Asymmetry
By now you’ve probably heard of the Rev. Michael Pfleger.
The Chicago Reader profiled him back in 1989. According to the Reader, Pfleger was locking horns with Church leadership when he was still in the seminary. As a recovering Catholic, I can’t help but appreciate this thorn in the side of the episcopacy; I doubly appreciate the Rev. Pfleger for his conviction and authenticity. The man lives what he preaches. Whatever else he is, he’s not a hypocrite. That passion means he doesn’t always tow the party line, and when one of his vocal denunciations launched him into the national spotlight, Church officials moved swiftly to discipline him.
The episode has left me even more embittered about Holy Mother Church. One priest denounces a presidential candidate in a homily, in however poor taste, and is immediately suspended. Contrast this with the still unknown numbers of priests who were quietly reassigned after being accused of sexual abuse. How could anyone NOT be angry? What kind of ruthlessness makes such an attitude, such actions, possible? If only someone had had the presence of mind to videotape an instance of child rape — ! This hypocrisy fuels my anger at the Catholic Church. I want to march up to Cardinal George and say, “Really? It’s so nice to know that you take your pastoral responsibilities seriously and that you have your priorities in order. As long as Mother Church looks good in public, who cares what she does to her children behind closed doors?”
This is why I left. To see a priestly class pay lip service to social justice while wheedling funds from parishioners who barely make ends meet, to see them condone ghastly crimes while denouncing comparatively minor infractions, to see the Vatican and all the lust for power and money and pleasure it represents — it was too much. And commingled with the revulsion was the (of course) the guilt, the sense that my baptism implicated me in a legacy of rapacious greed and heinous crimes. I had to leave, but I will never be out.
But more on that later.
Some Thoughts on Immigration
Jonathan Power has an interesting piece on First Drafts regarding some of the drawbacks of immigration. Some points are a bit narrow and forceful for me, but one or two of his points were long overdue for discussion, such as:
The main trouble is that modern capitalist-inclined governments rather like it: immigration keeps down wages. (I’m not talking about the immigration of professionals—and how governments like to mislead the public by often conflating the two!) It provides an underclass who live on the margins of established society. They may not pay income taxes (although they pay VAT and every other kind of consumer tax), but this is made up for by their willingness to do dirty jobs, night shifts and off the books jobs like cleaners and nannies. Immigration, in short, is a deflationary economic tool and governments love that. Note: He’s principally talking about the UK and South Africa, so for the purposes of this post insert “illegal” before “immigration” and “to the US” afterwards.
This is one of my principal problems with illegal immigration to the States: It creates an underclass ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous and greedy companies. That the government turns a blind eye to low wages, unsafe working conditions, and sometimes outright abuse encourages many corporations (for example, the strawberry farmers Eric Schlosser described in Reefer Nation) to actively seek out illegal labor. Given the choice between hiring an unskilled citizen or legal immigrant who understand their right to recourse for unfair treatment, and an illegal immigrant living in fear of the law and probably desperate to feed a starving family, what’s the profit-conscious company to do? The lack of enforcement against these companies is a shameful abdication of governmental responsibility. If labor laws were strictly enforced, there wouldn’t be as much of a market for illegal labor. Moreover, wages would no longer be weighed down by low bidders rendered desperate by their circumstances. But corporations and legislators alike profit from this near-slavery, so the latter placate their constituencies by brutal token roundups, all the while accepting tributes from the former.
What is the answer? Keeping immigrants out is not easy. But there are ways for the government to favour their own citizens. First, they can commit resources to retraining programmes for their own unemployed or poorly employed citizens.
Okay, this is definitely problematic. Suggesting the government “favour its own citizens,” especially in the US, starts you down a nasty slippery slope. In an ideal US, workers would be hired based on their merits: their skill set, their work ethic, and their willingness to work for a fair — not grossly depressed — wage. Employers, in turn, would be judged by the fairness of their wages and work conditions, and thereby forced to conduct themselves properly or lose all the qualified labor to better firms and/or suffer legal penalties. Of course, this is not the case, but it is the standard to which we ought aspire. Additionally, improving our school system would go a long way towards preventing under- or unemployment.
Second, they can help the major countries of emigration develop their economies at home. When countries that once were big emigration countries developed—as varied as Turkey, Puerto Rico and Ireland—the immigrants voluntarily returned.
It is disingenuous to claim illegal immigrants deserve a better life in the States, because the statement doesn’t take into account the multitudes who remain in the countries of origin. All human beings living in poverty and squalor deserve a crack at a better life, and they deserve to have those opportunities available where they are. Any government truly committed to improving conditions for these people would exert social, political, or economic pressure on “exodus nations” (which tend to be impoverished more by corruption than by a lack of resources) to improve conditions so that their citizens were not forced to leave in order to support themselves and their families. But the arrangement works for too many people, except of course for the workers: The destination country’s government gets cheap labor, corporate contributions, an apparently strong economy, and (maybe) political leverage, and the originating country’s government gets a steady stream of income from its expatriates which bolsters the economy and feeds, clothes, and generally placates the remaining citizens, thereby freeing it (the government) of responsibility for reducing corruption or attacking the causes of poverty.
All that said, I support immigration; I am truly proud to be part of this diverse and dynamic melting pot, in spite of all its faults. However, the system is in dire need of an overhaul and we as a nation are in equally dire need of an honest debate about how to bring policy up to principles, and how to govern in a way that respects human dignity, maintains fairness, and offers as much real opportunity to as many as possible.
There Has Been Blood
There’s a lot of fur and blood (hah) flying over Aliza Shvarts’s senior “art” project. To sidestep the debate over what constitutes art and what does not, and the inevitable discussion over the arbitrary rules designating canon and “real” art, let us assume that the piece is, in fact, art. From there let us consider whether it is the profound artistic statement she and her defenders have made it out to be, a piece of “performance art” that forces us to re-evaluate our positions on reproductive freedom, their roots, and our definitions of the messy biological elements implicated therein.
It is of course possible to ascribe an intellectual discourse to Shvarts’ project, but as The Cat in the Hat Essay shows us, it’s possible to do that with almost any text. One thing I learned in college is that you can do or say anything in the undergraduate bubble and pronounce (or denounce) it as a “statement.” Even now, several years removed from undergrad, generating “statements” regarding people, clothing, art, and events remains one of my favorite games, primarily because a text’s susceptibility to interpretation/analysis/criticism does not automatically legitimate it, its stated purpose/message, or any subsequent analyses.
[Disclosure: I was taken in by the initial hoax, as Yale as resorted to calling the project, although Shvarts insists that everything she initially stated was true, and that it is entirely possible that her project harbors somewhere the shattered remains of a proto-embryonic cellular clump. I attribute my gullibility to the fact that I skimmed a blog post about the project at work; as any cubicle slave can tell you, you can’t process reading material properly when your ears are cocked for footsteps and your hand is twitchily poised to switch to a legitimate screen.]
My first problem with the project is its biological improbability. Miscarriages are highly unlikely in such a closely spaced sequence, because of the way egg fertilization/zygote implantation/hormonal agents affect a reproductive cycle. In addition, Shvarts used “herbal” abortifacients of questionable potency; if aborting were as easy as buying a few herbs from the local health-foods store, women wouldn’t have to cross picket lines at clinics or fight for prescriptions of RU-486. Shvarts also offers the suspect statement that she ingested the abortifacients just before she was scheduled to menstruate, so that it would be unclear whether the ensuing material contained a zygote/embryo/fetus. Any woman who pays any attention to her body, even if she is on birth control, will know when she is about to get her period. In much the same way that stomachs growl when they’re hungry and healed bones ache before storms, the female reproductive system sends out signals before it discards that cycle’s unused construction materials. Her statements are also suspect for the common-sense reason that if she really were concerned that she had been impregnated she would have turned to more, ahem, reliable means to ameliorate the situation, if for no other reason than to obtain reliably controversial material for the art project. Nothing says controversy like an aborted embryo or fetus in plexiglass. Cow carcasses, move over, ‘cuz there is a new kid (ha!) in town.
I was surprised to discover, in the midst of this firestorm, that some more extreme pro-lifers have trouble distinguishing between ordinary menstruation (in which the unfertilized egg is discarded with the now purposeless endometrial lining) and abortion. The argument goes that women taking birth control might be aborting zygotes that fail to implant, expelling them during menstruation and never the wiser of their loss (and, of course, the consequent loss to the seething, burgeoning ranks of humanity). When you add to that the medical fact that many zygotes do fail, for one reason or another, to implant in the uterine lining, a sexually active woman might be aborting, not menstruating, every month.
Shvarts claimed that her project was designed to expose how ludicrous this sentiment is, to provoke a re-evaluation of common definitions of women’s reproductive/destructive power, reproductive rights, and conceptualizations of the organs and biological material implicated therein. She also claimed that she wanted her project to inspire dialogue in and between the pro-life and pro-choice communities about these definitions.
But I don’t buy it. I’m not even sure she believes half of what she’s saying, but since we’re getting into hermeneutic territory here, we’ll just say that the artist’s intent isn’t necessarily relevant to our analysis/criticism/interpretation of the work in question. This project strikes me as a cheap ploy for attention, for her gratification or for career-planning reasons. It reeks of the thoughtless, self-absorbed academic pretension rife in many liberal elite institutions (my alma mater included), to which I was not immune, and from which I have had to wean myself when confronted with the pressures, demands, and grittiness of the real world. This is the exactly the sort of pretension that derides anyone who finds fault with it project as “close-minded,” “(hetero)normative,” “hegemonic,” or “oppressive,” as though agreement and support were prerequisites for admission to a circle sufficiently erudite to “appreciate” the work; the sort that flaunts Emperor’s New Clothes and refuses to acknowledge that even if a sentiment is absurd and empty-headed, an equally absurd and empty-headed assault is not legitimated solely by virtue of its opposition.
For these reasons, the project initially struck me as offensive, but on further reflection I realized that it was not so much offensive as vulgar and insensitive. Especially in its repeated use of the word “miscarriage” to characterize the video of the artist bleeding and the products of her attempts to induce abortion, Shvarts (intentionally or not) trivializes the loss of women who have miscarried and the personal, emotional, and legal obstacles faced by women who have aborted. And by thrusting her own reproductive functions into the spotlight, she invites (or dares) third parties to comment on her (supposedly ambiguous) experience, in the process subverting the argument that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is the private and exclusive domain of one person. Shvarts’ performance is an invitation to scrutiny that pro-life activists will expand to include all women seeking abortions, and so sabotages the very mission she claims to support.
Which brings me to my next problem with the piece and its stated purpose: Whatever she claims her intentions where, the project does NOT promote meaningful dialogue within, let alone between, the specified camps. Shvarts subscribes to what I’ll call “liberal academic fallacy,” that is, the assumption of many bright-eyed, idealistic, zealous undergraduates that anything that incites controversy promotes dialogue in support of a pet liberal cause (or against a comparable conservative one). But engaging in outrageous and inflammatory behavior doesn’t help anyone; it serves only to further alienate and isolate opposing camps from each other’s perspectives. Such performances also reinforce the popular perceptions that academics and artists are elitists who are more interested in speaking at people instead of with them.
What if a group decided to “make a statement” using racist or sexist language? Many people would waste no time (rightfully) denouncing the action as narrow-minded and destructive. While Shvarts’ project is not hate speech, it delusively suggests that it is possible to leverage inflammatory actions, exploit public credulity and paint detractors as stupid in order to promote healthy, honest, constructive dialogue. It may not be hate speech, but the results and intent are similar; both groups would say they are just trying to make a point, but really, their sole intent is to proclaim their moral and intellectual superiority and their sole achievement is to alienate potential allies. Shvarts’ project is insidious and infuriating because it reeks of self-aggrandizement, liberal smugness, and ignorance of the way her own outrageous actions will impact the lives of others. She makes us all look bad, and she’s not doing herself any favors, either.
_-_detail_1_(devil).JPG){kind=link}