Showing posts with label self. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self. Show all posts

Friday, December 11, 2009

My Presentation to the Torture Class

Warning: High Emotional Content.

There were many subjects I considered discussing for my presentation. I considered showing media clips, or discussing the arc of my blog (thanks to those of you that followed by the way). Ultimately what I decided to discuss however is disability. If you’ll allow me, I’d like to begin with a personal story and then tie it in to the course and the creation of the other.


This may seem like a strange topic considering that I personally am not disabled. Disability, however, has shaped my life. When I was five, my father was in a wheel chair for a year when he had a cancerous back tumor removed. The chemotherapy he had following the removal caused a rare condition to occur wherein the nerves in his legs no longer correctly transmit motor information, severely limiting their use to this day. When I was nine my mother’s auto-immune condition, Sjögren’s Syndrome (which is akin to Lupus or Coeliac disease), drastically worsened. To this day she is constantly nauseous, suffers from daily migraines, is severely limited physically and is only active for 8 hours a day. Today, as they have been for most of my childhood, my parents are severely physically disabled. In other words, I grew up in a disabled household.


My parents’ disabilities affected me directly in many ways. More important in defining who I am today though is how their disabilities affected them. Unlike my younger brother, I still have strong memories of when my parents were able-bodied. My mother in particular was an incredibly dedicated worker, administrating family planning clinics for Contra Costa County, pulling long hours and still finding time to spend with my brother and me. Even when a drunk driver ran her down while she was on a bike, crushing one of her spinal disks, she persevered. When her Sjögren’s Syndrome flared up, everything changed. My mother’s seemingly unstoppable lifelong effort to succeed in the workplace and in the community was crushed within the course of a year. Her work was not all that changed. My mother to this day cannot do lengthy social engagements or even meet with friends outside our house without great physical cost. As a result of this, most of her long-term friendships buckled and collapsed, and many in her family alienated. My mother’s Sjögren’s Syndrome will be with her as long as she lives, and its many burdens along with it.


Despite the amount of suffering my mother endures and the loss of her career, there is an additional layer of unnecessary suffering that greatly compounds her hardships. American society has, to put it mildly, a disturbing view of physical disability. For those who we acknowledge as “legitimately” disabled we have developed limited accommodations but by and large have not committed ourselves to bringing about true equal opportunity. One look at Occidental’s campus will tell you that the school simply wasn’t designed and largely hasn’t been updated to accommodate the basic needs of the physically disabled. Sure there are methods whereby the wheelchair-bound and those with reduced mobility can get into Johnson and Fowler, but can you imagine trying to get into Weingart? Or trying to get food at the Marketplace? Or live for that matter in any of the dorms? Despite its debatable “bet intentions”, Oxy operates out a standard playbook for American social thought: human beings when “normal” are physically “well”, and that additional “accommodations” are desirable but not urgent. I’ll return to this standard of normalcy and wellness in a minute.


To go back to the subject of my mother, she is not one of those I described above. Though her disability is crippling and prevents her from engaging in most activities the “well” (myself included) enjoy, it is not immediately visible to the eye like a wheelchair or a limp would be. Without a physical reminder of her disability, the social construction of “wellness as normalcy” comes to the surface in an ugly fashion. Again and again I see my mother’s friends, peers, acquaintances and even her own family question whether she was “really sick”. Some say it outright, calling her a “hypochondriac”, and inventing/perpetuating her own maladies. Others are, or grow to be more subtle, asking over and over again why my mother wasn’t investing “enough” time in their relationship, or why she couldn’t pick up their kids from school, or why she couldn’t just “overcome” and “be stronger than her sickness” for just one event that they wanted her to do. No matter how many times my mother explains her condition, and indeed demonstrates how limiting it is in her daily life, few truly believe her. With no job and very few friends and family that acknowledge the nature of her life, my mother has no choice but just to live.


This denial of illness and elevation of ability-based normalcy is from my life experience rooted in fear. As my mother’s friends and family look her in the eye and tell her she can overcome her illness if she sets her mind to it they are afraid. Afraid that when they look at her, what looks back is their own mortality. Afraid that the strength they see within her would not be in them were they as ill as she. Western culture is profoundly afraid of death and even more so, I’d argue, loss of our faculties. A post-enlightenment worldview has given the West an obsession with rational observation and our supposed ability to control our own lives. What is more American than the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? If someone is not satisfied with their life, shouldn’t they just try harder? If you’ve gotten to where you are in life through hard work, isn’t it insulting when someone says that they are stuck by their circumstances?


This brings me back to our coursework and the discourse of torture. In the very beginning of the course, Elaine Scarry made the claim that the pain of others is fundamentally inaccessible. As we progressed through the course, we saw this view reflected again and again in Western metaphysics. Only in some of our most recently examined theorists, like Levinas and Derrida have we seen an attempt to break this tradition and de-alienate the suffering of the other. These more recent challenges to the traditional framework are just that however: challenges to an accepted reality. This standard conception of identity and the human experience as internal and isolated still governs our society today.


For the tortured and the disabled alike, there is a narrative of conflict between rational self-control and pain. The tortured, when the act is committed, are as we discussed “reduced to animals” and “rendered sub-human” by their loss of self (as Scarry puts it) and inability to overcome their pain through rational thought. When I read this at the beginning of the semester, I wondered how this fundamentally differs from the pain of the unwell or disabled.


While for one the pain is externally inflicted and the other the pain is internal, there is a parallel inherent in the two groups of people in the Western tradition. Neither group has control over their pain, nor can exert the rational faculty that defines humanity in Western metaphysics to stop it. For these two groups that should elicit the most sympathy from us, sympathy is impossible (Scarry). Ingrained in our thinking is the fundamental internalization of the pain of the “other” and their own obligation as humans to overcome their adversity through rationality and re-establishment of a “well” self. As Du Bois put it, the torturee is just “a body”. Asad says that torture in the ascetic tradition releases the soul from the body. Like the tortured, the disabled are reduced to the limitations of their body and hence have a damaged “self” from their inability to exert rational control.


In perhaps an even more frightening manner, this Western metaphysical tradition compounds with American exceptionalism, the American dream, and the neo-liberal tradition. Ingrained in this tradition, as I mentioned earlier is the expectation that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be a productive member of society. External barriers in this tradition are non-existent: the expectation is that whether you succeed or not depends on whether you have the willpower and personal drive to achieve what is offered to everyone equally. The tortured and the disabled are similarly demoted in the eyes of society by their inability to fulfill their Hobbesian social contract. The torture have allegedly already exited said contract for their alleged crimes, and the disabled face an inherent barrier that prevents them from contributing as “productive” members of human society. By “refusing” to use their rational control to fulfill their contract with society, both groups have failed to live up to the supposedly barrier-less American dream.


I know that significantly more biopolitical analysis is needed here, and that this is only an initial exploration, but it was important to me to share with you how this class has made me reflect on my own life and the lives around me. Thank you.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Torture Focus

This semester I will be refocusing this blog on the torture debate in the United States. The largest reason why I am doing this is my upcoming Religious Studies course, "Religion and Politics". I plan to look specifically at Cheney, the "Bush Legacy Contract", and of course how the Obama administration defines the torture debate for themselves.

These are exciting times for the fate of human dignity, so please stay tuned!

Best,
Isaac

Saturday, January 17, 2009

New Blog Location!

To anyone who might read this, I'm reviving this blog under the new title "Power to the Pundits". The new blog will be at http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/. The old URL now redirects to this new blog! It has all of the old posts contained here and is designed to be my long-term blog. I'll put my political musings and whatever else I have an opinion on up. But don't worry-- it'll be self-pity free! I hope to see you around here!

Much love,
Isaac

Thursday, November 6, 2008

It's Finally Over

Dear Readers,

I'm glad I was wrong. I've said earlier in this blog that Ohio would not play nearly a large role in 2008 as it has in the past. About that... Ohio was the turning point on election night. No McCain electoral victory map did not include Ohio. As soon as the state was called, a scream went up at Occidental's election watching party. Anyone who knew anything about politics knew that Ohio had just decided the election for Obama. Of course Virginia was the one to actually place the crown on Obama's head, but Ohio once again stepped up to the plate of history. I'll remember last night for a long time.

The night was bittersweet. Prop. 8 succeeded in California. It was a campaign I had worked long and hard on, and it broke my heart to see it pass. So today, I have been torn between my exultation over Obama's landslide and the crushing defeat of civil rights in California. Hope won the day in the US, but hatred and bigotry won in California.

Part of what's nuts is that the election isn't over yet! Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D) are heading for a nail-biting recount in Minnesota. And unless the few ballots left to be counted in Georgia change anything, Saxby Chambliss (R-i) will be heading into a December runoff against challenger Jim Maritn (D). Unlike Minnesota, this is a whole new election, so the campaigning and flow of resources will be unprecedented. I would not be surprised to see Obama stump heavily for Martin. Just a few hours, The Oregonian called the Oregon Senate seat for Jeff Merkley (D), bringing the Democrats to 57 seats in the Senate. In Alaska the outcome is still too close to call, but the consensus seems to be that a narrow win for 8-term incumbent and convicted felon Ted Stevens. Crazy.

It's been a fun ride, and it's not over yet! This blog will be updated less frequently with the election behind us, but please check in every once in a while! I doubt I can stay quiet for long!

Best,
Isaac

Friday, October 31, 2008

My Volunteer Experience

Tonight I went to the No On Prop. 8 campaign campaign office. To say it was crowded is an understatement. We called volunteers who'd agreed to work all kinds of hours on election day. From 6:30 am to 8:30pm on Nov. 4th we'll be working the polls, informing voters and dispelling the myths perpetrated by the hate-filled Yes On 8 campaign.

We had so many volunteers that we contacted all the volunteers in our list in the course of 20 minutes. With 2 hours to go iin our volunteer shifts we gathered up all the signs in the office. We didn't have quite enough, so we made our own too. We marched out into the streets, and staked out a 4-way intersection. We screamed and hollered, and I learned enough No On 8 slogans to last a lifetime. My theater years paid off: I lead many chants and was always the loudest voice at the rally. It was truly empowering. Here's a small sampling of the slogans:

"Vote no!/ Vote no!/ Vote no, Prop. 8 has got to go!"

"No on 8!/ no on hate!/ we do not discriminate!"

CALL: "What do we want?!"
RESPONSE: "Equal rights!"
CALL: "How do we get it?!"
RESPONSE: "No on 8!"

I had an amazing personal experience too. I was reminded about why I wanted to do politics. We were out tonight fighting for our civil rights. We have the power to shape a generation. We shouted at every car that passed, and asked every pedestrian to vote no. With a few exceptions, almost everybody said they would and smiled at us. One man though said nothing. He just smiled and showed us his ring. For me this will be the image that sticks with me as I go to the polls to fight for equality. I know what I'm fighting for. And I know what we stand to lose.

The time to take a stand is now! Visit www.noonprop8.com for more info on fighting for equal rights for all. And most of all, VOTE!!!

Monday, October 27, 2008

The California Propositions: My Endorsements

Since I live in California, and most of my readers are voting in California, I thought I'd share how I voted on the propositions, with a little explanation.

Prop 1A: YES. As flawed as this proposition is, now is the time to finally start high speed rail in California.

Prop 2: YES. Humane conditions for farm animals should be a given. This proposition finally makes it a reality.

Prop 3: NO. As much as I respect the children's hospitals, the hospital haven't used the $ we gave them last time! Plus, these are private institutions with absurdly overpaid executives. Why is the state paying for them exactly?

Prop 4: NO, NO, NO! This is the 3rd time this has been on the CA ballot! It is essential that women of all ages can have safe abortions! Abortions are not a pleasant thing- nobody claims as much. Forcing parental notification however would only result in more illegal abortions and more unwanted births. Let's kill this monstrosity one more time!

Prop 5: YES. Rehab over prisons for non-violent offenders. This is just the kind of thing that California's bloated prison system needs.

Prop 6: NO! This is a sleazy "anti-gang" initiative, that's really just a "more people in prison" initiative. Send it down!

Prop 7: NO ENDORSEMENT (though I voted yes). There is much wrong with this proposition. It punishes microenergy producers in an unfortunate way. Despite of this however it would effect a move towards clean and renewable energy. I have very mixed feelings about this one, so follow your gut.

Prop 8: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!! California is poised to uphold equal marriage rights for all. California could once again be the vanguard in civil rights for an entire nation. We can reverse the legal gay-bashing tide and take the USA into the future. Or if we vote yes, we can suffer for a generation. The time is now! Vote NO!

Prop 9: NO. "Vicitim's Rights". I call BS. Like Prop. 6, this is Prison Guard's Union double-speak. Victim's Rights means harder to defend suspects. And what does that mean? More inmates for our enormous prison system!

Prop. 10: NO. This energy proposition is much, much worse than 7. It is a thinly veiled payoff to natural gas interests. Natural gas is not clean energy. We need to move forward, not sideways.

Prop 11: NO. Redistricting. Yes gerrymandering is bad. No this is not the solution. This method is biased heavily towards Republicans and Independents and takes power away from our elected officials. No way.

Prop 12: YES. This is a renewal of our 12-year running bond for home-purchasing loans for vets. And even better? Since they're loans, the vets will pay for it over time. What's not to like?

In summary:

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! on 4 and 8!

NO on 3, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

YES on 1A, 2, 5 and 12.

EH on 7

Remember, get out and vote! Don't let a perceived Obama landslide stop you! These propositions will dramatically affect our lives! So please, even if you don't care abotu the national election, stand up for women and same-sex couples on Nov. 4!

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Post Recovery: Tasteless Hunting Ad

After feeling really guilty for losing Jacquie and Ally's no doubt eloquent replies to a fairly tasteless ad, I've spent a good amount of time digging up the ad again. Here it is:



WARNING: Tastelessness, gross, misleading


For reasons mentioned in the previous post, I like what it brings to the table. It's still not a great ad though. I'm going to see if I can either of your comments. I feel like I may have printed out Ally's essay-length response to the original post... if I can find it, I'll type it up and re-post it in the comments. Sorry Jacquie, I don't think I have yours...

Note to self: don't clean out drafts before backing up entries. of course I'd delete the post that got the most entries. ::face-palm::