after he placed Eric Garner in a chokehold during an arrest, after which, Garner died. On the heels of the Ferguson Grand Jury decision not to indict Darren Wilson, the cop who fatally shot Michael Brown who was unarmed, the federal government is beginning to investigate patterns and procedures. We have been choking in our own fears and patterns, and it is as though we can’t breathe anymore.

It is possible to be pro law and order while seeking to break the pattern of extreme violence employed by police. Seeing black and white is also part of the problematic pattern that chokes us. Economic histories and patterns, racial histories and patterns, legal histories and patterns, even gender histories and patterns have actually produced a holding pattern–and we are being choked.

Police accountability would provide some oxygen. While many of us shudder at the idea of more cameras in everyday life, the notion of police cameras would at least potentially provide some more accountability. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee different legal analysis. There was a video in the Eric Garner arrest that clearly showed the choke hold and his gasping for air–for life. But, it seems to me that when one knows that one is being watched, behavior and patterns begin to change. Similarly, if every bullet that is fired by a police officer is documented in a data base, then not only is there obviously the opportunity for actual accountability, but  there is also the opportunity to analyze data and to re-examine how and when deadly force is used. 

We know that law enforcement patterns need altering, as do so many other aspects of our society and legal system. Our histories and patterns seem to have a hold on us, but we have also been choking ourselves–mostly from fear and our own inabilities to see ourselves as fractals or among the elements that comprise patterns–cracks, foams(bubbles), waves, spirals, tilings, and those elements created by symmetries of rotation and mirroring. Seeing our own selves among the elements of the societal and historical patterns allows us to get out of this holding pattern and consciously design better alternatives.