Poetry: The Confessional

by Editors

POETRY

The Confessional

By January Gill O’Neil

For more than a year, I’ve posted a series on my blog called Confession Tuesday. I wanted to dig deep and really discuss the small things, poetic and nonpoetic, happening in my life. Somehow it caught on, and I’ve kept it going as a regular feature on my Poet Mom blog.

Poets have a keen sense of mining deep into their everyday lives for material for their poems. When I consider the personal as subject matter for our work, I think of the opening lines of Stephen Dunn’s poem “The Routine Things Around the House”:

When Mother died
I thought: now I’ll have a death poem.
That was unforgivable
yet I’ve since forgiven myself
as sons are able to do
who’ve been loved by their mothers.

Every poem is a confession.

Through the years, however, confessional poetry has received a bad rap. While the Beats were reinventing language in the late ’50s and early ’60s, poets such as Robert Lowell, Sylvia Plath, Anne Sexton, and W.D. Snodgrass removed all poetic artifice to reach a more personal, intimate level of verse. By its nature, poetry is personal. Yet, the word “confessional” has always been code for “women’s poetry,” as if the poetry by, for, and about woman is any less valid, dynamic, or revelatory. Simply not true. When it’s done right and done well, confessional poetry is personal and universal, speaking to the broader spectrum of the human condition.

Under the header of Confession Tuesday, I’ve admitted how my desire to write often overrides my daily duties, such as work, family, and household chores. I’ve discovered that these posts are a tool to work out poems before I get to the page. My confessional also has given me the license to praise or rant about topics important to me regarding the poetry community. For instance, I’ve posted about the myth of the work-life balance for a writer (read: there’s no such thing. You just write, then deal with the rest.). I’ve discussed, ad nauseam, how I much I want to be U.S. Poet Laureate someday (It could happen!). And recently, I came clean about how I feel poets should market their poetry, which is taboo in most (academic) poetry circles.

Through the process of “confessing,” I have been able to work out issues before I get to the page, leaving me available to navigate the open waters of thought.

As one who writes in the confessional vein, I understand that to keep my work fresh and interesting, I must strive for clear, crisp language that expands upon my point of view. But there’s also another aspect I can’t neglect. Admittedly, since we’re talking about confessions, it’s just fun to let loose! A confession is an open invitation to say what’s really on your mind in a safe space.

So, consider Bread and Circus a safe space. This is your chance to let loose. What are your poetry confessions? What are your poetry likes and dislikes? Tell us something that you wouldn’t normally say in polite poetry circles. I bet you’ll find that what might seem outlandish or trite to you is more universal than you think.

_____________

January Gill O’Neil‘s first book of poems, Underlife, will be published in November 2009 by CavanKerry Press. Visit her at the Poet Mom blog.

_______________________________

Have thoughts or feedback to share about this post?

Join the conversation! Post a Comment or send us an email (click here).

_______________________________

The DIGNITY Series: I-Thou vs. I-It

by Editors

This is the third of a 10-part series examining the loss and possible recapture of dignity in our public lives and political discourse. (Read the series from the beginning here.)

DIGNITY

By Stanley Baran

3. I-Thou vs. I-It

A third use of the word dignity, perhaps its most common contemporary application, is its invocation in verbal combat. We say, “I won’t dignify that comment with a response.” Dignity here connotes a judgment—our judgment. It no longer represents something that is intrinsic or even a quality that people can earn through their contribution to something outside themselves; it is something we have the power to recognize or discount.

Twentieth century German Jewish philosopher and theologian Martin Buber characterized this as the distinction between “I-Thou” and “I-It” relationships. In I-Thou relationships each person is fully present in the other. This was the central sentiment of the Obama family’s 2007 holiday greeting, “We all have a stake in each other, in something larger than ourselves.” In I am the Walrus, the Beatles voiced I-Thou as “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.” In I-It relationships, others are objects, means to various ends. When we “dignify that comment with a response,” we enter an I-Thou relationship, admitting that although we might disagree with another, we recognize the worth of that person (after all, we share a common humanity). We strive to explain or otherwise move that other to our position. Again quoting the Beatles, we “come together right now.” But in America we’re more Bachman-Turner Overdrive than Fab Four, so we “keep looking out for number one.” When we “refuse to dignify that comment with a response,” we reject it (and its speaker) because it deflects us from our individual end. Dignifying the other’s response requires that we reflect on our own assumptions and therefore ourselves. It’s simpler to have an I-It relationship. Deny the worth of the other. We owe no explanation. Move on.

Living an I-Thou rather than the I-It life makes demands on us that are difficult to easily meet. We claim dignity as our own, yet we reserve the freedom to decide who among others is worthy of dignity. But dignity demands that if our worth is to be acknowledged, we must acknowledge it for all—people unlike ourselves, the poor and working class, and yes, even those people whose ideas might get in the way of what we want. But why?

Thurber’s 1939 ruminations on dignity offer a hint. He wrote, “Instinct has been defined as ‘a tendency to actions which lead to the attainment of some goal natural to the species.’ In giving up instinct and going in for reasoning, Man has aspired higher than the attainment of some natural goals; he has developed ideas and notions; he has monkeyed with concepts.” Humans created dignity to become human. In “giving up instinct and going in for reason,” we opted to value I-Thou over I-It. But I-Thou has become old school, and it’s been on the path to irrelevance ever since advertisers and marketers learned they could sell us more stuff by convincing us that what we had was more important than who we were.

This shift began with the introduction of mass consumer marketing around the turn of the 20th century, but hit high gear in the immediate post-World War II years. The factories, technology, and science that helped win the war had to keep making something, and the new marvel, TV, was the perfect advertising medium to reach the emerging middle class with word of all those newly-made things. In 1947, two years after V-J Day, Edward Bernays, who believed that Americans were “fundamentally irrational people. . .who could not be trusted,” formally presented his idea, the engineering of consent. In other words, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it.” He added, “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Bernays’s business partner, Paul Mazur, however, wanted to rule not how people were governed by others, but how they were perceived by themselves. He argued, “We must shift America from a needs to desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality.” A little over a decade later, with television in 90% of all U. S. homes, Volume 1, Number 1 of Advertising Age reported, “The biggest business in America is not steel, automobiles, or television. . .It is the manufacture, refinement, and distribution of anxiety. Packaged as advertising and measured in dollars, the total volume of ‘anxiety’ circulating in America as 1960 dawned was worth more than $11 billion.” In the U. S. alone, the anxiety business now annually expends more than $500 billion helping us be all we can be, because we simply can’t be the new generation in our father’s Oldsmobile despite the fact that we deserve a break today. It’s difficult to worry about Thou when I need It, and I need It now. And we need It now so badly that we show no outrage and even less reflection on who and what we have become when a store employee is crushed to death and a pregnant woman trampled into miscarriage by an onslaught of 200 Long Island Wal-Mart shoppers hungry for stuff to buy in honor of the holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. Those same people laughed, jeered, and complained when the victims’ medical assistance impeded their Holiday shopping. Like many Americans, they knew the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Read Part 4: Dismissed Warnings

_________________

Stanley Baran is Professor of Communication at Bryant University. A Fulbright Scholar, he is the author of Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture and Mass Communication Theories: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. He writes frequently on the media, popular culture, and our understanding of ourselves and our world. He will happily provide citations for this series’ quotations and statistics. Simply e-mail him at sbaran@bryant.edu.

Text copyright 2009 Stanley Baran

“Anatomy” of the Fray

by Editors

NEW VOICES
POP CULTURE REVIEW

“Anatomy” of the Fray

By Jessica Miles

We’ve all seen those romantic comedies where boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl sees boy as just a friend, and girl later realizes through a series of quirky events that she really does love the boy. And then there is the famous scene: boy is walking through the airport after returning from a business trip feeling hopeless and rejected. The beat of the background music kicks in; a slow drum beat that eagerly picks up as the crowded terminal parts and there she is, waiting for him from across the way. They run toward each other in slow motion and the music consumes the scene.

This way of using music in movies and television can be quite effective. The latest radio hits are constantly featured on primetime shows and this creates buzz among fans. Such attention has also acted as the “big break” for several artists and bands, as fans dash to iTunes to download the featured song.

Often these songs are much more than simply background, especially on television. They can play an intricate role in a show, setting an explicit tone and helping to guide the characters through each scene. Some series are very successful in bringing the music and the storyline together. Grey’s Anatomy, a series about the lives of five surgical interns and their superiors, is one such show that has been praised for its attention to detail regarding music.

Music is not just incidental to Grey’s Anatomy. In an article in Variety.com from 2009, Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes commented that the music is very important to the show and is a vital piece in the evolution of its stories. She noted, in fact, that music has been an essential aspect of Grey’s Anatomy since the pilot episode, igniting the emotions of the characters and the audience.

The decision by Grey’s Anatomy producers to prominently feature the Fray’s song “How to Save a Life” is one strong example of this. The song sets the mood for the series’ viewers as they intently follow the characters and plot.

“How to Save a Life” also has fundamental connections to elements of the show’s narrative. It especially relates to the story of the Meredith Grey character in the show.  The song’s lyrics are reflected in the downhearted storylines in which Meredith (played by Ellen Pompeo) faces several major conflicts, including her unstable relationship with her mother, abandonment by her father, and the ending of her relationship with Derek (played by Patrick Dempsey).

This connection is not surprising.  In a 2006 interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, the Fray’s lead singer, Isaac Slade, said that the narrative behind “How to Save a Life” is a tribute to a teen he mentored through a drug addiction and how there are no guarantees in such a struggle. This intricate combination of themes such as hope, risk, and cynicism, parallels the successes and failures of the interns on Grey’s Anatomy.

As important as the music may be for a series, the decision by Grey’s Anatomy producers to notably feature the Fray’s music has helped fuel the band’s success. They have risen to fame in tandem with the rising success of the series. The Denver-based band is now recognized internationally for sincere lyrics and infectious melodies in songs such as “Over My Head” and “You Found Me.”

The Fray came from humble beginnings, however.  Before their current success they were like countless other undiscovered musicians. Vocalist Isaac Slade, drummer Ben Wysocki, and guitarists Joe King and Dave Welsh sent their songs to local radio stations, hoping for a break. That finally came in 2004 on a Sunday night radio show featuring artists in the Denver area. “Over My Head” became a hit in the Denver music scene, and fans began flocking to their shows.

Then came exposure on Grey’s Anatomy. When the Fray’s song “How to Save a Life” became a staple on the hit show, it gave their career an additional boost. They have been in fast forward ever since.

The Fray will likely continue to have a presence on television shows such as Grey’s Anatomy. Meanwhile, the band has been busy making new music and is traveling throughout the country on a U.S. concert tour to promote their latest album, simply titled, “The Fray.”

___________

Jessica Miles is a Bread and Circus Magazine contributing writer.

Pictured above: Grey’s Anatomy — The Complete 3rd Season DVD (Buena Vista Home Entertainment / Touchstone); The Fray CD (Sony).

_________________________

NEW VOICES is a Bread and Circus Magazine feature in which emerging writers share their views on aspects of contemporary culture.

The DIGNITY Series: Dignity, The Word

by Editors

This is the second of a 10-part series examining the loss and possible recapture of dignity in our public lives and political discourse. (Read the series from the beginning here.)

DIGNITY

By Stanley Baran

Part 2. Dignity, the Word

Today, when we do use the word, more than likely it is in one of three incarnations. Each says something about why the word, if not dignity itself, has fallen into decline. The first use has to do with death, as in “dying with dignity.” Oregon passed a Death with Dignity law in 1994. The State of Washington did the same in 2008. Used this way, dignity means that each of us possesses an intrinsic value or worth that even incapacitating illness and death cannot erase. This is the way international law, as expressed in Article 75 of the Geneva Conventions, means it when it says, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” It is the way the United Kingdom’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks means it when he argues in The Dignity of Difference that dignity is a set, non-negotiable property of humanness. It is this meaning to which the Germans have granted their highest constitutional significance. Article 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), titled Human Dignity, states that “(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. (2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.” The “basic rights” that flow from a person’s inherent dignity include equality before the law and freedom of faith, conscience, and creed; freedom of expression, assembly, association, and movement; the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications; occupational freedom; and the inviolability of the home. This codification into their constitution of dignity and specific “inviolable and inalienable human rights” was no accident, as these were the very rights denied the Grundgesets‘s post-War authors by their Nazi oppressors. But as the evil spawn of the so-called War on Terror—our nation’s countenance of torture as official policy and the ease with which we gave up many basic civil rights in the name of security—suggest, Americans seem not to share the German’s belief in the inherent, intrinsic value of all individuals. But this may explain why we discarded the word, not why we were willing to discard the values it represents.

A second, less common use of the word has to do with the worth of labor. Barack Obama employed it this way in his campaign. His television spot entitled Dignity closed with the line, “And never forget the dignity that comes from work.” In this usage, dignity is not necessarily inherent. It can be enhanced (Because I contribute I have worth) or diminished (Because I do not contribute I have little worth). This understanding of the word has a long history, especially in religious thinking. Commenting on Pope John Paul II’s 1981 encyclical, Laborem Exercens, Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, wrote, “Catholic teaching on work—based on the principle that people are more important than things—reflects a compelling Christian revelation. In Genesis, we come to understand that human beings, created in God’s image, share in the tasks of the Creator through their work…In our own (Catholic) tradition, work is not a burden or punishment, but an expression of our dignity and creativity.” Long before the Book of Genesis was conceived, the Persian prophet Zarathushtra, Zoroastrianism’s founder, wrote that Ahura Mazda, the “Wise Lord,” taught, “It is never below the dignity of any one to work by his own hands. There is no shame to put one’s hand at the plough, there is no shame to set one’s shoulder to the wheel, there is no shame to dig a trench, there is no shame to work as a cook or a servant or a maid or to do any menial work.”

This use of the word is now passé because respect for work itself is outdated. We are prouder of what we have than what we do. Our measure of success is not the effort (the work), but the outcome. Cardinal Mahony’s belief that people are more important than things seems quaint in an America where 22,000 people die every year—more than the number that are murdered—for lack of health insurance; where parents routinely name their children Lexus, Nautica, L’Oréal, and Courvoisier; where there are twice as many shopping malls as high schools; where the average garage on today’s newly constructed house contains more square footage than an entire new home built in 1950.

The foundation of our economy was once manufacturing; it’s now consumption. When he introduced the country to his Great Society in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson said that Americans must ensure that “the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.” This sentiment is now an anachronism. Look no further than representation of working class people, men especially, in our television shows and movies. Inarticulateness, clumsiness, irrationality, and lack of self-control are standard; think truck driver and construction worker stereotypes. In the news, work stoppages are invariably over workers’ demands in response to management’s offers. The strike’s impact on the company and consumers, not on the workers’ lives, shapes the reporting. The proposed $14 billion automaker bailout of December 2008 faced strong opposition and calls for “significant concessions from autoworkers” at Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. The workers agreed to concessions, but not enough for many in the Senate. Despite having delivered a trillion dollar bailout to Wall Street banks and insurance companies not only with the conviction that it was the right thing to do but with few demands and little oversight, the loan to the automakers was denied. Compare Congressional treatment of auto laborers with that of professionals in the financial industry, insisted labor leader Bruce Raynor. The “double standard is staggering,” he wrote. “In the financial sector, employee compensation makes up a huge percentage of costs. . .(I)t accounted for more than 60% of 2007 revenues for the seven largest financial firms in New York. At Goldman Sachs, for example, employee compensation made up 71% of total operating expenses in 2007. In the auto industry, by contrast, autoworker compensation makes up less than 10% of the cost of manufacturing a car. Hundreds of billions were given to the financial-services industry with barely a question about compensation; the auto bailout, however, was sunk on this issue alone.” Shabby treatment of workers by pampered Senators might seem unremarkable, but 70% of the American public also opposed helping the automakers and their employees, leaving very few to lobby for the everyday heroes, as George Bailey did in the 1946 movie classic It’s a Wonderful Life. “They do most of the working and playing and living and dying in this community,” argued Jimmy Stewart’s character, “Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?”Again, this may explain why we discarded the word, but not why we have discarded the values it represents.

Part 3: I-Thou vs. I-It (click here)

_________________

Stanley Baran is Professor of Communication at Bryant University. A Fulbright Scholar, he is the author of Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture and Mass Communication Theories: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. He writes frequently on the media, popular culture, and our understanding of ourselves and our world. He will happily provide citations for this series’ quotations and statistics. Simply e-mail him at sbaran@bryant.edu.

Text copyright 2009 Stanley Baran

Images: (upper) Cover of The Dignity of Difference (Contiunuum 2003); (middle) Barack Obama (White House photo); (lower) Lyndon Johnson signing the Medicare Bill in 1965 (National Archives).

_________________________________

The Real Housewives and Guilty Pleasures

by Editors

TELEVISION REVIEW/OPINION

The Real Housewives and Guilty Pleasures

By Jessica Miles

Reality TV has become a guilty pleasure for so many, and no show has captivated me more than The Real Housewives series on Bravo TV. It is the perfect recipe for a reality television show: drama, catty middle-aged women, drama, greedy children, drama, stunning abodes, and did I mention drama?

I must admit my fascination with The Real Housewives goes beyond the premiere of the first season in Orange County. I am ashamed to confess that shows like MTV’s The Hills and The Real World have also lured me in, in the past, but The Real Housewives may have them beat. Set in such locales as Orange County, New York City, New Jersey, and Atlanta, each season comes equipped with more cattiness, and greed.

Although the women featured on The Real Housewives may not play the stereotypical housewife role, this is what makes the show so appealing. These “housewives” hire help to clean their houses, to cook their meals, and even to dress them in the latest fashions.

Yet, while the fashion statements are always fun to watch I cannot help but roll my eyes and laugh at the lavish lifestyles these women live and the horrendous attitudes they often display. It’s the combination of the “if it doesn’t make me money, I don’t do it” attitude and the constant gossip and bickering taking place between these so-called friends that draws me to the show and often leads to dramatic conflicts.

The fights between the women on The Real Housewives, whether physical or verbal, have a theatrical aspect to them. Eyebrows raise, lips are pursed, nails form claws, and hair flies – all as the most bizarre events unfold. It’s hard not to watch these women tarnish whatever reputation they may have had in the blink of an eye.

But these brawls are what keep viewers returning to the series because major conflicts never seem to be resolved in the same season they occur. No, we must wait until the next season to watch the housewives apologize to one another while sitting in a trendy restaurant sipping a green apple martini.

Whether it is an accurate portrayal or not, Bravo seems to consistently depict the housewives as selfish elitists who place more value on high society gatherings than on family. The hair and makeup chair is like a second home, as they constantly prepare for the next high profile event. And while there is something about that on-the-go lifestyle that I would love to experience, I would never want to live it. Affluence seems to be the cause of all evil on the show.

Yet, the women on The Real Housewives send a different message to society: Money is the root of a blissful existence. As the housewives bask in their upper class glory, the words that come out of their mouths are often comical. They seem to think that family is for show, that Louis Vuitton and Christian Dior are values, and that modest houses equipped with the essentials aren’t suitable when ten-bedroom mansions with their own salons and personal chefs are available.

It all reminds me that the pleasures we indulge in are no longer innocent and fruitful, and neither are the shows we watch. Years ago, series such as Full House and Family Matters told stories about morals and family. Those shows continue to live on, almost invisibly, in syndication. Meanwhile, reality television consumes our media-driven appetites today. These guilty pleasures are fun to watch, although they do little to enlighten us.

____________

Jessica Miles, Bread and Circus contributing writer, attends Bryant University, where she is a  Communication major.

Image (above): Cover of The Real Housewives of Orange County – Season 1 DVD (Bravo TV).

Striving for In-Betweens

by Editors

NEW VOICES

Striving for In-Betweens:
Rationality versus Intuition in our Post-Secular World

By Kristine Williams

In many contemporary academic conversations, the topic of religion is avoided. Ever since Nietzsche’s proclamation of the death of God, such conversations have emphasized science and rational thought. This has left little room for perspectives traditionally associated with religion.

Recently, however, this has started to change. There has been a new interest in individual intuition and spirituality. Many people are moving away from the almost fundamentalist version of rationalism that was an initial response to the scientific age. More than a simple resurgence of old ways of thinking, however, a new perspective called post-secularism is emerging that has elements of both religious and scientific thought.

The term post-secularism has been coined within the past decade. It refers to this renewed openness to spirituality. It is a way of thinking that moves away from both strict secularism and from rigid adherence to rationalist-logical systems.

The power of the post-secularist perspective is that makes it possible to understand many beliefs. By stepping away from strict religious and scientific dogmatism, it becomes easier to connect and communicate with others. The post-secular perspective allows us, at least temporarily, to break free from our own boundaries. In some ways, it brings us back to our original state of “unknowing,” raising questions about our understanding and our comfort with the unknown.

This post-secularist perspective has developed as science evolves faster and faster, throwing out its own past certainties. Interestingly, a perspective that is more open to spirituality is also emerging in within science. Running parallel to post-secularism, it opens the possibility for new spirituality, one which breaks free from the limiting historical connotations of that term.

An episode of the WNYC radio show Radiolab, for example, raised similar ideas. (WNYC, “Choice” Radiolab, November 14, 2008. ) The story reported about a study in which choices were categorized as either emotional or analytic. In the test, a psychologist gave one subject a long number to memorize, and the other just two digits. They were both told to walk down the hall to recite the number in another room. Before reaching the destination though, they were met by a woman holding a platter of chocolate cake and another of fruit. In almost every case, the person with the shorter number took the fruit while the one holding onto the long number chose the cake. The outcome demontstrated that those using their pre-frontal cortex more actively (subjects with longer number), were unable to hold any more rational thoughts, and chose the cake through intuition. The person remembering only two digits was able to think clearly and make the “smarter” choice of choosing the healthy option. The people who had only intuition left to draw upon chose the cake, as that was what they truly craved.

Later in the episode, the speakers told of a man who lost his ability to make emotional, or intuitive, choices. After having a brain tumor removed, the man began to seem devoid of expression. One day at work he sat at his desk trying to decide whether to use black or blue ink to sign a document. He thought about which pen was lower on ink, the color of the type, whether the blue pen would stand out more, and so forth. This took him half an hour. As he became increasingly analytical, he became incapable of making choices or expressing his
feelings. Neurologists later realized that an area of the brain that allows for intuitive decision-making was disrupted.

The story of the inexpressive man seems to show that intellect alone is not enough for survival. Our minds carry information from past circumstances in our subconscious that later help us make intuitive choices. The Radiolab story concluded that intuition is an over-looked tool in the decision-making process and that it is of equal value to rationality. The human compulsion to make meaning out of experience is innate, and intuition helps us to project meaning onto the world around us.

People usually don’t like to admit they “do not know”. We often feel that we have to have a clear answer for every question that arises. However, in a world where religion is called into question and science is unable to provide the answers to our ontological questions, we can find ourselves back at a “primordial unknowing face to face with the universe”. (Gottlieb, Annie, OUTSIDE: Spiritual Nomads and the Way Beyond Religion. Open Source Spirituality: The Democratization of Revelation, http://www.ambivablog.typepad.com. ) We are forced to admit that we don’t understand the transcendent and perhaps never will.

Looked at rationally, post-secularism is a highly idealist concept. Those who adhere to rigid religious and scientific perspectives are unlikely to be satisfied with what it has to offer. But by searching for a balance between intuition and rationality — between faith and reason – we can gain the strength to strive beyond the limits of what seems rationally possible. However quixotic it may seem, it inspires us.

________________

Kristine Williams, contributing writer, is a student at Montserrat College of Art and is interested in making and writing about art, among other things.

NEW VOICES is a Bread and Circus Magazine feature in which emerging writers share their views on aspects of contemporary culture.

THE DIGNITY SERIES: The Disappearance of Dignity

by Editors

This is the first of a 10-part series examining the loss and possible recapture of dignity in our public lives and political discourse.

DIGNITY

By Stanley Baran

Part 1. The Disappearance of Dignity

Dignity exists as a word; we read or hear it and have an idea of what it means. But the word has disappeared from our routine conversation because dignity, the concept, if not having completely disappeared, has over the last decade become outmoded, even quaint. When was the last time we heard anyone speak admiringly of another person, citing his or her dignity as a valued characteristic? Is there a living American revered or respected for his or her sense of dignity? Dignity, the word and the quality, have been in short supply during the recently closed George W. Bush era, but the descent into obsolescence of our national dignity started well before numbers in excess of 80% of us began to see that our nation was sadly off-track.

Twenty years ago, in his song Dignity, Bob Dylan fretted that dignity had “left town.” Because there was “so much at stake,” he went looking for it, asking everyone he met—an eclectic list of respondents ranging from fat men to wedding brides to graffiti artists—if they had seen it. None had. Fifty years before Dylan’s futile quest, American humorist James Thurber, thinking dignity important enough to comment on its apparent disappearance, wrote, “Human dignity has gleamed only now and then and here and there, in lonely splendor, throughout the ages, a hope of the better men, never an achievement of the majority.”

But dignity, at least the word, may be making a comeback, having reappeared during the 2008 Presidential campaign, notably in the bookend orations marking Barack Obama’s run. In accepting his nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, the future President said, “We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job—an economy that honors the dignity of work.” The Democratic nominee called his speech “The American Promise,” and at its conclusion asked, “What is that promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.”

Later, at his Inauguration, President Obama said, “And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.”

For Dylan, dignity is something worth seeking. For Thurber, dignity is something that the good in us should find worthy of aspiration, “a hope of the better men,” an achievement. For Obama, the promise of America is that it frees us to achieve that hope. In a June speech in Independence, Missouri that he called “The America We Love,” Mr. Obama used the words of another President’s First Inaugural Address to appeal for a return of dignity. “Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together,” he said. “In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature—he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.”

Then, two weeks before voting day, Obama told PBS’s Charlie Rose, “The faith that I have that I think is most important, is a basic optimism about people. That there’s a core decency, what Lincoln called ‘better angels of our nature,’ that we can appeal to and that we can’t perfect ourselves, and we can’t perfect the world, but we can continually strive to improve the world and treat each other with kindness and empathy.” And a few days before Americans would cast their ballots, in what he called his “closing argument,” he reiterated, “But as I’ve said from the day we began this journey, all those months ago, the change we need isn’t just about new programs and policies. It’s about a new attitude. It’s about new politics, a politics that calls on our better angels, instead of encouraging our worst instincts, one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another.” For Thurber and Obama, dignity is normative—the hope of better men, trust in our better angles—difficult to achieve but a worthy goal.

Next : Dignity, the Word

(click here to go to Part 2)

_________________

Stanley Baran is Professor of Communication at Bryant University. A Fulbright Scholar, he is the author of Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture and Mass Communication Theories: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. He writes frequently on the media, popular culture, and our understanding of ourselves and our world. He will happily provide citations for this series’ quotations and statistics. Simply e-mail him at sbaran@bryant.edu.

Copyright 2009 Stanley Baran