Monday, July 26, 2010

Literary digressions

My good pal Sherman and I struck a deal a few months ago: I'll read The Plague if he reads The Fountainhead. Interestingly, there seems to be more similarities between the two books than you would think at first blush.
Sherman noted:
- They were both published within a few years of each other (Rand's in '43, Camus' in '47)
- They both are inspired as part of their author's response to totalitarianism (Rand to Stalinism, Camus by now should be painfully obviously writing an allegory for Nazified France)
- They both center on strong, professional men
- They both deal with questions of how one should live one's life in light of the world
- They both are written by authors who are a great deal better at thinking of ideas and explaining them than novel-writing with all its plots and stuff
- Both Rand and Camus are not often regarded highly by "hard" philosophy types, despite being enormously influential on multiple generations... far more influential than Kierkegard or Heidigger, to name two that philo majors obsesses over
- Most importantly, La Peste is as important to me as the Fountainhead is to you
Then Sherman scared the pants off of me by saying he wanted to do an "academic exchange" before we met over dinner to discuss. My first attempt at a thematic essay on literature since at least 2004 is thus below...

Both books explore the nature of love though it is neither’s leading lady. Love is an end in itself in The Plague while merely a side effect of principled living in The Fountainhead.

For Camus, it seems love is an ambiguous feel-good emotion which is acknowledged as selfish and secondary to societal obligations and duties. “[H]e knew, too, that to love someone means relatively little; or, rather, that love is never strong enough to find the words befitting it” (291). This could be a cover for Camus poor power of description but it is clearly part of Camus’ larger theme that love is second to duty and societal good. Camus is purposefully vague in his descriptions of women, couples, and their connections. Perhaps by relegating women to mere mentions and vague references of ‘wife’ Camus is emphasizing the level of import we are to attach to these attachments. Though Rieux seems somewhat cold and detached from his wife (could just be poor writing?), it is stated clearly that he loves her and misses her. Rambert loves his ‘wife’ as well but as time passes is less and less clear as to why he loves her. Both men struggle with their desire to reunite and connect with their wives – should they be reconnecting with their wives? Rieux does not chasten Rambert’s escape attempts nor condones them: he doesn’t know what is right. He does not know which is the more just end.

From the beginning, Camus established love as a central theme. “Perhaps the easiest way of making a town’s acquaintance is to ascertain how the people in it work, how they love, and how they die” (4). The book focuses on these three themes in particular and how their presence or absence affects the individual. “People linked together by friendship, affection, or physical love found themselves reduced to hunting for tokens of their past communion within the compass of a ten-word telegram” (69). Note love is given reverential treatment here with the use of the word ‘communion.’ Since Camus was an atheist was this religious allusion to love meant as a condescension? Absence can make the heart grow fonder but also more vague. The ambiguity and scarce words on the subject are frustrating. Something must fill the gap of love if absent or removed and Camus seems to think that service and duty can. When Rieux challenges Rambert’s zeal for “living and dying for what one loves” by saying “Man isn’t an idea, Rambert.” Rambert jumps to his feet and asserts, “Man is an idea, and a precious small idea, once he turns his back on love” (162-163). Once Rambert discovers Rieux has turned his back on his wife (or at least hasn’t tried to escape), he too turns his back on his escape plans in honor of his greater sense of duty.

The Plague’s treatment of love is simpler and more universally appealing than in Rand. Despite the ambiguity with which Camus describes the feeling of love and the impetus for the attachment, it is clear that love is a respectable and desirable end in itself. “A loveless world is a dead world and always there comes an hour when one is weary of prisons, of one’s work, and of devotion to duty, and all one craves for is a loved face, the warmth and wonder of a loving heart” (261). Camus strikes a resonating chord with that line. It is true: we have all been there and felt that basic human need. “They knew now that if there is one thing one can always yearn for and sometimes attain, it is human love” (300).

The Fountainhead’s treatment of love may foster a healthier sense of individuality within a couple but its narcissism risks the greater good of society if taken too literally. Self interested behavior would have definitely won out in the love versus societal duty debate for Howard Roark or Dominque Francon. However, love is much more specific in Rand and seems like a more precious and respectable state of being than in The Plague. Dominique loves Roark for what he can do and the honesty with which he lives his life. Roark loves Dominique because she’s hot, clever, and can recognize his worth (aka worships the ground he walks on). Love is a conscious choice. Though this conception of love is more idealistic it is also not an end but a side product of living an honest, rational, productive life. The problem with this is that not everyone is honest, rational, and productive. This hero worship is hard to relate to and sets up unreasonable expectations of what can be achieved or expected out of one’s partner.

“To say ‘I love you,’ one must first be able to say the ‘I.’” It is hard - if not impossible - to honestly accept another's love for you if you cannot recognize your own self worth. Dominique takes time to fully appreciate her worthiness of Roark and thus her circuitous path to ending up in his arms both in the light of day and in the bedroom. This maxim can help remind people in relationships to maintain their individual identities. What does “I love you” mean if you cannot define the “I”?

Rand also goes so far as to speak derogatorily of brotherly love. The more specific love is, the more meaningful under Rand’s view. Ergo, the less specific the more dangerous the ideal of love because it can then become a call to action for the amorphous beast Steven Mallory imagines is personified best by Toohey. Brotherly love can be an excuse to quell any individual action and that is the root of all evil in The Fountainhead. This paradigm is extreme and does not go so far as to explain what happens to the poor and destitute in society if all men acted so purely self-interested.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

The end of fatherhood

Funny that I was engrossed in an online discussion about the "End of Men" yesterday. Talking esoterically about 'proper' gender roles and their importance to the social fabric of civilization was all fine and dandy. But today, the topic hits far too close to home.

Today I know my father is not the man I thought he was. Not only is he more irresponsible and selfish than I ever dreamed possible, he has forsaken first his wife and now his children in pursuit of fleeting whims and corporeal pleasure.

I only mention this very painful and personal fact because of its salience to the issue in question. Where are all the good men? I fear the vast majority will die out with my grandparents "Greatest Generation." Having not read The Greatest Generation by Tom Brokaw yet, I cannot attest to anything other than the anecdotal evidence of how badass my own grandparents are. But trust me, they are. One summer during the Great Depression my grandmother subsisted on scarce root vegetables and small vermin meat. My grandfather was at Pearl Harbor and served in the Navy. These are the rough and tumble makings of humble, hard-working and grateful individuals. The kind of productive and patriotic folk who to this day give more often than they receive and donate as much of their time to charitable causes both necessary and artistic. And despite maintaining a fairly traditional gender dynamic, they both respect and love each other immensely.

It started with the Baby Boomers eschewing American values of patriotism, hard work, and family. Hello rebellion.

Then much of Generation X was raised on a steady privileged diet of video games and the illusion that there is no such thing as failure. Much of this generation was also raised in faithless, broken homes which surprisingly turned out self-centered namby pamby youngsters. One commentator summed up the general exasperation with young men today on the Amspec blog yesterday:
As I watched my husband rip bushes out of the ground this weekend, using a pick ax and his bare hands to clear old brush, then head up to the roof to work on the chimney, then into the garage to do something with woodworking tools, then change the oil in my car, then pick up a bug using only one kleenex, then declog the drain in the kitchen, carry trees using one hand from the truck to the yard........I felt like a useless idiot, so I helped where I could.

This was just in one day.

Then I go to work and spend the day with soft, young men who wear Ipods and love to talk about women's make-up, Southpark and hairstyles. They don't know how to do things around the house, deal with gas lines, blowtorches or shoot a deer. They voted for Obama and think that conflict and anger should not touch life. They sport tattoos but have never serve in the Navy. They eat too many carbs and then moan about eating too many carbs. Their stomachs are plump at an early age and their hair is sprayed. Even their clothing is mauve or soft tan.

Masculinity does not exist without hair on the chest, dirt under the fingernails, and other behaviors which should not be mentioned on polite blogspace.

I think that we all need a little less in the things department and more basic struggle. It is coming soon - it may be here already.
A few months ago, I saw a documentary Generation Zero which predicts that we're on the cusp of another great crisis of the same ilk as the Civil War or Great Depression or WWII. I hope we aren't but nevertheless I look around and see such lazy, self-indulgent boys parading as men I fear it can only get worse!

Yes, I sound like a stodgy old lady and never fear I'm still libertarian, but this is why I can relate to conservatives: I value civil society. Civil society, tradition, family values all tie us together and holds us accountable so the government doesn't have to. When we are no longer capable of policing ourselves, the government will step in and with devastating effects.

So yes, if a crisis does occur, I shall blame in great part the demise of the masculine ideal: tough, hard-working, and protective. This MAN provides for and protects his family first and foremost. His needs come second. When men are not held accountable by church, family, and neighbor, their priorities become short-sighted and ephemeral. We all suffer for it.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Barton was right but is completely tactless

Hizzah - Amspec got a Daily Beast mention - indirectly but still.

Basically Joe Barton (or a Joe Barton staffer) had the audacity to retweet an Amspec blogpost entitled "Joe Barton was right" Luckily, the Post got a screen capture of the tweet before it was taken down.

This further illustrates my point that Barton WAS right but lacks some serious tact. That House hearing was not the time and place to make that point. Or maybe it was and it is Barton's delivery that doesn't sit right with me. Still it wasn't a good political move. And neither was retweeting something that says you're right!

He is fundamentally right though - the government should not coerce private companies into surrendering their property. BP was already processing claims and now we have just bogged the process down with another layer of government bureaucracy.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The government in your bedroom

He goes about it in a roundabout way, but I was happy to hear Bob make the case for the privatization of marriage since he is such a strong social conservative:

Obvi I'm for overturning Prop 8 because it writes discrimination into the law, but ideally there would be no law regarding marriage to begin with. Why make a positive right? Why is the government involved?

Just as I'm not happy that Prop 8 put heterosexual marriage in the law, I'm not crazy about explicitly putting gay marriage on the books either. I hope that court precedents can take care of this so we can avoid overlegislating. Doesn't the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment take care of this discrimination? Gay couples should sue for rights and a new norm will form. Couples should be able to add a significant other to their insurance, have them visit them in the hospital, and yes adopt children if they want.

If gay marriage goes into law, I am concerned, like Bob, about the argument that churches' tax exemption could be revoked for discrimination. Call me crazy/old fashioned/whatnot but private organizations should have the right to discriminate! Girls belong in Girl Scouts and boys in Boy Scouts. Sports teams discriminate based on athletic ability. Country clubs discriminate based on income. Colleges discriminate based on academic ability - oh wait now they are forced to enter race, income, and a whole other bevy of socioeconomic factors into the equation. You get the idea.

Why must marriage be a public and federal issue? The government shouldn't be in our bedrooms.