media literacy 101

Today’s article in the Wall Street Journal — ‘Latinos not the plague of society as previously believed‘ — is an excellent example of why I hammered away at my students year after year about their media deconstruction skills. It’s not even necessary to be aware of the retrograde politics of the Wall Street Journal to locate this article appropriately: it’s all there from word one of the headline. Beyond the basic shocked premise of the article and before we get to the ‘shoulda built that wall when ya had the chance’ quote, we know exactly where we stand with this paper.

The authors could have chosen any word to describe the burgeoning Latino/a population in the United States: growth, expansion, increase. There are myriad forward-looking pro-development progress-marches-on ways of describing the data, both neutral and positive. The Wall Street Journal chose ‘surge.’ Surge. In this way we are encouraged to link the normal event of people having children with the insurgency — a beaut of a connotation-laden reality-twisting label right there — we’re told nearly every day is a threat to our lives in the United States.

These types of linguistic sleights of hand are so pervasive that they’re easy to miss and tempting to ignore; yet, if you read the paper every day you might end up sounding like Polly-the-right-wing-parrot to those of us who actively don’t. I wish I could say that an education in media literacy created an army of deconstructionist lefties out of my students, but it generally did not. The two biggest points I would have likely heard in their analyses would have been: (1) The Wall Street Journal hates Latino/as, and (2) surge is a stupid word, don’t use it.

While I can’t say I disagree fundamentally on either point, I hold out hope for more nuanced understandings with each example I am compelled to point out. In the meantime, I combine both points into a rule of life that works well for me: The Wall Street Journal is a stupid paper, don’t read it.

media literacy 101

Republican presidential candidates debate

Uh, Mitt? I’m legally required to carry my green card with me in order to be able to produce it upon the request of an officer of the law. But, you’re saying, it’s ‘un-American’ for an officer to request it? Take some responsibility for your own house, dude.

Since when does any reasonable person think that Canada has any desire to become part of a North American amoeba with this country? Oh, right. Nevermind.

As a sociologist, the inability of these people to differentiate between economic systems and state structures is mind boggling. Of course, as any political sociologist will tell you, they’re interrelated in complicated and interesting ways.

Aw, Anderson, why didn’t you hit Ron with the question-dodging hammer?

I’m getting the impression that Mitt didn’t do so well in math when he was in school. I hope he has a secret skill at reciting Blake or some such thing to balance it out.

Thank you, Fred, for pointing out that entitlements are in fact such a rinky dink part of the federal budget that cutting them doesn’t begin to address the problem. Oh wait, that’s not exactly what you’re saying. But it’s the truth.

Three programs? Oil subsidies, illegal wars, and corporate welfare. I could get behind DHS, but OMGLOLZ the IRS! Tee hee.

John, John, John. I kind of used to like you when you were the new Bush alternative. It’s true, Ron, that John doesn’t understand that difference, but it’s also true that you are an isolationist. Sorry. It’s true.

Booyah corn subsidies! My new favorite questioner. Mitt, I’m sorry, but I spent my early life surrounded by fields of inedible corn destined for industrial uses, and I can tell you this: corn subsidies are not about food security.

Anderson! Do your thing.

Let’s reiterate: it’s against the law to employ people who cannot prove their legal ability to work in this country. It is, in fact, the legal responsibility of the employer to determine eligibility before hiring. Period. So, be realistic, yo!

As a person who’s had a handgun pointed at my head–in a college dorm, by an ROTC member–and lost two friends to self-inflicted gun wounds, I lack the ability to take the pulse of this issue. I’ll always be in the no-guns-ever camp, and that’s just the way it’s going to be.

Oh no you didn’t, Mitt. You did not just bring Bill Cosby into your madness.

Number one priority. Huh.

Anderson! Bring them back to the Jesus question.

I can’t think of anything more clear than thou shalt not kill, but somehow the minister manages to be all for the death penalty one minute and all about the literal interpretation of the bible the next? My brain is starting to hurt.

Rudy. Are you trying to be ironic? You’re a smart guy. Surely you understand that reduced snowfall has to do with global warming, which you have likely contributed to by your energy policies.

John. Please stop making me fall off my chair with the giggles. Please stop saying the words ‘winning’ or ‘surge’ or any such, m’kay? Thanks.

Convenient not to mention the people we killed with sanctions leading to lack of food and medicines in various countries.

Mitt. Gah. I am trying to keep this blog PG, but holy mother of the baby Jesus you are making it hard for me.

John! The former John rears his dragon head! You go, my old friend.

But then…John. How can you be so inconsistent? How can you say things that are so clearly reasonable and moral one minute and things that make it sound like you’re mainlining illegal narcotics the next? How can I admire you in these circumstances? You pain me.

Whoa. What did I miss? Did one of these old white dudes just name-drop Reagan like it was going to help them? Yowzah.

Speaking of name-dropping, can I get a ‘go Cheney yourself!’

Do not lie about soldiers to your own ends, people. The majority of enlisted men and women are working class, and not idealogues.

If the middle of an active war is not the time for more soldiers, when is? This is not meant to be a critique of the public, but rather of the candidates. Still, I cannot help but wonder what kind of Republican boos a 42-year Army veteran and thinks to retain any kind of moral or ethical stance? Feh.

Billions of dollars on foreign invasions, dude, not space travel, make for a big deficit. Just tell the truth.

If by ‘moving people off welfare’ you mean ‘busting public service unions and replacing them with low wage workers,’ you did a great job, Rudy!

Time to go watch network TV and leave these guys to their fans.

Republican presidential candidates debate

Unequal Childhoods, by Annette Lareau

I had been interested in reading Unequal Childhoods, by Annette Lareau, for some time when it showed up as a donation to the bookstore where I was volunteering. Education per se is not where my sociological interests lie, but Lareau’s study promised to be more than just another study about how the public education system in the U.S. creates bosses from middle-class kids and worker-drones from working class ones. Indeed, Lareau starts with an acceptance of that understanding and moves forward to consider how expectations and norms of interactions within families differ along class lines and support the sorting project of educational institutions.

I have to say that the data itself was not surprising to me. It may be that, in the years since this work was published, the study’s conclusions have already been integrated into a standard way of understanding the role of family habitus in guiding children’s experiences in education. Or, it could simply be that my own family experience bridges the shift from working class norms of child-rearing (in my parents’ generation) to a more mixed approach that incorporates some middle-class norms (in my own generation). I say a mixed approach, because the conflicts that Lareau notes between the ideals of ‘accomplishment of natural growth’ and ‘concerted cultivation’ become much more than theoretical in actual families. I particularly note the tension between an expectation that children will be respectful — as demonstrated by quickly obeying directives and refraining from whining or arguing — and a desire to encourage their reasoning and verbal participation in family interactions.

This is, indeed, the core of Lareau’s analysis: middle-class habits of child-rearing produce young adults who are well-prepared to forge ahead in the race of global capitalism, while working class habits of child-rearing offer children less stressful and more self-directed experiences of childhood. For those families who don’t believe intergenerational mobility will be likely, we would expect to see the provision of a less stressful childhood prioritized above the molding of children into mini-go-getters. To a certain degree, that is what Lareau reports, and we can certainly see the opposite all around us: when the cultural message is that every child can go to college, and college will move you to the middle class and beyond, parents absorb the message that concerted cultivation is the way to go. Of course, as Lareau mentions only as a small aside, there are only so much space for the elite, and as more people gain access to those practices previously deemed ‘elite,’ the markers will change, as they’ve already done around higher education.

I could go on and on about the implications of this work, but an exploration of the fields of sociology of education, inequality, social justice, and culture is not the purpose here. Of the work itself, I can say it’s thorough, creative, engaging and well-supported. The book is quite readable, as ethnographies generally are (although I am perhaps not the best gauge of which examples of sociological research are accessible to the general public).

Unequal Childhoods, by Annette Lareau

Virginia Tech shootings & my friend Jay

These past few days, I’ve been touched in many ways by what’s happened at Virginia Tech. I keep thinking about my years in college classrooms, as a student and as a professor. The image of a 76 year old man blocking entry to his classroom stays with me, and I try not to dwell on wondering what I would have done, what my students would have tried to do.

Mostly, this week, I am thinking about the kid himself. I am thinking of all of the faces in all of the classes I’ve taught, and how no matter how old or serious or bereft they are, they all seem like kids to me, even when they are younger than I am by only a few years. In thinking about him, I am feeling awful for his parents. What a terrible way to lose a child.

When I was 18, my friend Jay shot himself. He’s not the only person I know who’s killed themselves, but he was the first. He was a couple of years older, and I hadn’t seen him since he’d graduated from high school three years before. But we’d been close, that year that I was a sophomore and he was a senior. Jay had a pickup truck, with a speaker on the top of the cab. We’d pile into the bed of the truck, and drive around town startling people by belting things out through the speaker, as you could without getting stopped or arrested in 1990 in a small town in Indiana. I was one of only a couple of friends who went to Jay’s house after his high school graduation; I remember his mother being so happy to meet us, and Jay being slightly sheepish. Jay’s younger brother had a developmental disability; I’m not sure if we even knew Jay had a younger brother before that day, but it was clear that he had learned to be protective of his family’s privacy. Later that summer, when I was staying with my grandparents for three weeks, I talked to Jay on the phone every few days. Not about anything in particular: the nothing he was doing in Indiana, the nothing I was doing in Ontario.

What I didn’t know about Jay back then was that he owned guns. The word ‘suicide’ was never spoken at his closed-casket funeral. His obituary says only that he died alone in his apartment, and that he was a member of the NRA. As in Virginia, it’s not hard to buy guns in Indiana, and owning several of them does not automatically trigger concern; at least, it didn’t back then. I should say, it doesn’t trigger concern for most people. I didn’t know that Jay owned guns. I did know that he thought more about death than the rest of us, even with our posturing and our various life challenges. He was the only one of us who wanted to sit through all of Faces of Death; the rest of us talked a big talk about being hardcore and disillusioned, but it freaked us out nonetheless.

I say all this because I’ve been thinking about Jay a lot these past couple of days. Jay didn’t kill anyone else, but I see him in the kid from Virginia Tech. This isn’t about guilt or blame or what might have been. For me, it’s about holding the weight of the reality of their experiences; it’s about the deep sadness that comes with knowing that whatever it is in us that allows us to face that choice and go a different way, they didn’t have it. If they ever had it, they lost it at some point and couldn’t get it back, the ‘it’ that keeps that path on the other side of unimaginable. I do know, though, that it’s not the kind of thing that returns with a phone call from a friend, or a ride in a pickup truck on a summer day, or because you realize, finally, how very much your family loves you.

In the end, I find myself wanting to say to the Cho family: I am so very sorry for your loss. Please know that you don’t have to face this alone.

Virginia Tech shootings & my friend Jay

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan

I finished reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, and promptly followed it with a viewing of Delicatessen. Conclusion: I will never eat meat again (and most certainly not in a dystopian Parisian wasteland, thankyouverymuch).

Ok, so, no, it wasn’t that simple. To start, I have made that vow before: I stopped eating meat 16 years ago, planning to never touch it again. Being lactose intolerant didn’t interfere with my grand plan too much: I lived happily on nuts, beans, eggs, and tofu, plus the varied goodness of the rest of the vegetable world. Then, five years ago, I was diagnosed with thyroid disease and stopped eating soy (only one of many life adjustments). I decided then to start eating wild-caught fish and free-range chicken; these two categories of meat balanced my concern for the quality of the animals’ lives, the economics of the meat industry, and my commitment to my own health relatively satisfactorily. Around the same time I discovered I have a shellfish allergy, so the insects of the ocean aren’t an option for me (it likely went undetected all of these years because of my childhood dislike of their appearance and my subsequent vegetarianism).

As I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I was acutely aware of the lines I’ve walked in balancing my own competing interests when making food choices. I have never been repulsed by meat itself, although I have been — and continue to be — repulsed by the most common practices of raising and slaughtering animals in the U.S. These practices are what drove me to stop eating cows, pigs, and chickens in 1991, and they have remained substantially the same. Pollan touches only briefly on the industrial practices of raising and slaughtering animals, drawing heavily on the assumption — accurate in my case — that the reader is familiar with them through works such as Fast Food Nation and The Jungle. Pollan also avoids issues related to workers — on farms, driving trucks, in supermarkets, at slaughterhouses, in restaurants — throughout the book, an omission that his somewhat contrived framing — tracing the source of four meals — makes easy. Throughout, his focus is on the individual eater, and the choices the eater as individual has to make, rather than on communal ethics or the collective responsibilities of civil society. I found this emphasis, along with his frequently glib and often smug rhetorical style, rendered the narrative less engaging and, at times, off-putting.

In terms of new information, I found the description of the small farm’s system of combining managed intensive grazing and poultry pasturing to be the most fascinating part of the book. No doubt my heightened interest stems from my family’s connections — historical and contemporary — to food farming, but it was also the only section of the book that wasn’t telling me something I was already familiar with (as was the case with the discussions of industrial agriculture, ‘big organic’ companies, and hunting or gathering). The main value of those sections was to confirm the choices I already make: to eat low on the food chain; to buy local, seasonal, and organic fruits and vegetables; to do without eggs or chickens unless they’ve been allowed to range freely and fed organic seed; to buy milk from a cooperative where the cows are pastured and not treated with antibiotics or growth hormones; and to avoid corn syrup and soy additives whenever possible. Of course, I’m not perfect, and my access to all of these foods isn’t either; I buy organic breakfast cereal imported from Canada, because I like it and because it’s the one with the largest amount of fiber and the smallest amount of sugar that I can find.

The book did highlight one dilemma for which I still haven’t arrived at a solution, that of what to do about the chickens: to eat, or not to eat? Non-industrially farmed meat is still both hard to find and hard to afford in many instances, and I don’t have the standard Midwesterner’s freezer in which to store large amounts of meat (which would lower the cost). Also, truthfully, I don’t think I could ever get used to handling and cooking pork or beef in my own house, and that probably means — in the ethics of looking your dinner in the face that Pollan describes — that I probably shouldn’t be eating it. Really, I have issues preparing any meat at home — we said an inordinate number of graces for the chickens we received through our farm share this winter — and I can’t imagine increasing my current consumption for that reason.

Thus, our introspective household has arrived at an uneasy balance exactly of the type that Pollan explores: every single meal is necessarily a compromise between our ethics regarding farming, labor, local economic, and environmental practices, and our ongoing commitment to our own health.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan