Tag Archives: sociology

trials of mediation

I’m emotionally over Facebook–by which I mean I am no longer invested in it as somewhere I can express my identity and personality. I used to spend hours cultivating the perfect biographical statement, interests and favorites, and group memberships, but now it’s turned into a virtual version of my apartment on its worst days–namely, full of clutter and crap that might express me, but not in any sort of coherent or favorable way. Anything I find interesting–quotes, links, videos, gets posted in a place that I’d ideally like to keep for photographs and messages to and from friends that I can’t see in person. The one day I connected my Twitter account to my Facebook, such a barrage of crap that was probably rather interesting on a feed cluttered up my Timeline that I just couldn’t stand how it looked, nor could I find a message from a friend that I was looking for.

In the fall I deleted Facebook from my bookmarks, and it remains gone. That makes me visit it a lot less often than I used to, and aside from article-link-posting binges, I don’t really do anything on Facebook except play Words With Friends (I love/hate you for that, Zoraida!). I don’t plan on quitting, but it’s no longer a place that works for the way I want to use media and mediation to send messages or create the virtual costume of myself. I don’t like who I am when I spend hours on Facebook, wistfully clicking through pictures of guys I used to like or girls who used to make fun of me, nor do I like how my profile page looks like, littered with shit I find interesting and want other people to find interesting about me. I don’t know why I held out on Twitter for so long, because it’s more my thing. Continue reading

compartmentalize, ignore, or hate outright?

I just started reading Stanislavski’s An Actor Prepares, which is the first of his three seminal works on the acting process. I decided to read it when I saw a friend reading it to work on her acting career; I’m reading it because I have enjoyed acting when I’ve done it, also because I have found acting difficult when done right, and also because I thought it might be an interesting approach to writing. I think for that third thing to work, I might end up reading all three of his books, not just this one.

But I got it from the library in Tucson, which means I have to finish reading it by Tuesday night, as I leave Wednesday morning. I had trouble getting it from the Boston library. It’s quite interesting so far–somewhat fiction, somewhat like a diary, rather than just “Hi, let me teach you some shit about acting.” I think writers’ guides could take a note from that approach. But now that I’ve trained myself to be critical about fucking everything ever, I’m having trouble getting through it, and so I’m only on page 10.

This is partly because, at least for the kind of reader and thinker I am, this is a book that demands to be read with a notebook at your side for jotting down quotes you want to remember, activities you want to try, or ideas you come up with. It is not a book for bathtub reading, which is what I thought when I decided to Blanche DuBois out and take a bath this morning. Continue reading

new worlds: cinder, worldbuilding, and current ya sci fi

I want to talk about worldbuilding in sci fi and dystopia. And just the qualities of sci fi itself. Lately it’s my favorite genre of television, but I can’t quite figure out why. It’s pretty elementary to identify social fears and how they transfer into imagined technological advances, but that’s part of what makes it such an ever-relevant genre. There are always new societal fears and scapegoats and advances and changes that lend themselves well to commentary in the form of fantastical re-imaginings. But when too much sci fi or dystopia comes out during the same era, especially when that era is also characterized by fast, serial publishing, hyper-commodification of literature, and technology-dominated culture, it ends up all the same and ends up being derivative of itself, rather than clever or astute.

I know I’m kind of writing my own dystopia right now, but I’m satisfied that it’s more speculative than outright sci fi dystopia, and I think it’s fairly different from a lot of other YA dystopia. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be better, but we’ll see how it goes when it’s done. But in the meantime, I still want to read in my one of my favorite genres, and I get disappointed when it all starts to be the same old story: society controls teens as far as who they marry, and some plucky young girl decides that that’s not right. Touchscreens run everything, people have silly names, and daily life is controlled by a faceless, totalitarian government. Obviously that’s the hallmark of most sci fi because it’s the fear of most societies, but the plots are starting to run so similar that it’s dull as doornails. Not even the execution of the same old ideas is unique anymore. Continue reading

i’m inspired!

I read a lot of books, period, and lately I read a lot of food books. So I don’t think I’m being too cavalier when I say that this is the BEST food book I’ve read all year. The Kitchen Counter Cooking School (Kathleen Flinn) is a memoir cum cookbook that is just like taking cooking lessons without paying the exorbitant fees, and without being the awkward, food allergy-challenged person in the room.

I do not lie. First of all, Flinn is just really good at putting together a narrative, so the book is highly readable. That’s why it functions so well as a lesson, too–she’s a good teacher, well trained, who knows how to put together a lesson so that it’s engaging and understandable. The book follows her and her friend as they find nine women (not all female on purpose, but interesting sociologically nonetheless) and take it upon themselves to teach them to cook. And so they do, focusing each lesson on things that real people actually want to eat, are capable of cooking, and can afford to eat regularly, such as chicken and bread. Turning each lesson into a narrative chapter, Flinn offers you a lesson, too, not to mention teaches you things about the US food system, the economics of cooking and buying groceries, and tricks to understanding how to use spices and herbs. I now understand that “flavor profile” isn’t just a pretentious chef word but also something that will make my own cooking more interesting and more cohesive. Continue reading

curlybraidedstraight

Oh, me and my hair. So much happens between me and my hair. When I was little, it was the bane of my existence, because I just didn’t know how to tame it or make it look its best. I’m still not so great at doing it, but I have some standby hairdos, and after many years of trying to flatten my curls, sometime in college I finally realized that it looked better to let the bounce bounce, rather than trying to overly tame it.

That said, the me I think of in my head is rarely the me I see in the mirror. My skin tone changes so much based on season and sunlight, and I never get it right, so buying makeup is a nightmare. Also, now that I’m in a new city that has humidity, I feel like I’m back at the beginning of learning how to do my hair, because it’s no longer a case of doing it and being sure that it will stay that way all the day. Humidity is crazy, yo. Even when it doesn’t feel humid outside, you come home and your hair is fuzzy instead of crisp.

I’m a “member” (by which I mean I lurk and sometimes click on interesting links) of two Facebook groups for mixed people. Swirl is one, and the other is a closed membership, possibly women only, group for people who are specifically mixed with black and something else. So even more than generally mixed people, hair comes up a whole lot. Lately, people have started posting side by side comparisons of how they look when their hair is natural and when it’s straightened, either chemically or with a flatiron. Here is mine. Continue reading

reality equalizer

My tastes in entertainment have been changing, but I chalked it up to my general interest in learning as much as possible about everything. At least until school started, I was far more interested in nonfiction than fiction, and I’ve expanded my blog and news reading as well. Fiction was starting to be the same old, same old. Anyway, now I have intensive theory readings that accompany two novels every week for my crit class, plus various other readings, so if I’m going to read something for pleasure, I want a guarantee that it will be pretty good. Somehow lately that means going for kickass memoir or narrative nonfiction about a topic I want to learn more about, like economics or history. But I’ll probably be moving back to fiction soon. Things come in cycles.

Somehow I still have time for tons of Hulu, even though I have insane homework, two nights of a cappella, and an afternoon of volunteering each week. Actually, then, it all makes sense, because when I had three jobs and college, I thought I watched too much television, so of course I’m watching too much now that I have even more unstructured time. But I’m kind of over a lot of the drama I used to watch, and instead I’m increasingly more obsessed with cooking shows of all kinds, and with competition shows. This is weird, because I think reality television à la Jersey Shore and Real Housewives is awful. But a lot of these competitions, when they eliminate the living together and drama, actually make some astute observations about culture, and they almost serve as social equalizers. Unlike scripted shows with ridiculous stereotypes and whitewashing and tokenism, competitions like “Top Chef,” “Chopped,” “The Voice,” and “The Sing-Off,” while still white-heavy, come a lot closer to replicating actual United States demographics than, say, “Gossip Girl,” which I gave up on halfway through last season (not even the fabulous clothing could hold me anymore). Continue reading

ethical self-absorption

I was going to blog about my new love for consignment and nice clothes (i.e. I’m going to stop buying cheap things all of the time and buy expensive things less of the time) and interior design, because I’ve been reading books and blogs on small space living, and I am very, very excited to get to my apartment and starting moving in. Even though I’ll have no money. And I’m going into serious debt for the next three years. But debt schmebt, I’ll have two Master’s degrees when I’m done, and hopefully I’ll go on to have a meaningful career.

Anyway. Really, really excited about vapid interior decoration and the buying of things.

Then I started reading Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save, which is a book full of ethical arguments describing why not only is it our duty to help those less fortunate than us, but it is actually quite possible for the entire developed world to make the entire undeveloped world into a developed one, thus eliminating the world’s 1.4 billion-strong population of people living in extreme poverty (defined as earning the equivalent of $1.25 US each day–and that means the purchasing power of $1.25, not the financial equivalent adjusted for local currency). It’s totally depressing, but in an eye-opening sort of way, and by that I mean that I feel compelled to attempt to make my lifestyle a more giving one, but it puts a damper on my excitement.

I’ve only read a chapter or two, but it’s already reminding me of my Jewish education and of the Penguin edition of the Talmud that I bought a couple months ago and still have not opened. That may well be the next book I read after I finish Singer’s, although it’s incredibly thick, so it will be a big, long-lasting project.

I believe I probably give a lot more than most other Americans, and I probably even give a lot more than people who have more disposable income than I do. And since I can’t afford to just hand wads of money over to people, I try to donate items and time in order to alleviate some of the world’s poverty or gaps in access, at least in my neck of the woods. I’m very pleased that I am able to do that while causing no harm to myself, and I certainly plan to continue to do so. But already I’m realizing that, if I’m going to start keeping track of my finances and budget, I can certainly find places to cut back (such as on said cheap clothing, $6 glasses of sub-par wine on nights out with friends, books I don’t have time to read), and that means that I can both lower the amount of loans I take out for school and also donate more of my measly income to organizations that help to alleviate poverty.

This is a bit hard for me not because I don’t want to help dying children in foreign countries, but because my training and education and personal interests lie more in social justice and social services, which are noble causes but not as essential as those that people living in extreme poverty face. The first thing people need are basic human needs–food, water, shelter, and healthcare. It’s only after those needs are achieved in a sustainable way that more humane needs–education, livelihood, community organization–can be looked at. But those needs are the things that are personal passions of mine, hence my propensity to give my time, items, and maybe money to those things, which tend to be more local in nature.

I would say that giving to anyone who needs, whether it’s a human need or a humane need, is important, well-received, and ethical. I don’t feel bad for helping those nearby who suffer from social injustice, but when you look at it from a global standpoint, someone who is discriminated against and can’t get a better job than at McDonald’s is still in a slightly better situation than someone who can’t even find enough food to feed their child. But since we live in relation to those around us, it’s easier to see relative injustices and understand them that way, and to remain in our comfort zones, than it is to think about people we don’t see.

Still, now I feel like there is so much more I could be doing. And I still have so many pages to read.

in my underwear

I can totally see why guys in nerd bands like to perform in their underwear, or at least without shirts. I like to sit around in my underwear as well. It’s comfortable, and it means you don’t have to spend time doing your hair. But I think it’s interesting that only guys are allowed to be half naked ironically, in an obviously unsexy way. If I’m half naked, I will be seen as trying to be sexy, and, I suppose depending on who it is looking at me and how much I’ve been working out, it will be deemed as successful or not. But boys in bands get to strip down and pretend like they don’t care, and I imagine the purpose is to make the audience somewhat uncomfortable, but also to make the audience appreciate the irony.

Last night I went to Dry River to see a high school friend’s band play. The show was fine, but it also made me realize that probably all shows at Dry River are the same, in that every show I have been to there has consisted of incredibly skinny boys playing instruments and stripping down to their underwear. The music might be good, but the tighty whiteys can be so distracting.

I would like to do a pseudo subversive experiment and start a girl geekcore band and perform in our underwear. Because I am willing to bet that no matter what the girls in the band looked like, unless they were incredibly disgusting, people would call girls playing music in their underwear either a) really hot, b) an obvious way of distracting from bad music by “using their sexuality,” c) girls who didn’t get any trying to get some now, or d) weird/trying too hard/uncool, depending again on what kind of audience it was.

Still, ironic use of subersiveness could be fun.

biracial vs. racial

One of the reasons I hate the term “multicultural literature” (which generally means “children’s or YA lit with a protagonist of color, usually with a plot that deals centrally with issues of race or ethnicity) is because it leaves me without an appropriate label for a sub-genre (really a sub-sub-genre, because African American literature should be a sub-genre of fiction, not some other kind of lesser fiction) that I guess I’ll have to call biracial narrative literature. Lately I’ve been reading a lot of “African American literature,” especially books that deal more specifically with the biracial experience. That experience is utterly and totally different from the African American experience or the white experience, and it differs even more if you want to divide those narratives up by whether they deal with passing, with growing up in an African American community, or growing up in a white one. And that’s only three possibilities, just because I’m only talking about biracial people who are half black, half white.

I just finished Heidi W. Durrow’s The Girl Who Fell From the Sky. It was awesome. One of the things I liked about it was that it was about the biracial experience, but it also wasn’t. It could have been anyone’s literary novel, about a girl struggling with the memories of a tragedy, but instead of being anyone’s story (because everyman is always white), it was a biracial girl’s story. Then there’s Nella Larsen’s Passing, which is first and foremost a story about going between racial worlds. I’m interested in these stories personally, for obvious reasons, but also creatively, because my novel is, among its other abouts, about a biracial girl and her journey.

What drives me crazy about a lot of racial narratives (especially those YA ones dubbed “multicultural lit”) is the social requisite for making it a racial narrative, rather than a narrative that includes or incorporates race. Or not even that, but simply a narrative of some kind that happens to be about someone who is not white. But somehow it’s different when it comes to biracial narratives, even though I still ultimately prefer the ones that are more along the lines of Durrow’s than Larsen’s. Larsen’s was necessary when she wrote it, but now I think it is so much more serviceable, even if it is not at first glance marketable or publishable, to be more like Durrow. I’m trying to figure out what it is about biracial narratives that makes it okay for them to be narratives with one of their main plot threads a racial one, while I hate it when African American narratives do that. That’s probably a research question for a semester of work, but for now, I think part of it has to do with familiarity. Not that everyone understands the African American experience, but its tropes and themes and history are at least fairly recognizable or known by the general public. With the biracial experience, not only is it not recognizable or known, but it’s not even legitimized as an experience. Biracial people are constantly asked, “What are you?” and it’s unacceptable to say that you are two races. I hate that race theory is still very binary when its social implications are complicated in this century by the existence of a third marginalized group (although, since that group is Latin@s, technically it’s not a race issue but an ethnic issue), but I also understand it, because racial experience is understood to be binary. You are white, or you are not. Simple. So it’s not that I don’t think that all literatures don’t have a lot of work to do, because they do, and there is a lot of reading of those minority literatures, whether they’re Durrow-style, YA-style, or Larsen-style, but I’m starting to think that maybe the new frontier is biracial literature.

I’m going to keep this thread going, I think.

if you are “postracial” or “colorblind,” you are an ignorant asshole

This post is not going to be very pretty or formal or nice sounding.

Even though I have much better things I could be doing, I have been reading pages and pages of debate about the casting of The Hunger Games. It took me by surprise, because I am one of those people who read those books in about five minutes each, so I don’t remember much being discussed about race. That’s because race wasn’t discussed. But also, because I am not white, and also because I’m American, and also because I read a lot, I have been socialized to accept that not talking about race means white, and talking about it means non-white. So the fact that Katniss’ race is never mentioned explicitly made me surprised to see this debate come out. Also, I just didn’t know they were making a movie. Also, Hollywood and publishing are two of the greatest assholes of American culture (or is American culture just one giant douchebag?), so unless a book’s main plot is about being biracial or non-white, generally it’s accepted that the people in it couldn’t possibly be anything but white. I guess I’ve been acceptably brainwashed, because surprise! It’s possible that Katniss is not all white.

That would be awesome, but then there’s all that shit about the “Caucasians only” casting call, and so the debates begin.

I’m not going to rehash any of them, because I think to anyone with half a brain and an eye for social justice, it’s pretty obvious that there is a big problem with the casting call, with the idea that supporting characters are easily thought of as non-white, but Katniss is in contention, and yadda yadda. But some lesser mentioned things that people make comments about are standing out to me.

First of all, how is Collins’ saying that she thinks Jennifer Lawrence will do a great job an admission of Katniss’ being white? Lawrence probably will do a great job. I can see that. And Collins, who seemingly had a great deal of input in the casting process (quite unusual), didn’t get the chance to see any actresses but white ones audition for her protagonist. But I fail to see why saying someone is a good actress means that the character was white. I’ve seen plenty of white authors who just don’t want to deal with whitewashing.

Second, this shit about Panem being postracial is crazy, because that’s not even possible. Race is biological. It is not a fucking social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. It can be chosen or rejected. What is being discussed with regards to the Hunger Games is race, not ethnicity. I know (mostly white) people like to say that they’re “postracial” or “colorblind” because they think that’s code for “I can’t possibly be racist,” but firstly that’s not true, and secondly it’s no more possible for us to be postracial than it is for us to be post….feet? Lungs? Vascular systems? The flu? Secondly, differences in color should be noticed, because generally race does contribute something to our ethnicity, which means it contributes to our personal identity and our presentation of that identity to the world, and also, differences should be celebrated. What color shouldn’t be is a way of validating discrimination. If you claim to be colorblind, you claim that all cultures are created equal, that all cultures are in essence the same, and that human experience is universal. That’s great for you, Mr./Ms. Privileged To Be From the Dominant Culture, but that not only pisses people off, but it also does you a disservice. We’re not all the same. We’d be boring if we were. You’re also being pretty offensive, because chances are, if you claim to be colorblind, it’s because you’ve never experienced discrimination or marginalization for your color. So thanks so much for diminishing the experiences with racism that I’ve had. I guess I was asking to be told to get out of the country because I walk around not being all postracial all the time?

The moral of the story? Identifying race (or ethnicity, for that matter) does not make you an asshole. Erasing it does. Identifying systemic and institutional racism isn’t nitpicky, it’s not reverse racism, and it’s not contributing to a more racist world. In fact it is helpful, it is intelligent, it can be academic, it is socially conscious, and it is unavoidable to those who experience it.