(my title wouldnt fit)
"Who are you to judge the life I live? I know I'm not perfect -and I don't live to be- but before you start pointing fingers... make sure you hands are clean!" Bob Marley
That is one of my favorite quotes ever because I feel that it is so true! We are always so quick to judge those around us, but never seem to recognize or own up to our flaws. This book completely picked apart and made perfect sense of our ignorance. We continuously hear about the particular "ism's" that infect our culture, racism this or sexism that, yet she somehow cuts through all the social trappings and gets to the heart of it. She describes class in a way that seems so simple to see, and yet so foreign to my mind. I was blown away with the pin point accuracy of her thoughts and feel she was able to write this because she saw past the social constraints and looked at the real "problem" with society, Class.
I believe that the world today is separated by classes and people are judged by what social class they fall under. bell hooks talks about how women are treated differently by how they dress and where they go to school. She brings up topics that society does not want to deal with. She did a wonderful job analyzing and describing the way things have changed and stayed the same since she was a child.
I felt strong about the chapter dealing with real estate, and how it is manipulated by "desirables" to keep "the undesirables" out. It is sad to think that you can put a dollar amount on the color of a person's skin. I felt ashamed at times, thinking the same things perhaps at one time or another. I think it is so disgusting that we really do seem to need for others to be poor so we can feel like we have success, it should not be like that; we should want to help those around us. This reading has helped me grow as a person and it opened me up to the ways of the world.
I appreciated her chapters on living simply, and think it is an appropriate and bold call to make in a world where ‘stuff’ and ‘achievement’ are social symbols of significance. I found this description of class from page 103, by Rita Mae Brown, to be important: "Class is much more than Marx's definition of relationship to the means of production. Class involves behavior, your basic assumptions, how you are taught to behave, what you expect from yourself and from others, your concept of a future, how you understand problems and solve them, how you think, feel, act." I know that these characteristics have come up many times in our discussions throughout this course. If we all really do believe this to be the definition of class, why don’t we take all of them into consideration as we judge those around us?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Constants are Changing
I'd like to begin with an apology: this becomes heavily political. It's sort of hard to avoid politics when discussing anything written by bell hooks (sic). I'm really not trying to bait anyone.
Bell hooks, an activist in every sense of the word, set out to accomplish a great deal when writing Where We Stand: Class Matters. She talks of class being the underlying issue, more prevalent than racism, more important than sexism, more life-changing than religion. To wit; "Ultimately, more than any previous movement for social justice, the struggle to end poverty could easily become the civil rights issue with the broadest appeal -- uniting groups that have never before taken a stand together...." (120) This quote closes out chapter 11, titled "White Poverty: The Politics of Invisibility," an impassioned rant against the idea that hate and poverty is monopolized by any race. Racism, while far from eradicated, now creates far less a stigma than class.
Do you agree? Is racism less important than class in society today? For my part, I'd have to say that it is. This book was written in 2000 -- how much has changed since then? Consider the angst and rage against the Bush administration's TARP fund, or the Obama administration's rescuing of what amounts to the entire American auto industry. When I spoke with people regarding these actions as they were happening, the anger was directed at the idea that the banks were too big to fail, or in other words, too important to fail. The government was guaranteeing their continued existence in spite of the free-market principles upon which this country was founded. They were more important to America than Americans.
Hooks is not so old a woman; at 57, she lived through the 60s and 70s and the vast cultural changes that took place, but not the Great Depression, which shaped an entire generation's view on the world and personal liberty. The economic recession in which we now find ourselves is creating new challenges to ideology, and highlighting class in a way that hasn't been seen since the Depression. Yet, at the very least, America had an enemy to focus on during those horrible years. Barring a major terrorist attack in the coming years, or a seemingly impossible return to our former economic glory, America is seeing class highlighted in a way it has never experienced, and will continue to see that trend play out as the Obama presidency and its aftermath unfold.
Hooks seems to agree. In chapter 5, "The Politics of Greed," she says, "Indeed, as a nation where the culture of narcissism reigns supreme, where I, me and mine are all that matters, greed becomes the order of the day. While the sixties and seventies can be characterized as a time in the nation when there was a widespread sense of bounty that could be shared precisely because excess was frowned upon, the eighties and nineties are the years where fear of scarcity increased even as a culture of hedonistic excess began to fully emerge."
Harsh criticism, to be sure. She even goes on to address the cocaine and crack booms of the eighties as a measure of keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. This is a debate that we've had in modern culture innumerable times -- people begin to believe that the only way to move up in class is to start selling drugs. A young, poor black man sees no opportunities in what has been touted as the "real world" of American society, and looks elsewhere for ideas.
I can't say one way or another whether this is truly the case; I didn't live through the progressive decades, although I did make it through the late eighties and early nineties. Certainly there is no question that conservatism and individualistic ideas have pervaded for some time, and several events in American politics bear this idea out -- the perceived failure of the Carter administration, the election of Ronald Reagan, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Republican Revolution of 1994. One could argue that the backlash against President Obama's policies is a sign of this. Yet one could argue just as convincingly that the sixties and seventies were equally individualistic. Young people sought out a different lifestyle, one that helped them to feel whole or at peace, so to speak. Is the argument that greed is what drives recent and current political trends applicable?
To be honest, I didn't think I was going to enjoy reading this book. Hooks has a reputation that marks her as a bit... well, obnoxious. For God's sake, she uses lower-case letters in her name on purpose, just to make a point! Why do that? I still don't understand that bit. It's like the Miss versus Ms. argument -- just let it go!
But I have to admit, however, that I came away from this book with what I hesitate to call a different perspective, but certainly one that is more developed. Her tie-ins with race and class and sexism augmented some of the opinions that I held beforehand, and I frequently found myself in agreement with her opinions, and engrossed by her anecdotes.
Was it the same for you?
Bell hooks, an activist in every sense of the word, set out to accomplish a great deal when writing Where We Stand: Class Matters. She talks of class being the underlying issue, more prevalent than racism, more important than sexism, more life-changing than religion. To wit; "Ultimately, more than any previous movement for social justice, the struggle to end poverty could easily become the civil rights issue with the broadest appeal -- uniting groups that have never before taken a stand together...." (120) This quote closes out chapter 11, titled "White Poverty: The Politics of Invisibility," an impassioned rant against the idea that hate and poverty is monopolized by any race. Racism, while far from eradicated, now creates far less a stigma than class.
Do you agree? Is racism less important than class in society today? For my part, I'd have to say that it is. This book was written in 2000 -- how much has changed since then? Consider the angst and rage against the Bush administration's TARP fund, or the Obama administration's rescuing of what amounts to the entire American auto industry. When I spoke with people regarding these actions as they were happening, the anger was directed at the idea that the banks were too big to fail, or in other words, too important to fail. The government was guaranteeing their continued existence in spite of the free-market principles upon which this country was founded. They were more important to America than Americans.
Hooks is not so old a woman; at 57, she lived through the 60s and 70s and the vast cultural changes that took place, but not the Great Depression, which shaped an entire generation's view on the world and personal liberty. The economic recession in which we now find ourselves is creating new challenges to ideology, and highlighting class in a way that hasn't been seen since the Depression. Yet, at the very least, America had an enemy to focus on during those horrible years. Barring a major terrorist attack in the coming years, or a seemingly impossible return to our former economic glory, America is seeing class highlighted in a way it has never experienced, and will continue to see that trend play out as the Obama presidency and its aftermath unfold.
Hooks seems to agree. In chapter 5, "The Politics of Greed," she says, "Indeed, as a nation where the culture of narcissism reigns supreme, where I, me and mine are all that matters, greed becomes the order of the day. While the sixties and seventies can be characterized as a time in the nation when there was a widespread sense of bounty that could be shared precisely because excess was frowned upon, the eighties and nineties are the years where fear of scarcity increased even as a culture of hedonistic excess began to fully emerge."
Harsh criticism, to be sure. She even goes on to address the cocaine and crack booms of the eighties as a measure of keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. This is a debate that we've had in modern culture innumerable times -- people begin to believe that the only way to move up in class is to start selling drugs. A young, poor black man sees no opportunities in what has been touted as the "real world" of American society, and looks elsewhere for ideas.
I can't say one way or another whether this is truly the case; I didn't live through the progressive decades, although I did make it through the late eighties and early nineties. Certainly there is no question that conservatism and individualistic ideas have pervaded for some time, and several events in American politics bear this idea out -- the perceived failure of the Carter administration, the election of Ronald Reagan, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Republican Revolution of 1994. One could argue that the backlash against President Obama's policies is a sign of this. Yet one could argue just as convincingly that the sixties and seventies were equally individualistic. Young people sought out a different lifestyle, one that helped them to feel whole or at peace, so to speak. Is the argument that greed is what drives recent and current political trends applicable?
To be honest, I didn't think I was going to enjoy reading this book. Hooks has a reputation that marks her as a bit... well, obnoxious. For God's sake, she uses lower-case letters in her name on purpose, just to make a point! Why do that? I still don't understand that bit. It's like the Miss versus Ms. argument -- just let it go!
But I have to admit, however, that I came away from this book with what I hesitate to call a different perspective, but certainly one that is more developed. Her tie-ins with race and class and sexism augmented some of the opinions that I held beforehand, and I frequently found myself in agreement with her opinions, and engrossed by her anecdotes.
Was it the same for you?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
When Life Throws a Curve, Take a Chance
I have never seen the movie Good Will Hunting and after watching this movie I think it's an incredible movie, and I couldn't believe I have never seen it before. This academy award winning film is about a genius who has a philosophical gift for math. Will, the intellectual math wiz lives in a run-down neighborhood where he lived an unhappy and rough life. Will does not attend college because he can't afford it. He constantly is getting himself in trouble by fighting guys in the neighborhood and shows no respect towards others. He has assault charges against him and was abused as a child, which explains why he is lives life on the edge and is so violent. He makes his money by being a janitor at a local college in his hometown which is living life in the lower class system. Will has a passion for math and you can tell this from the very beginning of the movie when Will proves the graduate level algebra theory problem the night Professor Lambeau posted it. Not only does he solve that theory, but he quickly solves another problem that took Lambeau and his colleagues two years to prove. The therapists that Professor Lambeau schedules to meet with Will to help him doesn't work, because Will has a hard time connecting with them. He can not relate with them. Lambeau wants to clean Will up and progress with his prodigy skills so he turns to his college roommate, Sean.
I think that when he was saved by Professor Lambeau and put on probation plus attend the therapy sessions that Will eventually makes something of himself. He deserves to be around smart intellectual people like his girlfriend Skylar, who attends Harvard University. His genius intellectuality needs to be challenged and should be noticed. I think that when Will starts his therapy and being pushed by Professor Lambeau that he doesn't like it, because he has never been told he is wonderful before, or told that he is great. He is being noticed for once in his life, and doesn't know how to take things seriously. For once in his life, someone wants to listen to Will. Sean wants to know about his life and his feelings. He wants to understand who he is as a person, he cares about him. He doesn't have to talk, and he proves that during one of their therapy sessions when Will and Sean just count the seconds on the clock until there hour of therapy is up.
I think one of the main theme's in this movie is fear. Will sets himself up for future failure so he can avoid the danger of emotional pain. I think that when it comes to Will, he is afraid to take chances because he is afraid to fail which is why I think he has never tried to apply his brilliance. He just settles for what he has, and has never been told to make something of his self and to succeed in life. He is afraid to break free of the lifestyle he grew up in and to challenge himself to something that interests him, such as math. It's almost as if he has a fear of success and a fear of life in general. He has never put his talent to use, and it's almost as if he feels trapped. When Professor Lambeau discovers him solving his math problems, Will automatically fears he is "caught" and in trouble and immediately becomes defensive and runs away. I think he has a fear of life in general because he is afraid to lose the life he has. Being with his friends and Skylar is the happiest he has ever been, and he is afraid that if he pursues his genius math talents that everything in his life will be taken from him. He holds himself back a lot during the movie, because he is in fear.
I think my favorite part of the movie is when Chuckie tells Will…"you don't owe it to yourself, you owe it to me." Chuckie tells Will that it's an insult if he is still a laborer in twenty years, because he would give anything to have what Will has. Will is sitting on a "winning lottery ticket" and he needs to finally move on and make something better of himself. Will is finally told by someone he trust that he needs to move on and better himself, rather than living underclass in the society in which he grew up in.
I think that when he was saved by Professor Lambeau and put on probation plus attend the therapy sessions that Will eventually makes something of himself. He deserves to be around smart intellectual people like his girlfriend Skylar, who attends Harvard University. His genius intellectuality needs to be challenged and should be noticed. I think that when Will starts his therapy and being pushed by Professor Lambeau that he doesn't like it, because he has never been told he is wonderful before, or told that he is great. He is being noticed for once in his life, and doesn't know how to take things seriously. For once in his life, someone wants to listen to Will. Sean wants to know about his life and his feelings. He wants to understand who he is as a person, he cares about him. He doesn't have to talk, and he proves that during one of their therapy sessions when Will and Sean just count the seconds on the clock until there hour of therapy is up.
I think one of the main theme's in this movie is fear. Will sets himself up for future failure so he can avoid the danger of emotional pain. I think that when it comes to Will, he is afraid to take chances because he is afraid to fail which is why I think he has never tried to apply his brilliance. He just settles for what he has, and has never been told to make something of his self and to succeed in life. He is afraid to break free of the lifestyle he grew up in and to challenge himself to something that interests him, such as math. It's almost as if he has a fear of success and a fear of life in general. He has never put his talent to use, and it's almost as if he feels trapped. When Professor Lambeau discovers him solving his math problems, Will automatically fears he is "caught" and in trouble and immediately becomes defensive and runs away. I think he has a fear of life in general because he is afraid to lose the life he has. Being with his friends and Skylar is the happiest he has ever been, and he is afraid that if he pursues his genius math talents that everything in his life will be taken from him. He holds himself back a lot during the movie, because he is in fear.
I think my favorite part of the movie is when Chuckie tells Will…"you don't owe it to yourself, you owe it to me." Chuckie tells Will that it's an insult if he is still a laborer in twenty years, because he would give anything to have what Will has. Will is sitting on a "winning lottery ticket" and he needs to finally move on and make something better of himself. Will is finally told by someone he trust that he needs to move on and better himself, rather than living underclass in the society in which he grew up in.
Good Will Hunting aka Cinderella Story?
While watching Good Will Hunting I actually forgot how good this movie really was. Of course, being older and having a more mature outlook on life probably helps. Not to mention that both actors are handsome! =) This was almost your classic Cinderella story, but instead involving a guy. Will, was an orphan who was incredibly intelligent concerning mathematics. On the other hand he was a lost soul and had a lot of physiological problems concerning his past. No one every wanted to take a chance on Will. He was just known as the janitor in the MIT building. Professor Lambeau saw different, when he discovered Will was the one solving the almost impossible Math problems overnight. Professor Lambeau was wondering why this guy was cleaning floors, rather than doing math problems. It is almost like he stereotypes will in the so called “janitor category”. In the end Will is the so called “Cinderella” because he lands a job with a successful company.
A status confliction that I want to point out is when Will starts to get involved with Skylar, the med student. Will thinks that he is of lower class when meeting Skylar because he knows that she has inherited all this money, and can afford to go to med school. Will is afraid to love and to be loved because of his childhood. There is a scene in the movie when Skylar and Will get into it involving money and love.
Skylar says: “What is your obsession with this money? My father died when I was 13 and I inherited this money. You don't think that every day I wake up and wish I could give it back? That I would give it back in a second if I could have one more day with him? But I can't, and that's my life and I deal with it. So don't put your shit on me when you're the one that's afraid. Will: I'm afraid? What am I afraid of? What the fuck am I afraid of? Skylar: You're afraid of me! You're afraid that I won't love you back! Fuck it, I wanna give it a shot! At least I'm honest with you.
I think this scene opens us up to how scared Will is. He learns where Skylar inherited the money from, and how she did not ask for her dads death. She does not like having all the money. Does money always bring happiness?
Another scene where were see ourselves in a social status is when Will and his best friend, Chuckie get into it. Chuckie knows the ability that Will has. Chuckie does not want his best friend to be a brick layer (like himself) for the rest of his life or janitor, when he knows that he could be making a whole lot more working for the high end companies. Chuckie says “Oh, I don't know that. Let me tell you what I do know. Every day I come by to pick you up. And we go out we have a few drinks, and a few laughs and it's great. But you know what the best part of my day is? It's for about ten seconds from when I pull up to the curb to when I get to your door. Because I think maybe I'll get up there and I'll knock on the door and you won't be there. No goodbye, no see you later, no nothin'. Just left. I don't know much, but I know that.”
I think this film brings a lot of speculation regarding status and education to the table. The past few weeks the books and movies we have been watching each have a theme regarding class, money, and education. I think this movie goes to show you that anything you put your mind too you can achieve, no matter what your past is or your education. The past is the past, look forward to opportunities in the future.
A status confliction that I want to point out is when Will starts to get involved with Skylar, the med student. Will thinks that he is of lower class when meeting Skylar because he knows that she has inherited all this money, and can afford to go to med school. Will is afraid to love and to be loved because of his childhood. There is a scene in the movie when Skylar and Will get into it involving money and love.
Skylar says: “What is your obsession with this money? My father died when I was 13 and I inherited this money. You don't think that every day I wake up and wish I could give it back? That I would give it back in a second if I could have one more day with him? But I can't, and that's my life and I deal with it. So don't put your shit on me when you're the one that's afraid. Will: I'm afraid? What am I afraid of? What the fuck am I afraid of? Skylar: You're afraid of me! You're afraid that I won't love you back! Fuck it, I wanna give it a shot! At least I'm honest with you.
I think this scene opens us up to how scared Will is. He learns where Skylar inherited the money from, and how she did not ask for her dads death. She does not like having all the money. Does money always bring happiness?
Another scene where were see ourselves in a social status is when Will and his best friend, Chuckie get into it. Chuckie knows the ability that Will has. Chuckie does not want his best friend to be a brick layer (like himself) for the rest of his life or janitor, when he knows that he could be making a whole lot more working for the high end companies. Chuckie says “Oh, I don't know that. Let me tell you what I do know. Every day I come by to pick you up. And we go out we have a few drinks, and a few laughs and it's great. But you know what the best part of my day is? It's for about ten seconds from when I pull up to the curb to when I get to your door. Because I think maybe I'll get up there and I'll knock on the door and you won't be there. No goodbye, no see you later, no nothin'. Just left. I don't know much, but I know that.”
I think this film brings a lot of speculation regarding status and education to the table. The past few weeks the books and movies we have been watching each have a theme regarding class, money, and education. I think this movie goes to show you that anything you put your mind too you can achieve, no matter what your past is or your education. The past is the past, look forward to opportunities in the future.
Good Will Dreaming
I would first like to mention that I forgot how adorable Minnie Driver is. With that said, let's start a discussion on the film, Good Will Hunting.
There are so many things we could discuss about this film in relation to class. Dr. B, you were right...I watched the film again and noticed things I had not bothered to notice before. For example, how about one of the themes being the need for middle class identity to be inexplicably tied to their professions? I loved that Sean (Robin Williams' character) had a "superior" education and he got meaning and identity from being who he is, not what he does or who he does it for. Yet, his almost nemesis, Professor whats-his-name (already blocked it out) couldn't comprehend this. In fact, he viewed the decision to not be great when you could be great, a waste and a big mistake. Part of his problem was how he defined being great. I think he felt that to be great, others must notice you are great. But is that really a reasonable or logical way to live your life? I would venture to say absolutely not. Life should be more than your job and certainly shouldn't be tied to what others think of you. Yet the professor could see it no other way.
I enjoyed picking apart Will's character during the film. When I watched it years ago I did the same thing but there were a few things I didnt notice last time. For instance, I picked up on Will's discomfort among the middle class. His discomfort was so intense that he knowingly drew attention to how he was like his friends and avoided anything that demonstrated his differences. Will seemed to find comfort in his belonging. Of course, considering his childhood, one could understand the desperate need to belong. He was treated as an insignificant as a child and he learned to treat himself the same as an adult. This mechanism also served to protect him from the disappointment and rejection of others. His emotional distance kept him safer but his ordinary demeanor kept others from singling him out. If you compare his behavior to that of his friends in the Harvard bar, his attitude changes a bit. No longer is he content to blend in or belong when his friend is threatened. He clearly demonstrates his ability and uses it to put his foe in his place. He does so because he knows this jerk is a phony and doesnt even think for himself. he knows that this phony does not expect to be outsmarted by someone like Will. It gave Will great pleasure to prove him wrong.
Chuckie at one point tells Will that he awaits the moment when Will doesnt answer the door when Chuckie shows up to pick him yup for work. He wants and expects Will to use his talent to take him to places that Chuckie could not go. Chuckie is all too aware of his status and does not seek to change it, but accepts his lot in life. Is it true that Chuckie could not alter his class or position? Is he being realistic about his situation or just a pessimist? Would an education have been wasted on him? I suppose only Chuckie knows that part. An education is only worth what you do with it. But he certainly seemed to be well aware of Will's potential and didnt find the need to keep Will down to elevate himself. Instead, he gained some pride in pushing Will to improve his lot.
Was it also noticeable to you that Sean was the epitome of a straggler (which caused him great distress at times). But that coming from a blue-collar background gave him a set of values and guidelines that were highly contrasted by those held by his roommate and other classmates. In fact, I would say that Sean was probably pushed to choose a more spiritually rewarding career over a prestigious one because he was disgusted with who and what he saw in those people & their professions. Sean wanted instead to be his own man and be lead by his heart. The contrast between him and Professor Lambeau was immense and their ideas and values vastly different. In the end Sean learned to practice what he preached, Will learned vulnerability leads to real living and Professor Lambeau....well, we hope he learned that rules, prestige, awards, notoriety and social elevation is nothing more than a bag full of #@%$ at the end of your life.
There are so many things we could discuss about this film in relation to class. Dr. B, you were right...I watched the film again and noticed things I had not bothered to notice before. For example, how about one of the themes being the need for middle class identity to be inexplicably tied to their professions? I loved that Sean (Robin Williams' character) had a "superior" education and he got meaning and identity from being who he is, not what he does or who he does it for. Yet, his almost nemesis, Professor whats-his-name (already blocked it out) couldn't comprehend this. In fact, he viewed the decision to not be great when you could be great, a waste and a big mistake. Part of his problem was how he defined being great. I think he felt that to be great, others must notice you are great. But is that really a reasonable or logical way to live your life? I would venture to say absolutely not. Life should be more than your job and certainly shouldn't be tied to what others think of you. Yet the professor could see it no other way.
I enjoyed picking apart Will's character during the film. When I watched it years ago I did the same thing but there were a few things I didnt notice last time. For instance, I picked up on Will's discomfort among the middle class. His discomfort was so intense that he knowingly drew attention to how he was like his friends and avoided anything that demonstrated his differences. Will seemed to find comfort in his belonging. Of course, considering his childhood, one could understand the desperate need to belong. He was treated as an insignificant as a child and he learned to treat himself the same as an adult. This mechanism also served to protect him from the disappointment and rejection of others. His emotional distance kept him safer but his ordinary demeanor kept others from singling him out. If you compare his behavior to that of his friends in the Harvard bar, his attitude changes a bit. No longer is he content to blend in or belong when his friend is threatened. He clearly demonstrates his ability and uses it to put his foe in his place. He does so because he knows this jerk is a phony and doesnt even think for himself. he knows that this phony does not expect to be outsmarted by someone like Will. It gave Will great pleasure to prove him wrong.
Chuckie at one point tells Will that he awaits the moment when Will doesnt answer the door when Chuckie shows up to pick him yup for work. He wants and expects Will to use his talent to take him to places that Chuckie could not go. Chuckie is all too aware of his status and does not seek to change it, but accepts his lot in life. Is it true that Chuckie could not alter his class or position? Is he being realistic about his situation or just a pessimist? Would an education have been wasted on him? I suppose only Chuckie knows that part. An education is only worth what you do with it. But he certainly seemed to be well aware of Will's potential and didnt find the need to keep Will down to elevate himself. Instead, he gained some pride in pushing Will to improve his lot.
Was it also noticeable to you that Sean was the epitome of a straggler (which caused him great distress at times). But that coming from a blue-collar background gave him a set of values and guidelines that were highly contrasted by those held by his roommate and other classmates. In fact, I would say that Sean was probably pushed to choose a more spiritually rewarding career over a prestigious one because he was disgusted with who and what he saw in those people & their professions. Sean wanted instead to be his own man and be lead by his heart. The contrast between him and Professor Lambeau was immense and their ideas and values vastly different. In the end Sean learned to practice what he preached, Will learned vulnerability leads to real living and Professor Lambeau....well, we hope he learned that rules, prestige, awards, notoriety and social elevation is nothing more than a bag full of #@%$ at the end of your life.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Bittersweet Straddling
Lubrano did an excellent job of keeping me interested. His insight was thought provoking and the reading provided a lot of first hand examples and at some points in the book I could actually feel the emotion of the author or the candidates that he interviewed. One story that really illustrated the difference in classes particularly caught my attention. I'm not saying that this one is any better than the others, I just remember the way it made me feel.
Joe Terry, a person interviewed by Lubrano gives his account of going out on a date with a girl from the upper class. In it he details the hours of work he did collecting scallop meat for a year in order to take this girl out on a date. When he finally took her out he said that it occurred to him that she had no idea how hard he'd worked to be able to take her out. He says, "I remember being struck by the distinct feeling that it wasn't the event for her that it was for me. And I had intended it to be a big deal for her. It became clear in a moment that she just had no idea of the sacrifices a person like me would have to make to take her out" (171). I just remember feeling sad after reading that story. I can visualize the effort that Joe put in, and it's a story that definitely stuck out to me.
When Barbara Peters went for her first weekend home from college, her family told her "not to get too big for her britches," and that she wasn't that much more intelligent than them just because she went to college. This kind of blows my mind and makes me sad at the same time. I just can't imagine being discouraged on my first weekend home from school.
The interview with Anthony Lukas was even more disturbing to me. He almost has no relationship with his family simply because he attended college (65). His father even became violent at one point when Anthony tried to debate his opinion.Once again, I just can't imagine a reaction like this from my parents. Anthony said that he believes that his father was jealous that his son was going places that he couldn't go. My father is so proud of me for being in college. He wasn't able to go when he was young because there wasn't enough money for him to go. That is probably one of the things that he's been most happy about in his life, the fact that I was able to go to college.
I think that this book does such a good job of accurately describing what it must be like for people in the middle - in limbo. The interviews provided so many perspectives and stories. I thought it was very interesting when the author brought up the perspective of working class parents who have middle class children. Children who didn't have to work for as much as their parents did, or children who just had much more than their parents did. I imagine that having middle class children when you're from the working class might be bittersweet. I can see how the parents would be happy that they'd been able to provide many things for their children, and sad if they feel that their children don't appreciate the hard work it took to get there, sort of like Joe Terry's date story.
Lubrano's Limbo made me consider more things about class than I already had. So many examples and perspectives were given. Each one made me understand a little more about being a straddler. I think it's a tough position to be in whether it's with your family, at school, with peers, or with love interests. Someone in an earlier blog mentioned that their father was planning on reading the book, I was telling my dad some of the things that Lubrano and the interview subjects said - and he also plans on reading the book! After reading I remember feeling happy about where I came from (believe me - not upper class! Haha) and very happy to have the parents that I do.
Joe Terry, a person interviewed by Lubrano gives his account of going out on a date with a girl from the upper class. In it he details the hours of work he did collecting scallop meat for a year in order to take this girl out on a date. When he finally took her out he said that it occurred to him that she had no idea how hard he'd worked to be able to take her out. He says, "I remember being struck by the distinct feeling that it wasn't the event for her that it was for me. And I had intended it to be a big deal for her. It became clear in a moment that she just had no idea of the sacrifices a person like me would have to make to take her out" (171). I just remember feeling sad after reading that story. I can visualize the effort that Joe put in, and it's a story that definitely stuck out to me.
When Barbara Peters went for her first weekend home from college, her family told her "not to get too big for her britches," and that she wasn't that much more intelligent than them just because she went to college. This kind of blows my mind and makes me sad at the same time. I just can't imagine being discouraged on my first weekend home from school.
The interview with Anthony Lukas was even more disturbing to me. He almost has no relationship with his family simply because he attended college (65). His father even became violent at one point when Anthony tried to debate his opinion.Once again, I just can't imagine a reaction like this from my parents. Anthony said that he believes that his father was jealous that his son was going places that he couldn't go. My father is so proud of me for being in college. He wasn't able to go when he was young because there wasn't enough money for him to go. That is probably one of the things that he's been most happy about in his life, the fact that I was able to go to college.
I think that this book does such a good job of accurately describing what it must be like for people in the middle - in limbo. The interviews provided so many perspectives and stories. I thought it was very interesting when the author brought up the perspective of working class parents who have middle class children. Children who didn't have to work for as much as their parents did, or children who just had much more than their parents did. I imagine that having middle class children when you're from the working class might be bittersweet. I can see how the parents would be happy that they'd been able to provide many things for their children, and sad if they feel that their children don't appreciate the hard work it took to get there, sort of like Joe Terry's date story.
Lubrano's Limbo made me consider more things about class than I already had. So many examples and perspectives were given. Each one made me understand a little more about being a straddler. I think it's a tough position to be in whether it's with your family, at school, with peers, or with love interests. Someone in an earlier blog mentioned that their father was planning on reading the book, I was telling my dad some of the things that Lubrano and the interview subjects said - and he also plans on reading the book! After reading I remember feeling happy about where I came from (believe me - not upper class! Haha) and very happy to have the parents that I do.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Straddling Is Stressful!
Straddling Is Stressful!
First off I want to start by saying I really enjoyed this book. Lubrano did an excellent job of explaining the transition of blue collar to white collar which personal descriptions the whole way. This book was extremely easy to read I found myself wanting to read on because he made such interesting points. My father is actually starting to read it because a number of things he described about his journey and others I feel that my dad can relate to almost exactly.
I love that Lubrano starts is Introduction section of the book with “I am two people” This little phrase examples more than I could have imagined before started to read this book. I never thought of people feeling like that are two different people because of what they came from and where they are now. I love that he ingeniously uses the term “Straddlers” and that they are in “Limbo” to describe the transition between blue collar and what we know of as the middle class. There arnt two better words to explain this phase.
I feel like the majority of this book the blue collar parents’ just want what is best for their children. When he talks about his father being a bricklayer and how his father had build many colleges, condos, and office towers that he wasn’t even allowed in. he says “once the walls were up, a place took on a different feel for him, as though he wasn’t welcome anymore.” I feel like this could represent a lot of the feelings the people had throughout the book. Also he talks about when the white collar kids of blue-collar parents look or a place of work they are looking for a career not a job. I feel like this message is powerful because a lot of the blue collared parents (same as his dad) just wanted their kids to have a job, an income no matter what. The children, on the other hand, wanted a career no matter what the money which is were there could be a misunderstanding. He said his dad told him “Make as much money as you can, to pay for as good a life you can get.” Obviously his dad just wants him to be well off, but he wanted different things out of his career not just the money. I feel like these were a perfect example of his “clash of values” because the kids from their parents just have different values.
Straddlers for me is an impactful word because it is the truth. When interviewing the author lets us know that many of these people feel that they don’t know how to act when in certain worlds. Such as under the Office Politics the author gives examples of how his father would react to certain situation and he is trying to tell his father that in the office you cant do that. For example, his dad says “Next time, you grab the guy by the throat, push him against the wall, and tell him he’s a big fat jerk.” Obviously this would never work in the office, but his father doesn’t understand that. Also of the interviewees were straddlers for not know how to act or changing even their tone of voice when with certain people.
When the book talks about Identity changing and how college corrupts, I can really get a feel for how these people feel. I agree that as the book says “College is where the Great Change begins.” I truly feel that if someone is from a blue collar family and they are pushing themselves to go to college they are already changing. They have different goals and dreams so they are already becoming these “Straddlers.” When Greg Andrews the history professor says, “Every bit of learning takes you further from your parents” I agree with this statement to a degree. My father was the first and only member of his family to go to college and graduate and his parents could not understand him. I feel like to this day they still to not understand his accomplishment because his parents and siblings’ cant relate so they don’t understand. Is this true in all cases? No, but I am sure it is for a lot of people and the few examples in this book.
As a whole I thought this book was really good. I like that it opened my eyes to certain things I may have overlooked in the past and raise some very good points. Now I find myself wondering do the “straddlers” every get comfortable in each side or will they always have the stress of not completely fitting into one or both sides? Can the blue-collared parents ever truly understand their white collared kids? Will they always feel like they are two people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
