An interesting article about the different gender expectations for and reactions to compliments.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/why-men-cant-take-compliments/282164/
From my personal experience, I have found it to be true that it's more socially acceptable for a guy to give personal compliments to woman, rather than the other way around. If a woman compliments or shows too much interest in a guy, it's more likely to be mocked and perceived as the woman "throwing herself" at him. In general, I think women are expected to be more subtle when it comes to showing romantic interest in someone.
What are other people's experiences with this? Do you especially agree/disagree with anything the article said?
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
What is education? (Effective vs. Ineffective Learning)
The Five Pillars of Modern Education
Everyone acknowledges that our modern system of education is riddled with problems: inequality, inflexibility, under-achievement, huge amounts of money and effort continuously resulting in sub-par test scores. Many different suggestions have been made and many fingers pointed at possible suspects: it's the teachers! it's the parents! it's the curriculum! it's the funding! lack of teacher training! lack of teacher accountability! it's our inherently racist/sexist/socialist/capitalist society, etc., etc. There may be truth in some of these ideas or accusations, but before we blindly embark on another sweeping(ly expensive and meddlesome) education reform, I'd just like to ask: what is education, anyway? And what is it really for?
There are many different education methodologies used all over the world. I have direct experience with those in the US (as a native student), France (exchange student), and Korea (teacher). Though all three places are markedly different, I would still say they have more in common that not. Specifically, schooling seems to focus on these things:
1) the memorization of a HUGE number of facts, more than anyone could ever possibly remember or put to use.
2) a linear progression through a curriculum that includes all core subjects all the time, which are none-the-less kept constantly separate and distinct from one another.
3) a rigid schedule and highly supervised series of classes, where all students must do essentially the same things at the same time.
4) the seeming necessity of spending a lot of time on homework, studying, or both.
5) an extremely high value put on the results of tests and quizzes, especially standardized tests, which are then used to determine a child's future opportunities.
Now, I understand that these five fundamental pillars of public education are in place for logical reasons. Some of it has to do with resource limitations, or the need to objectively measure progress and success. But what I find interesting is the underlying assumption in all schooling systems that children cannot be left to their own resources--that, if you allow them to budget their own time and do what they want, they will do nothing but waste their time. There is usually very little room for individualization and self-directed exploration in our schools.
You might say, "Well, of course! No child wants to study! If we didn't make them do it, then most of them never would." In a sense, that might be true, but I think that we often confuse studying with learning. Our schools are purportedly places where children learn--but let's be honest, how much do any of us remember, out of all the things we had to study in K-12? If you really think about all that stuff you had to memorize? I'm just going to go out on a limb for moment, and bet that most people remember less than 10% of everything they had to learn in K-12, no matter how smart they are. If we don't remember most of what we've learned, we can't really say that we've learned it at all, can we? I think that our education system needs to make sure that students learn, not more, but more effectively.
The Keys to Effective Learning
In order for learning to be effective, I think you need three things:
1) a student needs to remember what they learned,
2) be able to make meaningful connections between that knowledge and other things they know, and
3) be able to apply it in their own lives.
It serves no purpose whatsoever to memorize stuff for a test and then forget it the next day, or week, or month. Personally, I can say that this is mostly what I did in school, especially in subjects like math, science, and history, which require a high degree of memorization, and which I had little time or interest to explore outside the classroom.
However, I did retain a good deal of what I learned in French and English. Why? Part of it was simple interest. These were my favorite subjects. (Ironically, they were also the subjects in which my grades were the most inconsistent). But it was also because of how I learned the information in those subjects. I've always had a gift for making connections between words and finding patterns in language. I did this constantly in French and English. When studying vocab, I entertained myself by finding similarities between related words, and when I was outside of school, I often challenged myself to try and identify objects around me in French. Every time I happened across something written in French, I tried to figure out what it meant. For me, language is an exciting puzzle, a secret code to decipher. It's the closest thing on earth to having a super power: to understand conversations that other people around you cannot, to be able to read what can only be meaningless scribbles to the uninitiated. I won't lie, speaking a foreign language gives me a heady sense of power and privilege--of being privy to an entire secret world, a culture, millions of people who would otherwise be rendered inaccessible behind a language barrier.
I understand, of course, that most people do not feel this way about languages. They don't have the court intrigue/X-men super-hero fantasy at the back of their minds that makes language learning so exciting for me. What I learned from this though, is how to learn. As I said, it's not just the interest, nor is it just about having a "gift" that makes one adept at learning. Learning to see patterns and make connections is something that can be taught and applied to all subjects.
In other words, everyone can learn how to learn.
But it goes beyond that. Beyond the patterns and connections, you have to use what you have learned and integrate it into your life somehow. That's how I've retained my French over the years--I use it whenever I get the chance--and everything that I remember from English class is from the stories and essays that had a deeper meaning for me. There were always things in literature that I identified with, that I could appreciate in the context of my own life. That was real learning. I was learning about life.
Ironically, this is also what made English and French classes the most painful for me. There were valuable things that I could extract from reading Alexander Pope, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, and Emily Dickinson--but I extracted these things mostly in spite of, and not because of, all the assignments and tests that came with them. When I read Hamlet, the teacher required us to write notes and "responses" to every single scene. And with the deadline looming, I found myself rushing through it, focused more on what the hell I could write that the teacher would find interesting, rather than having the leisure to dwell on what I found interesting. I could have been learning from it--but I wasn't. There wasn't time, and the more "important" thing was to come up with some bullshit response to give the teacher for the sake of my grades.
The Value of Self-Education
How is it, that we spend so much of our lives in school, and yet school leaves no time for real learning? I honestly think that real learning only happens when someone is ready for it, and when they have the freedom to go about it in their own way. Sure, there are good things to be said for having the guidance of a teacher, but mostly, I think it's so much more gratifying, exciting, and truly educational to discover things for yourself. It is the most meaningful and effective way to learn.
You might argue that this is nice in theory, but you can't possibly expect people to "discover" everything on their own. As I mentioned earlier, people all have different interests, and I myself was mostly interested in the artistic or language-related subjects in school. But let me tell you something interesting. When I finally finished my "education," (a.k.a. got out of college), something changed. I suddenly had the freedom to learn about whatever caught my fancy at the time. And I found that what caught my fancy first was history.
I had always liked history, and I had been developing a growing interest in politics, but it had never really been at the forefront of my academic endeavors. I had taken history classes, sure, but I never read a history book in its entirety until after I graduated from college. That book was Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers. During my senior year, my high school government teacher had recommended it to the class. I always thought it sounded interesting, so much so that even 5 years later I still remembered it, but I never had the time or the energy to read it while I was in school.
I can safely say that I effectively learned more about the first 20 years of U.S. history (post-1776) from that book than I ever did in school. It's because I was genuinely interested in what I was reading, I didn't have a test or a paper looming in the back of my mind, no deadlines to rush me through it. I could take my time, think about it the way I wanted, dawdle over the more interesting parts, and make connections between that book and other things that I knew--not only about American history, but about leadership, the shaping of all history, how views of history change through the kaleidoscope of time, and the way our perception of history today sets the stage for everything we do. Joseph Ellis has a wonderful way of making history real. Here were no facts or figures to memorize--only people to meet and stories to tell. Fascinating people--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.... People I had studied numerous times before, and yet never really known as fellow human beings. This is what history is really about.
I will say it again, and again, and again: literature is about real life; history is about real life; science and math are about real life. All learning is about life, about understanding ourselves as human beings, about understanding the world around us.
Likewise, my post-college education wasn't limited to history. In the past, science had been a far cry from my favorite subject. I usually thought of it as merely tolerable. And yet recently, I've been getting interested in that too. Do you know how many great science videos there are on youtube? Smarter Every Day and SciSchow are my current favorites. And honestly, when I was a child, I was really interested in science. Maybe not biology, or chemistry, or physics, specifically--I was interested in dinosaurs! No, scratch that. I was obsessed with dinosaurs.
I have been told that it started at the age of 3 when my dad brought home a VHS copy of The Land Before Time. (So, really, it was all his fault :-P). From then until the age of 9 or 10, I read everything about dinosaurs that I could get my hands on. I watched every movie, psyched myself out over every trip to the museum to see fossils, and religiously attended the annual exhibition of robotic dinosaurs that appeared in the local mall every winter. Although dino-obsession may not be the most conventional way of learning science, I did learn a lot about biology, geology, and natural history during those years. I could name more dinos off the top of my head than there are States in the Union; I could tell you all about evolution, continental drift, the different extinction theories, about the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods and which dinosaurs lived in which period; how fossils were dug up, and how the different layers of rock told you about which era the fossils were from. I am pretty sure that my years of dino-mania laid the groundwork for me to do well in science class later on.
Now, you could argue that I am an exception. How many kids get that totally obsessed with something? Actually, I think most kids get really obsessed with things. It just depends on what and when. How many kids are avid readers like I was? Maybe not a lot, but whatever a child is interested in, whether it involves books or not, obviously it gives them some kind of mental and emotional stimulation. Obviously, it is doing something for their little, growing brains.
And what about adults? What about after all those years of schooling? How many people are going to start reading history books, listening to Great Courses' lectures from the library, or make a hobby out of reading the news, like I did? Or how many people do you know who simply get out of college, get a job, and spend most of the rest of their lives working, drinking, raising kids, and watching TV? Sadly, a lot of the latter, I think. But I also believe that it's because this is how people have been conditioned. In a weird way, this is what society expects. As Astra Taylor points out in her talk on "Unschooling," our current society needs most people to be drones: people who will work at mindless jobs, produce conveniences, accessories, data, and various other smorgasbord en masse, and ask no questions.
But people are naturally curious animals! As Michio Kaku says, "All children are born scientists." As children, we want to know everything! We're overflowing with creativity, and we're so full of a desire to learn, but by the time we finish umpteen years of schooling, that natural curiosity seems to be burned out in most people.
If you give people the time and freedom to explore, I think you'd be surprised at how many things they'd be interested in. And if they don't learn about everything--if they're not all perfect Renaissance men and women--who cares? It's not like our current system is producing Renaissance men and women, though if you looked at the curriculum you would certainly think that was the goal.
There is one more compelling example I must mention. There's a co-teacher that I had in Korea. His name is Yi Jae-ik, and I had the pleasure of working with him for one semester. He follows a teaching philosophy of giving no orders, no punishments, and no rewards. He believes in letting students learn in their own way, at their own pace. He believes in the teacher's responsibility to listen to the students--that their needs and wishes are never foolish, or selfish, or trivial. The most impressive thing that I saw, was that students who previously had given up on English--who knew almost nothing, who had no motivation and no interest--suddenly started to make an effort. He made English accessible to them, and allowed them to study things that were at their level (i.e. making their own vocab cards of any words they pleased, using Rosetta stone, allowing them to ask any questions they wanted), and encouraged them in all things. The kids might have been learning at a much slower pace than the actual curriculum, but they were learning deeply, effectively, in other words, TRULY learning English, some of them for the first time in their lives. They may never do well on a standardized test, but they will remember what they learned in Yi Jae-ik's class for a long, long time--that is something indeed.
Michio Kaku - All kids are born geniuses
Ken Robinson - How to escape education's death valley
Ken Robinson - How schools kill creativity
“Actually, all education is self-education. A teacher is only a guide, to point out the way, and no school, no matter how excellent, can give you education. What you receive is like the outlines in a child’s coloring book. You must fill in the colors yourself.”
~Louis L'Amour
"Everyone is born a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its life believing it is stupid."
~attributed to Albert Einstein (though I don't believe there's a reputable source for this--but it's a good quote anyways)
"I simply wasn't ready to read. And it was painful trying to learn. Painful. It was like trying to force a penny through a hole that's too small."
~My friend, Catherine, on her early years in school. She learned to read later--when she was ready. She is now one of the most avid readers and one of the most curious minds that I am blessed to know.
Yi Jae-ik, who showed me that children really do learn more when you give them freedom.
Everyone acknowledges that our modern system of education is riddled with problems: inequality, inflexibility, under-achievement, huge amounts of money and effort continuously resulting in sub-par test scores. Many different suggestions have been made and many fingers pointed at possible suspects: it's the teachers! it's the parents! it's the curriculum! it's the funding! lack of teacher training! lack of teacher accountability! it's our inherently racist/sexist/socialist/capitalist society, etc., etc. There may be truth in some of these ideas or accusations, but before we blindly embark on another sweeping(ly expensive and meddlesome) education reform, I'd just like to ask: what is education, anyway? And what is it really for?
There are many different education methodologies used all over the world. I have direct experience with those in the US (as a native student), France (exchange student), and Korea (teacher). Though all three places are markedly different, I would still say they have more in common that not. Specifically, schooling seems to focus on these things:
1) the memorization of a HUGE number of facts, more than anyone could ever possibly remember or put to use.
2) a linear progression through a curriculum that includes all core subjects all the time, which are none-the-less kept constantly separate and distinct from one another.
3) a rigid schedule and highly supervised series of classes, where all students must do essentially the same things at the same time.
4) the seeming necessity of spending a lot of time on homework, studying, or both.
5) an extremely high value put on the results of tests and quizzes, especially standardized tests, which are then used to determine a child's future opportunities.
Now, I understand that these five fundamental pillars of public education are in place for logical reasons. Some of it has to do with resource limitations, or the need to objectively measure progress and success. But what I find interesting is the underlying assumption in all schooling systems that children cannot be left to their own resources--that, if you allow them to budget their own time and do what they want, they will do nothing but waste their time. There is usually very little room for individualization and self-directed exploration in our schools.
You might say, "Well, of course! No child wants to study! If we didn't make them do it, then most of them never would." In a sense, that might be true, but I think that we often confuse studying with learning. Our schools are purportedly places where children learn--but let's be honest, how much do any of us remember, out of all the things we had to study in K-12? If you really think about all that stuff you had to memorize? I'm just going to go out on a limb for moment, and bet that most people remember less than 10% of everything they had to learn in K-12, no matter how smart they are. If we don't remember most of what we've learned, we can't really say that we've learned it at all, can we? I think that our education system needs to make sure that students learn, not more, but more effectively.
The Keys to Effective Learning
In order for learning to be effective, I think you need three things:
1) a student needs to remember what they learned,
2) be able to make meaningful connections between that knowledge and other things they know, and
3) be able to apply it in their own lives.
It serves no purpose whatsoever to memorize stuff for a test and then forget it the next day, or week, or month. Personally, I can say that this is mostly what I did in school, especially in subjects like math, science, and history, which require a high degree of memorization, and which I had little time or interest to explore outside the classroom.
However, I did retain a good deal of what I learned in French and English. Why? Part of it was simple interest. These were my favorite subjects. (Ironically, they were also the subjects in which my grades were the most inconsistent). But it was also because of how I learned the information in those subjects. I've always had a gift for making connections between words and finding patterns in language. I did this constantly in French and English. When studying vocab, I entertained myself by finding similarities between related words, and when I was outside of school, I often challenged myself to try and identify objects around me in French. Every time I happened across something written in French, I tried to figure out what it meant. For me, language is an exciting puzzle, a secret code to decipher. It's the closest thing on earth to having a super power: to understand conversations that other people around you cannot, to be able to read what can only be meaningless scribbles to the uninitiated. I won't lie, speaking a foreign language gives me a heady sense of power and privilege--of being privy to an entire secret world, a culture, millions of people who would otherwise be rendered inaccessible behind a language barrier.
I understand, of course, that most people do not feel this way about languages. They don't have the court intrigue/X-men super-hero fantasy at the back of their minds that makes language learning so exciting for me. What I learned from this though, is how to learn. As I said, it's not just the interest, nor is it just about having a "gift" that makes one adept at learning. Learning to see patterns and make connections is something that can be taught and applied to all subjects.
In other words, everyone can learn how to learn.
But it goes beyond that. Beyond the patterns and connections, you have to use what you have learned and integrate it into your life somehow. That's how I've retained my French over the years--I use it whenever I get the chance--and everything that I remember from English class is from the stories and essays that had a deeper meaning for me. There were always things in literature that I identified with, that I could appreciate in the context of my own life. That was real learning. I was learning about life.
Ironically, this is also what made English and French classes the most painful for me. There were valuable things that I could extract from reading Alexander Pope, Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, and Emily Dickinson--but I extracted these things mostly in spite of, and not because of, all the assignments and tests that came with them. When I read Hamlet, the teacher required us to write notes and "responses" to every single scene. And with the deadline looming, I found myself rushing through it, focused more on what the hell I could write that the teacher would find interesting, rather than having the leisure to dwell on what I found interesting. I could have been learning from it--but I wasn't. There wasn't time, and the more "important" thing was to come up with some bullshit response to give the teacher for the sake of my grades.
The Value of Self-Education
How is it, that we spend so much of our lives in school, and yet school leaves no time for real learning? I honestly think that real learning only happens when someone is ready for it, and when they have the freedom to go about it in their own way. Sure, there are good things to be said for having the guidance of a teacher, but mostly, I think it's so much more gratifying, exciting, and truly educational to discover things for yourself. It is the most meaningful and effective way to learn.
You might argue that this is nice in theory, but you can't possibly expect people to "discover" everything on their own. As I mentioned earlier, people all have different interests, and I myself was mostly interested in the artistic or language-related subjects in school. But let me tell you something interesting. When I finally finished my "education," (a.k.a. got out of college), something changed. I suddenly had the freedom to learn about whatever caught my fancy at the time. And I found that what caught my fancy first was history.
I had always liked history, and I had been developing a growing interest in politics, but it had never really been at the forefront of my academic endeavors. I had taken history classes, sure, but I never read a history book in its entirety until after I graduated from college. That book was Joseph Ellis's Founding Brothers. During my senior year, my high school government teacher had recommended it to the class. I always thought it sounded interesting, so much so that even 5 years later I still remembered it, but I never had the time or the energy to read it while I was in school.
I can safely say that I effectively learned more about the first 20 years of U.S. history (post-1776) from that book than I ever did in school. It's because I was genuinely interested in what I was reading, I didn't have a test or a paper looming in the back of my mind, no deadlines to rush me through it. I could take my time, think about it the way I wanted, dawdle over the more interesting parts, and make connections between that book and other things that I knew--not only about American history, but about leadership, the shaping of all history, how views of history change through the kaleidoscope of time, and the way our perception of history today sets the stage for everything we do. Joseph Ellis has a wonderful way of making history real. Here were no facts or figures to memorize--only people to meet and stories to tell. Fascinating people--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.... People I had studied numerous times before, and yet never really known as fellow human beings. This is what history is really about.
I will say it again, and again, and again: literature is about real life; history is about real life; science and math are about real life. All learning is about life, about understanding ourselves as human beings, about understanding the world around us.
Likewise, my post-college education wasn't limited to history. In the past, science had been a far cry from my favorite subject. I usually thought of it as merely tolerable. And yet recently, I've been getting interested in that too. Do you know how many great science videos there are on youtube? Smarter Every Day and SciSchow are my current favorites. And honestly, when I was a child, I was really interested in science. Maybe not biology, or chemistry, or physics, specifically--I was interested in dinosaurs! No, scratch that. I was obsessed with dinosaurs.
I have been told that it started at the age of 3 when my dad brought home a VHS copy of The Land Before Time. (So, really, it was all his fault :-P). From then until the age of 9 or 10, I read everything about dinosaurs that I could get my hands on. I watched every movie, psyched myself out over every trip to the museum to see fossils, and religiously attended the annual exhibition of robotic dinosaurs that appeared in the local mall every winter. Although dino-obsession may not be the most conventional way of learning science, I did learn a lot about biology, geology, and natural history during those years. I could name more dinos off the top of my head than there are States in the Union; I could tell you all about evolution, continental drift, the different extinction theories, about the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods and which dinosaurs lived in which period; how fossils were dug up, and how the different layers of rock told you about which era the fossils were from. I am pretty sure that my years of dino-mania laid the groundwork for me to do well in science class later on.
Now, you could argue that I am an exception. How many kids get that totally obsessed with something? Actually, I think most kids get really obsessed with things. It just depends on what and when. How many kids are avid readers like I was? Maybe not a lot, but whatever a child is interested in, whether it involves books or not, obviously it gives them some kind of mental and emotional stimulation. Obviously, it is doing something for their little, growing brains.
And what about adults? What about after all those years of schooling? How many people are going to start reading history books, listening to Great Courses' lectures from the library, or make a hobby out of reading the news, like I did? Or how many people do you know who simply get out of college, get a job, and spend most of the rest of their lives working, drinking, raising kids, and watching TV? Sadly, a lot of the latter, I think. But I also believe that it's because this is how people have been conditioned. In a weird way, this is what society expects. As Astra Taylor points out in her talk on "Unschooling," our current society needs most people to be drones: people who will work at mindless jobs, produce conveniences, accessories, data, and various other smorgasbord en masse, and ask no questions.
But people are naturally curious animals! As Michio Kaku says, "All children are born scientists." As children, we want to know everything! We're overflowing with creativity, and we're so full of a desire to learn, but by the time we finish umpteen years of schooling, that natural curiosity seems to be burned out in most people.
If you give people the time and freedom to explore, I think you'd be surprised at how many things they'd be interested in. And if they don't learn about everything--if they're not all perfect Renaissance men and women--who cares? It's not like our current system is producing Renaissance men and women, though if you looked at the curriculum you would certainly think that was the goal.
There is one more compelling example I must mention. There's a co-teacher that I had in Korea. His name is Yi Jae-ik, and I had the pleasure of working with him for one semester. He follows a teaching philosophy of giving no orders, no punishments, and no rewards. He believes in letting students learn in their own way, at their own pace. He believes in the teacher's responsibility to listen to the students--that their needs and wishes are never foolish, or selfish, or trivial. The most impressive thing that I saw, was that students who previously had given up on English--who knew almost nothing, who had no motivation and no interest--suddenly started to make an effort. He made English accessible to them, and allowed them to study things that were at their level (i.e. making their own vocab cards of any words they pleased, using Rosetta stone, allowing them to ask any questions they wanted), and encouraged them in all things. The kids might have been learning at a much slower pace than the actual curriculum, but they were learning deeply, effectively, in other words, TRULY learning English, some of them for the first time in their lives. They may never do well on a standardized test, but they will remember what they learned in Yi Jae-ik's class for a long, long time--that is something indeed.
Sources of inspiration for this post:
Astra Taylor on "Unschooling" - an extremely interesting approach to education (skip the first 2 minutes; the talk itself only lasts until about minute 47--after that it's a discussion with the audience)
Astra Taylor on "Unschooling" - an extremely interesting approach to education (skip the first 2 minutes; the talk itself only lasts until about minute 47--after that it's a discussion with the audience)
Michio Kaku - All kids are born geniuses
Ken Robinson - How to escape education's death valley
Ken Robinson - How schools kill creativity
“Actually, all education is self-education. A teacher is only a guide, to point out the way, and no school, no matter how excellent, can give you education. What you receive is like the outlines in a child’s coloring book. You must fill in the colors yourself.”
~Louis L'Amour
"Everyone is born a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its life believing it is stupid."
~attributed to Albert Einstein (though I don't believe there's a reputable source for this--but it's a good quote anyways)
"I simply wasn't ready to read. And it was painful trying to learn. Painful. It was like trying to force a penny through a hole that's too small."
~My friend, Catherine, on her early years in school. She learned to read later--when she was ready. She is now one of the most avid readers and one of the most curious minds that I am blessed to know.
Yi Jae-ik, who showed me that children really do learn more when you give them freedom.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Two Visions of van Gogh
I recently watched two documentaries about Vincent van Gogh: one, simply called Vincent, came out in 1987, directed by Paul Cox and narrated by John Hurt. The other is called Van Gogh: Painted with Words (2010),
directed by Andrew Hutton and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as
Vincent. Both of them are comprised entirely of words taken directly
from period sources, principally from van Gogh's letters to his brother
Theo. Yet, they're strikingly different takes on the same man and the
same events.
The Paul Cox film is powerful in great part because of its pure simplicity and cohesion. It consists entirely of a narration of van Gogh's letters to Theo, voiced by John Hurt, while the camera moves over scenes of the places, buildings, and countryside like those that van Gogh frequented and painted. The few actors that actually appear in the film are not heard at all--they move silently across the screen, almost ghost-like. You have the sense of being in van Gogh's head, of hanging suspended amid those images as you listen to his thoughts as he expressed them to his beloved brother.
The Andrew Hutton film, on the other hand, is slightly unnerving from the very beginning as it seems to mirror the schizophrenia that tormented van Gogh. Contrary to the meditative quality of the Cox film, this one jumps rapidly from shot to shot, from disconcerting close-ups of van Gogh's face to views of his cell in the asylum, to other images or lines that you don't fully grasp at first. It also goes back and forth between Alan Yentob in the present, narrating and explaining, and Cumberbatch and the other actors portraying van Gogh in his own time. Personally, I found this style to be more jarring and less effective--at first. But as I went along, I got that sense that what the director wanted to capture was not just the emotional and spiritual weight of van Gogh's words, but also the frenetic energy that dominated his character. This movie is less of a cerebral-emotional experience and more of a visceral-emotional experience. You definitely get a more powerful sense of his madness in this one--a more accurate picture of how he appeared to others and why he had such hard time with relationships, and life in general.
This is also reflected in Cumberbatch's performance vs. John Hurt's. Hurt's version was more of...well, a narration. It was a little more even-keel, though that is not to say that he expressed less feeling! The emotional impact of Hurt's performance was very powerful--just less effusive. Cumberbatch's interpretation was much more volatile, moving abruptly between manic intensity and quiet, profound depression. Hurt conveyed more melancholy while Cumberbatch conveyed the sense of a man striving desperately to make a place for himself in the world and leave something behind that was worthwhile.
I think both interpretations are beautiful, and these two documentaries complement each other well. I might still prefer the style of Cox's film; it seems much smoother and more crafted, while certain scenes and transitions in the Hutton film irked me a bit, but Hutton's movie also has a gritty quality to it that I appreciate.
On the other hand, perhaps the Cox film, by showing only the inner life of van Gogh and framing it with a reverence bordering on idealism, is the less realistic, or maybe less complete, portrayal of the two. But they're both true--whether you want to lose yourself in the inner world of van Gogh's mind or witness all the inconsistent, nervous energy of a very flawed but brilliant man struggling to make his way among others, both of these homages to Vincent van Gogh are well worth your while.
The Paul Cox film is powerful in great part because of its pure simplicity and cohesion. It consists entirely of a narration of van Gogh's letters to Theo, voiced by John Hurt, while the camera moves over scenes of the places, buildings, and countryside like those that van Gogh frequented and painted. The few actors that actually appear in the film are not heard at all--they move silently across the screen, almost ghost-like. You have the sense of being in van Gogh's head, of hanging suspended amid those images as you listen to his thoughts as he expressed them to his beloved brother.
The Andrew Hutton film, on the other hand, is slightly unnerving from the very beginning as it seems to mirror the schizophrenia that tormented van Gogh. Contrary to the meditative quality of the Cox film, this one jumps rapidly from shot to shot, from disconcerting close-ups of van Gogh's face to views of his cell in the asylum, to other images or lines that you don't fully grasp at first. It also goes back and forth between Alan Yentob in the present, narrating and explaining, and Cumberbatch and the other actors portraying van Gogh in his own time. Personally, I found this style to be more jarring and less effective--at first. But as I went along, I got that sense that what the director wanted to capture was not just the emotional and spiritual weight of van Gogh's words, but also the frenetic energy that dominated his character. This movie is less of a cerebral-emotional experience and more of a visceral-emotional experience. You definitely get a more powerful sense of his madness in this one--a more accurate picture of how he appeared to others and why he had such hard time with relationships, and life in general.
This is also reflected in Cumberbatch's performance vs. John Hurt's. Hurt's version was more of...well, a narration. It was a little more even-keel, though that is not to say that he expressed less feeling! The emotional impact of Hurt's performance was very powerful--just less effusive. Cumberbatch's interpretation was much more volatile, moving abruptly between manic intensity and quiet, profound depression. Hurt conveyed more melancholy while Cumberbatch conveyed the sense of a man striving desperately to make a place for himself in the world and leave something behind that was worthwhile.
I think both interpretations are beautiful, and these two documentaries complement each other well. I might still prefer the style of Cox's film; it seems much smoother and more crafted, while certain scenes and transitions in the Hutton film irked me a bit, but Hutton's movie also has a gritty quality to it that I appreciate.
On the other hand, perhaps the Cox film, by showing only the inner life of van Gogh and framing it with a reverence bordering on idealism, is the less realistic, or maybe less complete, portrayal of the two. But they're both true--whether you want to lose yourself in the inner world of van Gogh's mind or witness all the inconsistent, nervous energy of a very flawed but brilliant man struggling to make his way among others, both of these homages to Vincent van Gogh are well worth your while.
Monday, November 18, 2013
The Nerd Generation
Our generation has been called a number of things: Millennials, Generation Y, the "Me" Generation. But honestly, none of those terms really capture who we are as a generation, do they? If the Millennials could be personified as a individual and contrasted with previous generations, who would that person be?
In my opinion: a nerd.
Being a nerd has never been SO cool. Almost all the big blockbuster movies these days are comic book adaptations, sci-fi, and fantasy. Who can count the number of Marvel and DC comic book movies that have come out in the past few years? They've revived the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises (with huge financial success), and Peter Jackson took The Lord of the Rings and turned it from a rather esoteric, cult-hit series of fantasy books, and made them into some of the highest-grossing, most epic films of all time. Not to mention Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, the Matrix, Avatar, The Hobbit, Ender's Game and most of the Pixar/Dreamworks movies. Even mainstream, teen romances are moving more and more into the sci-fi/fantasy realm. Twilight, anyone? I think most of Twilight's fan-base would not consider themselves to be nerds, and yet they worship characters and a story that exist in what would normally be considered a nerd/geek universe. It combines things geeks love (vampires, super-powers) with things that teenage girls love (romance and sparkles!). The other day my friend saw a section in the Barnes and Noble labeled "Paranormal Teen Romance." Things are definitely changing.
Also, need I mention that it was my generation that made anime popular in the West? What young person these days doesn't at least know the name Miyazaki? Over the course of my lifetime, I have seen the birth of the Anime & Manga section in bookstores--not only that, but literally every time I go back to Barnes & Noble I swear that section gets bigger. My generation grew up watching Transformers and Power Rangers, and when we got older we were delighted to discover a wealth of awesome anime-mecha series to geek out over, in addition to all those adorably kooky, bizarre anime romances, and intense, surreal dramas, thrillers, and horror flicks.
East to West - Japan's influence on the Nerd Generation
(clockwise from top left: The Power Rangers, Evangelion, Pacific Rim)
To catch up with this frenzy of nerdom, conventions and groups have been springing up all over the country where people who love these things can meet, mingle, and just generally geek out. Comic-Con is one of the most famous, with annual conventions popping up in cities all over the US, and in other countries as well. San Diego was the first city to kick off its annual Comic-Con in 1970, followed by Chicago in 1976--but the Comic-Cons really took off during our youth when Pittsburgh, Detroit (1994), New York (1996) and ten other cities (in the 2000's) started their own annual Comic-Cons. The biggest anime conventions in the US are Anime Expo (first held in 1992), Otakon (1994), Anime Central (1998), and many more have proliferated since then. The nerd wave may have really started with Generation X, but Generation Y has carried it on with gusto and made it their own.
 |
| New York Comic Con |
Of course, the people who go to conventions and immerse themselves in this stuff are still a small minority of the population.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Yearnings
The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
I think people in general have a tendency to overlook their own emotions. Either you dislike what you're feeling, so you try to distance yourself from it; or you feel too busy to deal with it; or you can't make sense out of it, so you try to tell yourself, "There's no reason for me to feel that way." But I disagree. There is always a reason for every feeling, even if that reason is subconscious. However, whether or not you understand the origin or reason behind every feeling doesn't entirely matter. One of the fundamentals of Rumi's philosophy is that all human emotion serves a purpose. Feelings are neither arbitrary nor meaningless. Every yearning, every desire you have exists so that you will seek out the things you really need--not only to live, but also to be a complete human being. We feel hunger so that we will eat. We feel tired so that we will sleep. We yearn to be creative and express ourselves because we need to create things. We yearn for God, for a higher spiritual order, because we need to make spiritual sense of our universe. It is not enough to just exist. We must know why. We must feel there is a purpose to our being.
I'm not saying that simply wanting there to be a God is a justification for believing in God. I think Rumi's idea is that, if there is a yearning, there must be an answer to that yearning. If we are thirsty, we must drink. No one would deny this. But does it not logically follow then, that if someone deeply longs to make music, they must make music? Why is it that so many famous artists throughout history have been destitute, starving, cast out of society, and yet somehow felt overwhelmingly compelled, not to seek out a decent paying job, but rather to make art? As Vincent van Gogh said in a letter to his brother, "Sometimes I draw . . . almost against my will, but it is a hard and difficult struggle to draw well." Why on earth would he choose to spend his time doing such a seemingly fruitless activity, when he lived in extreme poverty and only sold one painting in his entire lifetime? Because he had a hunger that needed to be fed: a hunger as real and demanding to him as any physical hunger.
This is where it gets difficult, I think. Everyone understands hunger, thirst, and tiredness because we all feel it in essentially the same way. But not everyone feels the need to draw, or play sports, or commune with God. Some people feel these yearnings so powerfully that it drives their entire lives, while others might feel that same yearning not at all. Still more people might feel a moderate amount of this or that desire, but not to the point where they would make such sacrifices as van Gogh did. When it comes to non-physical needs, it takes a great deal of empathy and patience to understand what drives people to do what they do. However, like Rumi, I believe that nothing we feel is without significance. Although making music, writing a story, or playing a sport might not be essential to life in the physical sense, it is essential in the spiritual sense. It is not water for our bodies, but for our souls. Whatever you do that makes you feel most truly happy and whole, that is your purpose in life. The trick is that it's up to you to find the right balance of these things in your life, and to be strong enough to insist on the things you need, even if other people don't understand them.
Of course, then you must ask, what if you yearn to do something wrong? What if the fruition of your desire would be harmful to other people, or even to yourself? Obviously you can't just use the excuse that you wanted to do it, so therefore it must be right. Our feelings and our desires need to be interpreted, balanced, and acted upon in a constructive way. An emotion may be leading you towards the right place, but you must interpret it correctly and find the right way to get there. Not all pathways to an objective are equal. For example, if you feel that a situation in your life is getting alarmingly out of control, perhaps your first impulse would be take control of it through violence or intimidation. That impulse is not the feeling you should follow. What you really need to ask yourself is, what is upsetting to me about this situation and how can I fix it in the most effective, benevolent way possible? Violence just leads to more violence, and running away from the situation just leaves it to be solved another day. But if it's upsetting to you, that means it needs to change, and there is probably a decent way to fix if you just think about it. I'm not saying that making that change is always easy, or that you can always do it without upsetting anybody, but most of the time, there is probably a constructive path that will lead you to what you really need.
Life hurts sometimes, but that pain only exists to tell us what we need. Rumi said, "The cure for pain is in the pain." It is a guide sent to lead you towards goodness and happiness. Even if you are lonely or feel unfulfilled, don't run away from that feeling. Don't ignore it. Follow it.
"That hurt we embrace becomes joy. Call it to your arms where it can change."
We can only change when we recognize our problems and decide to face them. If you feel broken, lost, empty, don't drown yourself in obligations and distractions. Follow your grief to the place where you can be whole.
The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf
~~~~~~~~~~~
One night a man was crying,
Allah! Allah!
His lips grew sweet with the praising,
until a cynic said,
"So! I have heard you
calling out, but have you ever
gotten any response?"
The man had no answer to that.
He quit praying and fell into a confused sleep.
He dreamed he saw Khidr, the guide of souls,
in a thick, green foliage.
"Why did you stop praising?"
"Because I've never heard anything back."
"This longing
you express is the return message."
The grief you cry out from
draws you toward union.
Your pure sadness
that wants help
is the secret cup.
Listen to the moan of a dog for its master.
That whining is the connection.
There are love dogs
no one knows the names of.
Give your life
to be one of them.~Rumi
The Illuminated Rumi, translated by Coleman Barks
Friday, November 15, 2013
The Problem With "Having It All"
I have always strongly disliked the question, "Can women have it all?" It's a ridiculous question because nobody can have it all: the high-powered career, enough time with your kids, enough time with your spouse, enough time with friends, enough time for yourself. Men certainly don't have it all; they're just more likely to choose to spend more time on their careers and less on their families and social lives. But somehow, it seems like women these days are raised to believe that they not only can, but should "have it all."
Finally! Someone is responding to this unrealistic and unfair expectation. I saw this Debora L. Spar interview the other day, and I wanted to throw my hands in the air and yell "Hallelujah!" She's the author of a new book called Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection. Here's the interview (it's only 6 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyu3K305nRs
Finally! Someone is responding to this unrealistic and unfair expectation. I saw this Debora L. Spar interview the other day, and I wanted to throw my hands in the air and yell "Hallelujah!" She's the author of a new book called Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection. Here's the interview (it's only 6 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyu3K305nRs
Monday, November 11, 2013
Rules of Engagement: Talking with Introverts & Extroverts
When it comes to group conversation, introverts and extroverts seem to operate based on two different sets of assumptions--or we could even say different rules of etiquette. I notice this difference more with young people (i.e. teens and twenty-somethings), and I especially see it in situations where there is either one introvert among extroverts or vice versa. As an introvert myself, I've experienced these things a number of times. I might be generalizing too much--maybe I'm focusing too much on shy introverts vs. extreme extroverts, or maybe there's something else more specific going on--but I've seen these things happen with other people as well, and I've seen it enough times that I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's a general introvert vs. extrovert thing. However, I am really curious to know if other people see the same thing, something completely different, or if you just have a different interpretation of these behaviors. Please leave a comment and give me your two cents!
So here we go:
Introverts are more likely to wait for a clear opening or look for a kind of "invitation" from the other people before entering a conversation. By invitation I really just mean that they look for some kind of acknowledgement of their presence, either with a glance, a gesture, a greeting, or a question from the other people present. This is especially true when the introvert is approaching a conversation that is already under way, and it's doubly true when the conversation in progress is fast-paced or intense.
Extroverts, on the other hand, tend to assume that if you want to join the conversation, you'll just do it, without waiting for a cue from anyone else. Extroverts aren't as prone to waiting and reading other people before speaking--they just dive right in, and they expect the responses from other people to be just as quick and spontaneous.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Women in Game of Thrones
It always kind of disturbed me how the women are treated in Game of Thrones. As objects really. As sex toys. In the show there are countless gratuitous scenes with prostitutes, naked women, and degrading remarks about women. On the surface, it seems like Game of Thrones is pretty grossly sexist.
But let's take a step back. Game of Thrones takes place in a setting that very closely resembles Medieval Europe. The way women are treated in the show is probably a pretty accurate portrayal of the lives of Medieval women in general. After all, in those times, women were essentially property, just as they are in Game of Thrones. Saying that Game of Thrones is sexist is kind of like saying that 12 Years a Slave is racist. It completely misses the point.
Not that Game of Thrones is expressly trying to spread awareness of the abuse of women or anything like that. It is still, primarily, just a great fantasy adventure story. But when it really comes down to it, what saves Game of Thrones from being sexist is that fact that every prominent female character in the story is strong, intelligent, and has such a depth of character that you can't help but empathize with her.
Even a character like Cersei, who I think we all can agree, is a Grade A Bitch, has moments where you really feel sorry for her, and she definitely has reasons for being the way she is. The scene where the women are hiding in the Red Keep during the Battle of Blackwater and her conversation with Tyrion in the final episode of season three do a great deal to humanize her. You'd have to be cold as stone not to pity her when she talks about her son Joffrey. So sad.
What I really love about the women in Game of Thrones, however, is the fact that they are all strong, and yet all so different. When I was an adolescent, I read a great deal of fantasy novels, and after a while, it really annoyed me that the only women who were portrayed as "strong" were the ones who completely rejected their traditional feminine roles. They were the tomboys, the sword-wielding women who dressed in men's clothes and took on a man's role. When I read Game of Thrones in high school, I was overjoyed to discover Catelyn Stark--a noblewoman who remained completely within the bounds of her traditional gender role, and yet whom no one could deny had nerves of steel, was smart, brave, and fiercely loyal. How could anyone not respect Lady Stark? She was the ultimate strong, feminine, dutiful woman. A true noblelady.
Catelyn Stark was the one who struck me the most in high school, but after watching the show, I am reminded of how the strong female characters in Game of Thrones really fill the spectrum of possibilities.
But let's take a step back. Game of Thrones takes place in a setting that very closely resembles Medieval Europe. The way women are treated in the show is probably a pretty accurate portrayal of the lives of Medieval women in general. After all, in those times, women were essentially property, just as they are in Game of Thrones. Saying that Game of Thrones is sexist is kind of like saying that 12 Years a Slave is racist. It completely misses the point.
Not that Game of Thrones is expressly trying to spread awareness of the abuse of women or anything like that. It is still, primarily, just a great fantasy adventure story. But when it really comes down to it, what saves Game of Thrones from being sexist is that fact that every prominent female character in the story is strong, intelligent, and has such a depth of character that you can't help but empathize with her.
Even a character like Cersei, who I think we all can agree, is a Grade A Bitch, has moments where you really feel sorry for her, and she definitely has reasons for being the way she is. The scene where the women are hiding in the Red Keep during the Battle of Blackwater and her conversation with Tyrion in the final episode of season three do a great deal to humanize her. You'd have to be cold as stone not to pity her when she talks about her son Joffrey. So sad.
What I really love about the women in Game of Thrones, however, is the fact that they are all strong, and yet all so different. When I was an adolescent, I read a great deal of fantasy novels, and after a while, it really annoyed me that the only women who were portrayed as "strong" were the ones who completely rejected their traditional feminine roles. They were the tomboys, the sword-wielding women who dressed in men's clothes and took on a man's role. When I read Game of Thrones in high school, I was overjoyed to discover Catelyn Stark--a noblewoman who remained completely within the bounds of her traditional gender role, and yet whom no one could deny had nerves of steel, was smart, brave, and fiercely loyal. How could anyone not respect Lady Stark? She was the ultimate strong, feminine, dutiful woman. A true noblelady.
Catelyn Stark was the one who struck me the most in high school, but after watching the show, I am reminded of how the strong female characters in Game of Thrones really fill the spectrum of possibilities.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Gerrymandering: Destroying our Democracy from the Ground Up
The Root Cause?
It's becoming a fairly common refrain these days that the extreme political dysfunction in the US Congress is primarily caused by gerrymandering. I've seen it in the NY Times, the Economist, and elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure how many people are really aware of it yet.
Just a quick run-through: every 10 years, new lines have to be drawn on every state map to determine which voters will belong to which district. This is called redistricting. This is done to balance out shifts, increases, or decreases in the populations of each district. Gerrymandering is when a certain political party draws the the lines of the voting districts to their own advantage. For example, Republicans might draw the lines so that all the largely Republican communities will fall in one district, therefore making that a "safe" district--a.k.a. a district in which a Democrat has no chance of winning. A Democrat would do the same thing with Democratic communities. That's how you end up with districts that look like this:
Ridiculous, no?
Okay, it might look ridiculous on paper, but why is this really such a big deal? I mean, everyone's votes are still being represented right? What difference does it really make?
The difference is this: when districts are gerrymandered so that they're overwhelmingly conservative or overwhelmingly liberal, you end up electing extremely conservative or extremely liberal politicians. Politicians from these districts don't need to win over the "moderates" and the "swing voters"--they only need to seriously compete with other members of their own party in the primaries. Once that vote is secured, it's easy sailing for them in the main election. In order to secure their jobs, they only have to toe the party line. If they compromise with the other party, they're likely to lose support in the district that elected them. When being moderate is a threat to their personal job security, it's in their best interest to stick to extremes. That's exactly what we have in our Congress right now. How can we expect these politicians to compromise when doing so would lose them the next election? This is how our Congress can have one of its lowest approval ratings in history (between 5 and 10%, depending on which polls you look at), and yet most of the extremist politicians who are causing the current grid-lock are in no real danger of losing their jobs in the next election. Our current political system seriously discourages compromise and makes it almost impossible to put moderate politicians in office. Getting rid of gerrymandering could undo many of the problems that are paralyzing our country.
But what exactly are the rules that govern redistricting? Under what circumstances is gerrymandering allowed? Are there limits on it? And who decides who gets to draw the lines anyways?
I decided to look into it a little more myself, and I found this fabulous little website:
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines
It's chock full of all the basic info about gerrymandering. Here's the short version:
There are only two federal laws that relate to gerrymandering.
1) Each district must be roughly equal in population. The exact rules on what constitutes "roughly equal" vary from state to state.
2) Gerrymandering cannot be used to break up minorities into different districts so that their share of the vote in each district becomes insignificant. On the flipside, "packing" as many minorities as possible into as few districts as possible is also illegal.
(For a fuller explanation on this, see here).
In short, you cannot gerrymander with minority groups, but you can gerrymander with political parties all you want.
Aside from these two federal laws, redistricting laws are entirely up to each state.
In this part of the website you can look up the exact laws about redistricting, state by state.
All About Redistricting - Who Draws the Lines?
For congressional (a.k.a., for the Federal legislature, rather than State legislature) redistricting is done basically one of three ways. The lines can be drawn by :
1) an independent commission of non-politicians
2) a bipartisan commission of state politicians
3) the state legislature, which then votes on whether or not to pass the new district maps. In most states, this vote requires only a simple majority (over 50%) in order to pass.
Currently, 2 states (Hawaii and New Jersey) use an independent commission. 4 states (Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington) use a bipartisan commission. 7 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont) do not need to draw congressional districts because they only have one Representative in the House.
Click here to see my Petition to End Gerrymandering in Illinois
Sources of inspiration for this post:
The GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN and REPEATED DEBT CEILING CRISES
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines
"How the Shutdown Plays in Peoria" - The Economist, Oct. 12, 2013
(An article from a British newspaper that, coincidentally, specifically talks about gerrymandering in Illinois)
"How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House" - The New York Times, Dec. 14, 2012
It's becoming a fairly common refrain these days that the extreme political dysfunction in the US Congress is primarily caused by gerrymandering. I've seen it in the NY Times, the Economist, and elsewhere, but I'm not entirely sure how many people are really aware of it yet.
Just a quick run-through: every 10 years, new lines have to be drawn on every state map to determine which voters will belong to which district. This is called redistricting. This is done to balance out shifts, increases, or decreases in the populations of each district. Gerrymandering is when a certain political party draws the the lines of the voting districts to their own advantage. For example, Republicans might draw the lines so that all the largely Republican communities will fall in one district, therefore making that a "safe" district--a.k.a. a district in which a Democrat has no chance of winning. A Democrat would do the same thing with Democratic communities. That's how you end up with districts that look like this:
Ridiculous, no?
Okay, it might look ridiculous on paper, but why is this really such a big deal? I mean, everyone's votes are still being represented right? What difference does it really make?
The difference is this: when districts are gerrymandered so that they're overwhelmingly conservative or overwhelmingly liberal, you end up electing extremely conservative or extremely liberal politicians. Politicians from these districts don't need to win over the "moderates" and the "swing voters"--they only need to seriously compete with other members of their own party in the primaries. Once that vote is secured, it's easy sailing for them in the main election. In order to secure their jobs, they only have to toe the party line. If they compromise with the other party, they're likely to lose support in the district that elected them. When being moderate is a threat to their personal job security, it's in their best interest to stick to extremes. That's exactly what we have in our Congress right now. How can we expect these politicians to compromise when doing so would lose them the next election? This is how our Congress can have one of its lowest approval ratings in history (between 5 and 10%, depending on which polls you look at), and yet most of the extremist politicians who are causing the current grid-lock are in no real danger of losing their jobs in the next election. Our current political system seriously discourages compromise and makes it almost impossible to put moderate politicians in office. Getting rid of gerrymandering could undo many of the problems that are paralyzing our country.
But what exactly are the rules that govern redistricting? Under what circumstances is gerrymandering allowed? Are there limits on it? And who decides who gets to draw the lines anyways?
I decided to look into it a little more myself, and I found this fabulous little website:
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines
It's chock full of all the basic info about gerrymandering. Here's the short version:
There are only two federal laws that relate to gerrymandering.
1) Each district must be roughly equal in population. The exact rules on what constitutes "roughly equal" vary from state to state.
2) Gerrymandering cannot be used to break up minorities into different districts so that their share of the vote in each district becomes insignificant. On the flipside, "packing" as many minorities as possible into as few districts as possible is also illegal.
(For a fuller explanation on this, see here).
In short, you cannot gerrymander with minority groups, but you can gerrymander with political parties all you want.
Aside from these two federal laws, redistricting laws are entirely up to each state.
In this part of the website you can look up the exact laws about redistricting, state by state.
All About Redistricting - Who Draws the Lines?
For congressional (a.k.a., for the Federal legislature, rather than State legislature) redistricting is done basically one of three ways. The lines can be drawn by :
1) an independent commission of non-politicians
2) a bipartisan commission of state politicians
3) the state legislature, which then votes on whether or not to pass the new district maps. In most states, this vote requires only a simple majority (over 50%) in order to pass.
Currently, 2 states (Hawaii and New Jersey) use an independent commission. 4 states (Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington) use a bipartisan commission. 7 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont) do not need to draw congressional districts because they only have one Representative in the House.
That leaves 37 states where redistricting is done either primarily
or entirely by the state legislature. That means that whichever party controls the state legislature has complete control
over the way congressional districts are drawn. Obviously, this is not good for creating fair district maps.
An article from Dec. 14, 2012, in the New
York Times explains:
“In states
where Republicans controlled the [redistricting] process, […] their candidates
won roughly 53 percent of the vote—and 72 percent of the seats. And in the
states where Democrats controlled the process, their candidates won about 56
percent of the vote and 71 percent of the seats.
An analysis
by The New York Times of states where courts, commissions or divided
governments drew the maps found a much smaller disparity between the share of
the popular vote and the number of seats won in Congress.”
In other words, not only does gerrymandering lead to an increased tendency to elect extreme right- or left-wing politicians, but also a gross disparity between the number of actual votes
won vs. the number of seats won by either party.
The House of Representatives is supposed to be the federal
institution which most accurately reflects the will, constitution, and
diversity of the people. With our
current system, it does not. As long as
gerrymandering continues, there will be very little chance of electing more
moderate candidates or honoring the popular vote in each state. The U.S. government will be thrown into
paralysis again and again, and the world will wonder why the most powerful
country on earth can’t accomplish even the most basic things to keep the itself
running.
Unfortunately, this is not an issue that can be resolved at the federal level. The passage of a federal ban on gerrymandering is basically impossible since many of the legislators themselves would lose their jobs if it
passes. This issue must be dealt with state by state. Even that will be extremely difficult since our state legislators probably rely on gerrymandered districts to secure their own jobs. However, 6 states already use independent or bipartisan commissions to do their redistricting. That proves it can be done. We need more states to do this. The power of redistricting must be taken out of the hands of our state legislatures.
The Petition
I've started a petition to the Governor and State Legislature of Illinois to end gerrymandering by appointing an independent or bipartisan commission for redistricting. Anyone who lives or votes in Illinois, I ask you to please sign this and pass it on to as many people as you can. To people who live in other states, I encourage you to start petitions of your own, start raising awareness of this issue, and try to end gerrymandering in your own state. Please do what you can, even if it's only a little. Gerrymandering is eating away at the very heart of our democracy. The ineptitude of our government is harming everyone, and if we want our country to remain strong, democratic, and fair, we have to do something about this.
Click here to see my Petition to End Gerrymandering in Illinois
Sources of inspiration for this post:
The GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN and REPEATED DEBT CEILING CRISES
All About Redistricting: Professor Justin Levitt's guide to drawing the electoral lines
"How the Shutdown Plays in Peoria" - The Economist, Oct. 12, 2013
(An article from a British newspaper that, coincidentally, specifically talks about gerrymandering in Illinois)
"How Maps Helped Republicans Keep an Edge in the House" - The New York Times, Dec. 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)