Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Identity. Show all posts

Monday, February 04, 2019

The life cycle of perpetual hope: Jonathan Lethem's Dissident Gardens

Jonathan Lethem has been one of my favorite writers since February 2007 when I read his essay “The Ecstasy of Influence: A plagiarism” in Harper’s Magazine in my freshman dorm room at Syracuse University. I can still picture the unadorned, white-walled room with its two beds and desks. My roommate was pleasant enough, but his temperature ran hot, and he would leave the window cracked overnight to upstate winters. I’d lie awake shivering, thinking. When I stumbled across Lethem, I shivered with the electric thrill of his ideas. His worldview nurtured my own burgeoning cerebral sense of myself in the world. I do not use the “g” word lightly—I bristle that we must call the MacArthur Fellowship, which Lethem won in 2005, the genius grant—but the profundity and lasting influence of that essay tempt me. I have since read two of Lethem’s essay collections, The Ecstasy of Influence and The Disappointment Artist, and almost all of his novels: Gun, with Occasional Music, Amnesia Moon, As She Climbed Across the Table, Girl in Landscape, Motherless Brooklyn, The Fortress of Solitude, Chronic City, and Dissident Gardens. In 2013, Lethem published Dissident Gardens into the wake of the 2007-2008 global economic crisis and the fall of 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement (“We are the 99%!”). The book incorporates these contemporary upheavals into a century of revolutionary angst and ideology. The book’s six protagonist characters are motivated by social and psychological forces which we might variously call revolutionary animus, resistance to hegemonic systems, radical hope, and persistence in defeat. In this historical novel, Lethem profiles four generations that come of age into personal and historic disappointment. Like most of Lethem's more social-realism work—he also works a sci-fi angle—the book centers on New York City, where he grew up. It starts out in the city in the 1930s in Queens and tends to return there, despite several characters escapes. Lethem’s characters are bound together by social relationships and ideological tendency towards revolutionary ideas, often subtle. Otherwise, they are very different. Lethem writes from the perspective of a disillusioned Jewish communist, Rose; Rose’s horny, nerdy, cousin, Lenny; Rose’s hippyish revolutionary daughter, Miriam; Rose’s black cop lover’s fat, black, and gay chess prodigy turned cultural theorist professor, Cicero; Miriam’s husband, the Irish Protestant turned Greenwich Village folk singer Tommy Gogan; and Miriam and Tommy’s kid, Sergius, who becomes a music teacher and Occupy Wall Street wannabe. If the list of names and characteristics boggles your mind, consider how much erudition and skill Lethem must bring to bear to master so many minds and times. This is a bit of a break for Lethem, who has rarely addressed identity so nakedly in his novels. Lethem’s mother is Jewish, and his relationship to various strands of Jewish experience is clearly important, if nuanced and layered, like anything Lethem. In earlier novels, Jewish markers hide in plain sight, requiring no special qualifications to decode, but rarely stated outright. Jewish identity is an important but not integral layer of experience, additive, but not necessary to enjoy or understand the books. Protagonists Lionel Essrog of Motherless Brooklyn and Dylan Ebdus of Fortress of Solitude may seem Jewish by their names, if nothing else. Ebdus is finally described as a Jew by his girlfriend on page 460, who observes that he has always called Jewishiness the least important part of his identity. In Dissident Gardens, Jewishness is central. Lethem illuminates identity from inside and out, the way it is experienced. Even when we see the world from a non-Jewish character, Jews play central roles. Folk singer Tommy Gogan’s manager is Jewish, his Jewishness as important in the 1960s Greenwich Village scene as that of Bob Dylan and Jack Elliott, "the most authentic cowboy singer Tommy or anyone had met." Tommy “stalks chimeras of authenticity in the counterfeit world,” pondering the unparalleled and exalted fakery of these Jewish folk figures, as Lethem puts it. Lethem seems to be both wrestling with and celebrating the history of American Jews in New York, his own history. Three of the six protagonists are Jewish: Rose, Lenny, and Miriam. They come first and Rose and Miriam cast influence on the rest. But their identity is no more vital or exhaustively plumbed than that of Cicero, Tommy, and Sergius. Lethem treats Jewish experience as black experience, gay experience, female experience, immigrant experience, Commie experience, Queens experience, radical hope, revolutionary zeal, striving and disappointment, love and disillusion, all, with great humanity and scintillating detail. To some degree, markers and boundaries blend or fade into the mosaic. More importantly, Lethem writes individuals, not stereotypes, communities, or generalities. Each character is singular and whole. Tommy Gogan arrives like any number of immigrants into New York City’s 1960s cultural ferment, invited by two older brothers to join their Irish folk trio. He soon finds himself an exalted fake, and grows disillusioned with the narrow stereotype of Irish culture he and his brothers feel forced to fit into. He doesn’t seem capable of finding himself, or fitting his found self into New York City, so he makes a new self, or is made anew. Tommy gravitates to what he sees as authentic America: black, rural blues. But can he make authentic what is not his, and will anybody care anyway? Cicero ends up in a similar mess. He escapes New York to get a PhD in the kind of convoluted cultural theory that is so deep and devious it’s devoid of meaning. As a gay black man at Princeton, in buttoned-up New Jersey suburbs, he escapes right back to New York City to participate in anonymous orgies in uptown trailers, and to visit Rose. Lethem builds this sense of recurrence. Lethem celebrates detail with a discriminating and omnivorous eye. Everything deserves his attention, a riff. Here are some examples: “The morbidity behind the sales pitch.” “Fershlugginer blues.” Shea Stadium, a "Sterno can in Band-Aids of orange and blue" that "heaved into view two stops before the Willets Point exit." Library books arranged on a bookshelf. Bob Dylan. Cicero’s dreadlocks. German chocolate. Jazz. Dim Sum is Chinese soul food. He balances the concrete with the abstract; pop culture with ideology, history and politics; sex and ideas. Kid Cicero wonders how Miriam makes it seem like "everything was secretly and sexily connected." Kid Cicero falls innocently in love with Miriam because of the “efflorescence of Miriam’s details.” You might wonder, as I did, what is efflorescence? It is the migration of a salt to the surface of a porous material, or the action or process of developing and unfolding as if coming into flower. Efflorescence is a process. Lethem's character become, find, strive, fall, hope and despair. They are born and molded into being in front us in the face of implacable forces. They play parts, affix themselves to causes, improvise identities, and clutch at each other for purchase in a world where change happens at levels entirely out of their control. They are not heroes slaying dragons. They face more prosaic and for that more heroic, more revolutionary challenges. "The true Communist pulled the tab on another tin of sardines in her kitchen...The true Communist was waiting." Dissident Gardens is Jonatham Lethem's most ambitious novel yet. It’s wise, compassionate, brilliant, wide-ranging. Not every section is a home run. Some set pieces, like Sandinistas and Archie Bunker, strain my appreciation. Some unruly demises seem more preposterous than meaningfully symbolic, or sympathetic. Lethem does a better job winding up than winding down. He has a magic for connecting everything in seamless, sinuous sentences, but sometimes I got fatigued by them, or lost in them. Still, you could do worse than getting lost in Lethem’s intricate and rich worlds.

Like the characters in Dissident Gardens, I latch on to Lethem's voice and, to me, ingenuous striving to make meaning (not to mention money) in open art. I identify myself with his many identifications. I feel the richer for it. A decade and counting, and I am still mesmerized. 

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Halloween reflections

This blog was born on Halloween evening 6 years ago. I tapped into the coconut telegraph to despair at my own costume procrastination, to condemn my indecision. And the next day I tuned back in to describe the triumph of my last-minute genius. Against all odds, I'd done it.

Such has been the pattern of my achievements: inaction, despair, breakthrough. I am not one to stay on task out of some inner urge. My ambition, like my efforts, has always followed the law of eternal oscillation.

But I've progressed and triumphed apace nonetheless. Tomorrow I start a job. And at the same time I circle around to the central pillar of my Syracuse study: economics.

Naturally, there have been variations on the theme. I've dedicated the lion's share of my attention to micro-economic theory and mathematics, statistics and econometrics, and the history and philosophy of economics.

At Moody's Analytics I'll work on the questions and components of the macro-economy. How wonderful to be attending to issues of vitality, academic and practical relevance, and graspable complexity.

Becoming Associate Economist at Moody's is one of few large undertakings about which I've felt unequivocally positive. I believe it will give me structure, instill increased discipline, and encourage great growth both on and off the job.

The time is, as always, now. Happy Halloween!

Reading: Robert Skidelsky's John Maynard Keynes: Hopes Betrayed (1883-1920)
Listening: Daina Dieva, Svart1 "Incubi-Succubi"

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Quotations: invention, imitation, transposition

Randy Cohen: What is benign in one setting can be toxic in another. (Chainsaws: useful in the forest, dubious at the dinner table. Or as Dr. Johnson put it in a pre-chainsaw age, “A cow is a very good animal in the field; but we turn her out of a garden.”) (*)

Malcolm Gladwell: "I have two parallel things I'm interested in: collecting interesting stories and collecting interesting research. What I'm looking for is where they overlap."

Jean-Luc Godard: It’s not where you take things from—it’s where you take them to.

Jonathan Lethem: Any text is woven entirely with citations, references, echoes, cultural languages, which cut across it through and through in a vast stereophony. The citations that go to make up a text are anonymous, untraceable, and yet already read; they are quotations without inverted commas. The kernel, the soul--let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances--is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands. By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. Neurological study has lately shown that memory, imagination, and consciousness itself is stitched, quilted, pastiched. If we cut-and-paste our selves, might we not forgive it of our artworks? "The Ecstasy of Influence" Harper's Magazine, Feb. 2007, p. 68.

Pablo Neruda: "Writers are always interchanging in some way, just as the air we breathe doesn’t belong to one place. The writer is always moving from house to house: he ought to change his furniture. Some writers feel uncomfortable at this. I remember that Federico GarcĂ­a Lorca was always asking me to read my lines, my poetry, and yet in the middle of my reading, he would say, “Stop, stop! Don’t go on, lest you influence me!" (Paris Review, The Art of Poetry 14)

Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it's by standing on ye shoulders of Giants," in a letter to Robert Hooke

John Padgett and Woody Powell: Emergence of novelty is not virgin birth. Everything, even the origin of life itself, is a combination and recombination of other things in its accessible context... Understanding the emergence of objects, therefore, is a matter of deconstructing objects into the transformational flows that construct and sustain them. Viewed from the perspective of flows, objects are the folding and refolding of their context – namely, of the ecology or network of other objects with which those objects interact... For example, stability of the human body through time means not mechanical fixity of parts; it means organic reproduction of parts in flux. Viewed as chemical reactions, we are vortexes in the material life that wends through us all. (*) (forthcoming The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton U. Press)

Janwillem van de Wetering: The Daimyo : "What would I be? A good question. I have no answer. My mind is clouded by the countless thoughts with which I have identified myself and which have all left their traces." (*) (an interview)

Harrison White: You can be assured that, for each idea, quite a number of substantial, and often independent, discussions and implementations could be cited: Ideas that have any importance, any impact, do, after all, come in company, not as isolates, and the essayist is mostly a transcriber of ideas abroad in his networks" (1994a, p. 4) in Emirbayer 1997

Eric Hoffer: Total innovation is a flight from comparison and also from imitation. Those who discover things for themselves and express them in their own way are not overly bothered by the fact that others have already discovered these things, have even discovered them over and over again and have expressed what they found in all manner of ways. 1960, from his notebooks.

The Books:


Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The fallacy of the unbounded

Allow me to take a stroll down memory lane.

Originally, "The Unbounded One" was a radio show and personality: my show, my personality on WERW 1570 AM and Internet Radio and later WAER 88.3 FM, Syracuse, and WHPK 88.5, Chicago.

I invented the moniker and intended it from the first to have a double significance, to refer to me, given my dedication to world music, and also to the immanent one, the totality of the world itself.

Immanence is a concept referring to presence manifested within, contained within, and intermingling with. In philosophy a mental act is immanent if it stays within the mind; if it passes through the mental barrier to make an external effect, it is transeunt. In religion, the deity is immanent, as opposed to transcendent, if it is indwelling in the universe, time, life, etc.

So the show featured two Unbounded Ones fused into one: me and a global omnium gatherum, each inherent to the limitless and immanent world.

A most perfect and mysterious thing to which I assign considerable credence seems to be the entire universe. A most unperfect and not-too mysterious thing is the human being. How to make the human being more like the universe without spreading its substance thin across the void?

As far as we know - which may not be very far - everything is constrained. Except for figments: infinity, utopia, the deity, the ideal, perhaps the imagination. If perfection is somewhere manifested, its form and substance are beyond human apprehension.

So neither I nor the world are limitless, unboundedness is a fallacy and a trap, and the term is subject to criticism. At least in principle, it's wrong, deceptive, disingenuous, dangerous. How might the fallacy of the unbounded cause trouble?

Dr. Johnson put it nicely: "A man may be so much of everything that he is nothing of anything." One may eternally dabble, be a career itinerant, a multi-pronged and many-purposed dilettante, an impotent jack of a trades, an under-realized, half-cocked, lost lemming loser (to be polemical about it).

More specifically, if it is the case that constraints are unconstrained, if they are everywhere, there's an acute danger of over-exertion. The results can be imagined: strain, cognitive dissonance, and failure, and then--this is where things really sour--in response to failure, instead of focus and dedication and obliteration of obstacles, a dodge or re-orientation.

An objection to this uncorroborated trail of thought might be as follows: Who's really to tell the difference between over-extension and well-rounded Renaissance?

Zuckerman et al. call these two sides of the same coin "robust identity" and "non-entity" in their study of type casting in the feature film labor market" (2003). They hold that professional lives should be shaped like trees: straight and narrow and streamlined at the bottom or sapling stage, with abundant, dappled foliage appearing at the top or maturation stage.

Narrowness, focus, and simplicity helps then hinders; breadth, complexity, multivalence of identity hinders then helps. In short, bind and then unbind. It is striking that one of their main claims is that in many labor markets "boundarylessenss" may be a significant liability.

This post is as biographical and conceptual footnote in the fabrication of a fictional world: The Unbounded Microverse. But the implications run and strike deeply. Insofar as all striving (ambitious) individuals strategize, they do so by answering the following questions: what constraints, how constrained, and what to do about it?

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Reflections on being a longhair

Shearing time = crying time. I'm like an infant at circumcision. Or now I know what it feels like to become a eunuch. Except in this case it's voluntary amputation, and its womanhood (of the strictly and crassly superficial variety), not manhood, to which I bid adieu.

In fact, I'm saying peace to nigh two years of identity formation. How important has this longhair aberration been? And why did I pursue this path, persist, and then finally decide to give it up? These answers are not altogether clear. They're bound up with my contested and mercurial self-appraisal. Allow me to explore some thoughts in somewhat-candor.

Social influence has been instrumental on my hair habits. I am rather impressionable. Consider this sequence of events: Between January and May 2009, three long-haired men entered and exerted considerable influence on my social reality. I respected and emulated all of them in various ways. All were longhairs. After getting a haircut in February, 2009, I wouldn't trim for another 14 months. Coincidence? I think not.

I have since fallen out of contact with these gentleman. I am in Chicago. Nobody I know has long hair; some people have come out in opposition to the institution. In fact, short hair is hegemonic among men in this professionalized, rigorous academic atmosphere. This has sown doubt where secure ambivalence reigned before. Even if people like it, the bureaucracy's impersonal regulations squash atypical expression. And I fear failure. Worse, I have not done superlatively on midterm examinations and feel tenuous.

Sometimes I think that abnormality and anti-conformist expression are normatively praiseworthy. I get worked up about aesthetics, art, and all forms of cultural and personal production. Hair and fashion, in this view, are modes of public art. Even the fruits of egotism can have positive externalities.

Sometimes I eschew ostentation, superficiality, and the hubris of special-feeling. I condemn myself. Special? Like I'm superior 'cause I have a freaking weird, pac-man pufftastic frizzle fro? Oh, man! What arrogance, what overlyanalyzed hogwash. I'm an unremarkable insect.

Cutting is part of my yearning for an elusive austerity. There was a time when I thought I should enter the army (Thank you, Robert A. Heinlein, yet again, for fueling this obsession which, like so many of other social and intellectual preoccupations, never became anything other than hypothetical idealism). Inculcate in me diligence and mental power, army, society, cryptic authority. Self-help-me. I am a lemming, leaderless. A sheep without shepherd.

Baaaaaaaah, shear me!

Of course, the hair was anti-sheep. But it is no surprise that social pressure operates even among the most marginal. Social norms, fads, and fashions exert and represent power ubiquitously. Thus the bumper-stickers disclaiming "you are so alike in your nonconformity" or "nonconformity is the new conformity."

Despite the somber tone of the text, I do sincerely feel that my hair exploration has been overwhelmingly gratifying. It was a means of personal exploration and innovation. I think I know me now better for the manifold experiences it impressed on me. Cornrows cannot exist independent of long hair. Nor can the endearing acts of the strangers who found the fro inspiring enough to comment upon or poke. Most nearly everybody was positive about it. If I want to be really optimistic, I could go as far as to say that I did my part to rescue male longhairism from social denigration, just by being a model citizen in action.

But what about the stereotypes? The drug-connotation, the inherent sloppiness, the air of oddity, the look of the 'douchebag snowboarder,' skater, or young punk. I was certainly ambivalent to this kind of short-sighted idiocy most of the time, but that still left space for me to be sensitive about it some of the time.

The internal debate ranged constantly: to cut or not to cut.

Then there were the prosaic considerations: the requisite level of long-hair-care and the fact that it was always getting into my eyes, invading the screen of my camera, falling into my food, and other annoyances. These things became severe only during periods of extreme length. They also appear to exacerbate my habitual scalp scratching.

Allow me to argue something of which I am not wholly convinced: it just doesn't matter much. Hair styling is a superficial and trivial variable. Furthermore, it is not overly determinant of physical attractiveness. It makes a difference, of course, and there is some favorable person-hairstyling matchmaking, which is valuable. But even exclusively in terms of sexiness, hair is just one of a dozen important variables. And when it comes to the symbiotics analysis, what the hair 'says,' recall that I'm still floating about in academia. I could have been successful here with the hair helmet.

Nevertheless, in terms of existential and material conditions, hair has become more of a distraction than a determinant of happiness.

I need to abstract away from irrelevancies. I need an influx of confidence. I yearn for an enlightened ascetism I do not have faith I will ever achieve. At least for now, I can stop worrying about the travails and dilemmas of hair, and focus on other forms of self-improvement.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Juxtapositional photoetry by Russ Turner


BRAD THEN


and NOW



MOVING TO THE MUSIC IN HIS SOUL