Monday, December 31, 2012

What I Want


            The semi-regular confession: I hate Christmas.  I hate shopping.  I hate malls.  I hate the obligatory gifts, the obligatory gift requests, the required experience of asking for a present in the most indirect fashion possible and the need to decode an equally roundabout request directed at me.  I hate asking someone for a present, even if I’ve wanted that present for years, because it feels dangerously like mooching.  I hate the lights, I hate the sounds, I hate the madcap shopping sprints at every mall in the city.  I hate the surrender to capitalism, to marketing, to money.  I hate the show.
            Now, the confession’s flip side: I love Christmas.  Not the lights and the malls, but the smaller, quieter rituals of house and home.  I love the selecting and decorating the tree, and choosing gifts for friends and family.  I love the nutcrackers, the stockings, the fire, the Advent calendars, the mugs of chocolate and spiced flaming rum.  I love the gatherings with friends old and new, the nights with the family, the opening of the Christmas gifts and visits with family.  Part of me even loves the Christmas service, with the hymns and carols proclaiming the Good News.  That’s my Christmas, and it has nothing to do with shopping sprees or jingle bells, save the ones on Saint Nick’s sleigh.
            I hate the commercial part of Christmas for many reasons, one of which is that I don’t need or want more things.  As one of the fortunate 2%, I already have more things than I can use—or, indeed, fit into my room.  Sure, there are exceptions—a better coffee grinder would be nice, for instance—but I haven’t found a shop selling a full social life, time for hobbies, and work that consumes me.  Shops don’t sell lives; they sell life’s accessories, and the cheap ones at that.  I have all (well, almost all) of the cheap accessories that I want; it’s the expensive ones that I’m missing.  These, however, do not cost money; they cost time, energy, and attention.  More important, it’s never clear how to find them, or how to keep them once found.  When fishing in the social world, you find everything from salmon to red herrings, but every bite could be a shark.
            On the other hand, the rituals of fire, feasting, and gift-giving reaffirms human connections and culture in the darkest time of the year.  At their core, the Christmas rituals do not only discuss the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the Gospel of the year’s rebirth.  Before this rebirth, the community hides from the rising dark; afterwards, it celebrates the waxing light.  By participating in these rituals, individuals affirm membership in the community, and thus connections with each other.
            Finding a fulfilling life is my primary interest in the coming year, and there’s no store on earth that can sell it to me.  That’s precisely why it’s so difficult; it requires change and a conscious effort to sell myself (and yes, that reference is entirely deliberate).  It also requires the quiet, routine rituals of daily life, which I have yet to create properly.  Life isn’t for sale, no matter how glitzy your house or how large your car; life exists in friendships, in hobbies, in work.  Those require character, not money, and in this world money is the easier of the two.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Social Issues, Self-Reflection Issue


Well, another day, another lesson.
I’ve been living in Beijing for over three months now, and it’s forced me to come to grips with some personal and social tendencies.
First up, my personality.  As I’ve mentioned before, I’m very much a perfectionist A-type.  I like plans, schedules, and structure; everything needs to work just so.  Hell, I’m a scientist: my studies assume that the world has order and tries to find it.  The idea of chaos makes me nervous. I need a goal of some kind and a system to achieve it.
As such, simply going with the flow of things, absent any structure or plan, isn’t something I do well.  Unfortunately, many students socialize in precisely this way.  Want to go to a bar?  Let’s leave in ten.  Let’s visit the 圆明园.  Now.  What do we do after?  Whatever.  What’ll we do tomorrow?  We’ll decide tomorrow.  Since I prefer to know what I will do with my day, I find working with this instant-reaction social life frustrating.  More important, I rarely receive these memos, so I don’t know what people are doing.
Another point is that I tend to over-schedule.  Classic example was last night: I visited a coffee shop cum bar, then had to rush to a group dinner.  Naturally, things took longer than expected, so I was a late to the meal.  This is an astonishingly common occurrence in my life.  Why?  Because I do not like sitting around for two hours with nothing to do, so I cram things in.  Also, I hate leaving things half-finished, so once I start a time-killing project (folding laundry, writing this self-reflective post, do homework, etc), I keep at it until the last possible moment.  Ergo, I’m often a couple minutes late, precisely because I’m always doing something.

Another point of my personality: I’m actually rather shy.  Around people, I erect a shell that prevents open, straightforward conversation, and it takes a great deal of time (or a very precise tap) to break that shell.  When confronted with a stranger, I clam up.  Result: I build no connection worth mentioning, and the person becomes remains a stranger.  Safe?  Perhaps.  Alienating?  Probably.  Isolating?  Definitely.
One consequence is that, in a new place, it’s very hard to build friendships.  I’ve been living in Beijing for three months, and I’ve properly met perhaps ten of the twenty-six people here.  Perhaps.  At UChicago, I probably have fewer than ten friends with whom I’m completely comfortable; including all my friends from DC and elsewhere, it’s probably less than twenty.  Most of those links took years, either by interacting with every day (high school) or participating in similar interests (biking, cooking, martial arts).
Another problem: as near as I can tell, shyness and perfectionism are the two principal ingredients in the famed Awkwardness Stew.  Conversations with strangers may be awkward in general, but, as noted before, I raise the drawbridge when faced with awkward.  Unfortunately, the ensuing silence usually makes things worse.  The whole situation starts a vicious cycle, and breaking the cycle isn’t easy.
A result of all of these things, I’m extremely uncomfortable with asking for help, about someone’s plans, or for an invitation.  Doing so requires breaching my shell; it shows vulnerability, and it’s an imposition upon the other person.  Unfortunately, this is how communication happens; someone makes a suggestion, asks a question, and expects a response.  To engage, I need to fundamentally alter this tendency, but in a sense, that requires changing everything that I am.

Fortunately, all these problems have solutions.  The fundamental change needed is to learn how to talk to another person.  Now, believe it or not, I’m really bad at this.  I know nothing about the standard topics of conversation (music, sports, TV, movies) and entirely too much scientific and trivia stuff.  Second, my brain runs at about two-thirds normal speeds; talking takes a while at the best of times.  And, of course, there’s the general awkwardness derived from perfectionism and shyness.  After exhausting the obvious questions, I often run out of ideas of what to say or do.
Second shift: I need to learn to relax and let the time slip by.  Maybe I’ll have half an hour, an hour in which I just don’t do very much.  Not necessarily a bad thing.  Hell, without a lot of time with little to do, I wouldn’t have thought about this post.  Not doing something may be against my preferences, but it’s also a chance for self-reflection, introspection, and good old-fashioned relaxation.
Final point: I need to lose a lot of prejudices against standard socialization techniques.  I’ve never participated in the drinking scene at college.  The two main reasons for this are as follows: I am shy, and I’ve heard stories of parties gone bad (or just bad all around).  The grungy, dingy frat with cheap liquor and people throwing up disgusts David (at least the sober David), as do frightening stories I’ve heard of high school parties (anyone ever drink a fifth of Captain Morgan’s at once?).  My preferred social events are a nice meal, a walk in the park, a bike ride.  These can all be social events; in fact, I would argue that meals should be a social event, rather than a quick intake of calories.  It’s incredibly depressing to eat by yourself, and incredibly relaxing to eat with a good friend (or friends).
Unfortunately, these are not the standard social events for college students.  Food is food, and the point is to fill your stomach at the lowest cost that’s still enjoyable (with a few exceptions).  Exercise is seldom social (or even enjoyable).  Social events are “hanging out,” whether in a study space, in a room, or in a bar.  The bar is the social event for the week; there’s very much a sense that liquor is the best way to let people express themselves.
I’ve missed the standard social scene because of my bias against bad parties.  The catch is that the bad party is bad because it’s the exception rather than the rule.  Of the few events I’ve attended, most have been fun.  This was, no doubt, partly a result of the alcohol; sober David would have been far more reserved and had far less fun.  Also, getting home before 3:00 in the morning helps—after 1:30, my energy crashes (I like rising before noon).  But, the sense that I could simply relax, talk, dance, whatever, with a group of…not quite friends…was fun.  I understand the appeal much better now.
Overall, Beijing has been a great experience.  I’ve seen a great deal, eaten a good amount, learned the city layout, and forged some links.  I’ve spent less time on schoolwork than ever before, hung out at local coffee shops and bars, seen a lot of fake goods (bought very few of them, though), and dipped my toes in the market.  But I think that the most important lesson has been how to socialize, indeed the need to socialize.  Acting alone gives freedom, but loneliness is a potent depressant.  I’ve had face some antisocial and, perhaps, elitist tendencies.  It may be too late to repair the damage on this program, but it’s almost a new year, and with a new year comes a clean slate.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Identity and the Floating World


            UkiyoMizu shobai.  The floating world.  The name means something; the entertainment industry of Japan constructs a simpler, more pleasurable world separate from responsibility.  Yet, although the floating world seeks to escape greater Japan, its very existence comments on the social structure; the need to escape implies flaws and imperfections.  Capitalizing on this and the ubiquitous nature of entertainment, many artists comment on social issues in their work, often turning the mechanisms of the floating world upon itself.
            Identity is among most prevalent debates in art today, and this question, in turn, may be broken in several parts.  National identity and self-identity are two such parts.  In both cases, the artists ask how identity is affected by technology and consumerism.  Although none deny the benefits of modernity—all of these artists are working with computers and modern communications—many of them see a corrosive influence as well, in which consumer culture and technology are overwriting social and cultural interactions without meaningful replacement.
            Japanese artists often question how technology and consumerism form modern self-identity, particularly a modern tendency to define a person using external measures such as possessions and achievements.  This question struck me during the Japan trip, when Takako-san described “parasite singles” and post-retirement life.  In the case of parasite singles, children return home after completing their education and, in many cases, either retreat from the world via technology or voraciously consume big-name brand items.  Nor is this tendency unique to Japan; the song Gungdam Style, for instance, refers to Korean women who structure their lives around buying expensive drinks at the Gungdam Starbucks, and few nations are so addicted to shopping as the U.S. of A.  In a sense, the ability to purchase these highly fashionable items defines the person; men or women without these items appear less important than those with them.
In a similar vein, Takako-san’s description of Japanese businessmen indicates that these sarariiman define themselves according to their work.  For the sarariiman, work is life; it consumes so much of each day that there is almost no time for hobbies or building a life without the office.  Come retirement, these sarariimen do not know how to live outside of work, so many either attach themselves to their wives or do nothing at all.
As explained above, in both the case of the single consumer and the sarariiman, external measures, such as possessions or work, become foundations for self-identity.  Although the Japanese are not alone in this, their artists are some of the first to seriously examine the consequences of this foundation.  This question is asked in four ways: When the external measure is removed, what remains?  To what degree are these external measures replacing or corrupting traditional, interior ones?  What are the consequences of diving too deep into these external, and often illusory, measures of self?  For that matter, when these external, “illusory” measures become fundamental parts of life, can we distinguish between what is “real” and what is “virtual” anymore?
The classic 1990s anime Neon Genesis Evangelion examines the first of these four questions.  Although I will not attempt to summarize the plot or character development in detail—I could easily write a paper on those subjects alone—almost all of the main characters define themselves based on their unusual ability to pilot the giant mechas known as EVA.  Their role as EVA pilots, in short, became their identities.  Events soon challenge this ability; the destructive power of EVA shakes Shinji Ikari’s self-identification as a protector when he loses control, and Shinji’s extraordinary skill as a pilot shatters Asuka Soryu’s self-esteem when he surpasses her.  Faced with these challenges, these two characters fall into depression and retreat from social interaction, unable to face the contradictions between their imagined and real identities.
The internal turmoil of these three pilots reaches a climax in the final two episodes, in which they undergo internal dialogues and self-interrogations.  During these interrogations, Shinji admits that without EVA, he feels worthless.  Indeed, when Shinji asks Genji Ikari, his father, why Genji originally summoned Shinji to NERV, Genji replies “Because I have a use for you.”  The implication is clear: if Shinji could not or would not pilot EVA, his father wanted nothing to do with him.  The entire series, in a sense, becomes a tug-of-war between those who value Shinji for his ability as a pilot and those who value him as a human being.  This conflict gives Shinji the chance for self-identity, but finding that identity is not easy.
In similar self-examinations, the other two pilots, Asuka Soryu and Ayanami Rei, confront their lack of self-esteem in the final two episodes.  By this time, Asuka’s ego is so deeply damaged by Shinji’s superior skill as a pilot that she declares “I’m the junk…I’m worthless.  No one needs a pilot who can’t control her own EVA.”  In order to recover an identity, Asuka must confront the trauma that she has tried to hide using her achievements; whether she overcomes this trauma is left unclear until the final few minutes of the series.
The last pilot, Ayanami Rei, arguably suffers the most severe emotional damage of all the characters in the series.  Throughout Neon Genesis Evangelion, she appears as a fundamentally egoless person; her identity revolves around her role as an EVA pilot to such a degree that she has almost no other contact with people.  This begins to change when Shinji and Asuka join her as pilots, for it is not until these other pilots (particularly Shinji) display an attachment to her that she begins to see herself as more than expendable.  Her self-interrogation shows this conflict; although she does not value herself, Shinji’s attachment means that she is no longer expendable.
Through these self-examinations, Neon Genesis Evangelion shows that building an ego based on external achievements is akin to building a castle on sand; such foundations easily crumble.  Ultimately, these pilots overcome their lack of identity, but in order to do so they must confront their personal wounds and build an identity separate from their roles and achievements as pilots.  Doing so is not easy, and requires painful truths, but ultimately the reward seems worth the pain.
            With regards to the second question, Hayao Miyazaki’s Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi searches for a Japanese social identity in relation to globalization and consumerism.  In this work, Miyazaki takes Chihiro, a typical Japanese schoolgirl in a (presumably) normal Japanese family, and places her in a fantastic, almost carnival world populated by Shinto-Buddhist spirits.  In this world, Chihiro cannot depend on technology or possessions; she must work to survive and maintain her identity based on personal strength and friendships.  Notably, the characters that depend on technology and consumption prove unable to survive intact in Miyazaki’s vision of the Japanese carnival.
            Throughout Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi, consumerism becomes a steadily less attractive lifestyle.  Chihiro’s parents provide the first example; their heavy dependence on money and technology first brings them to the spirit realm, and then lets them forget etiquette in their desire to eat.  Their transformation into pigs represents the ultimate consumer; they exist only to sleep and devour, regardless of need.
            Most of the film occurs in the spirit bathhouse, which has a complex relationship with consumer culture.  On the one hand, the bathhouse depends on consumption for its survival; greed motivates most workers, and the guests pay (and presumably pay well) for the right to bathe, eat, sleep, and purify.  On the other hand, the bathhouse exists to purify the guests, and there is a constant suggestion that unbridled consumption might compromise the very purpose of the bathhouse.  Too much consumption inevitably leads to waste, and waste is almost universally considered impure.  The purification of the River God midway through the movie most dramatically demonstrates this; the detritus of consumer culture has so contaminated the river that he appears as a Stink God, which necessarily contaminates the place of his cleansing.
By far the strongest condemnation of consumer culture comes when Noh-Face enters the bathhouse.  He first seems almost like a ghost, incapable of speech and apparently invisible to bathhouse workers.  In a powerful, albeit short, scene, Noh-Face appears at the end of the River God’s purification, observing a small handful of the gold that the River God paid.  In his next appearance, he has clearly learned the value of money; whereas he was literally invisible to the workers without gold, they cater to his every desire when offered gold.  Yet, in a striking parallel with the modern consumer, Noh-Face is never sated no matter how much he buys.  Further, although he knows the force of money, he clearly desires a more personal interaction with Chihiro, the only character to show him attention and kindness absent the promise of money.  In a scene both pathetic and touching, he attempts to literally buy Chihiro’s friendship.  The resulting interaction shows that he cannot buy friendship, and this revelation, in a way, causes him to reject all his empty consumption (which also contaminates the source of that consumption).
            The last third of Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi argues that consumerism cannot provide a genuine sense of identity and satisfaction.  In this part of the film, Chihiro and two icons of bathhouse consumerism, Noh-Face and Yubaba’s extraordinarily fat baby, are lured from the bathhouse to Zeneba’s simple, rustic, but unconditionally welcoming home.  Notably, both Noh-Face and Yubaba’s spoiled infant not only mature, but even seem content in this environment.  Even more notably, their contentment does not arise from consumption—there is little enough in Zeneba’s home to consume.  Instead, they find purpose in work, specifically in weaving a gift for a common friend (Chihiro).  This work—which, notably, provides no promise of reward—gives Noh-Face and Yubaba’s child a sense of purpose and maturity that consumption never did.  The message is clear enough; consumption cannot provide a person with maturity, purpose, and self-identity.  Friendship, work, and generosity can.
            In summary, Neon Genesis Evangelion and Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi argue that the Japanese people must build an identity separate from the consumerism and rewards that society offers.  Both shows demonstrate the dangers of using external measures to support one’s ego or identity, and both argue that Japan uses such measures to define itself.  However, Neon Genesis Evangelion and Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi contain the possibility of redemption, for in both shows the major characters ultimately confront their flaws and construct a robust self-identity.  People—and, by extension, nations—can build a genuine identity, but often it is neither easy nor pleasant.
            Of course, the difficulty of building a genuine self-identity implies the danger of diving so deep into the floating world that the person can no longer escape.  The logical extreme is the hikikomori, a class that has retreated from society and immerse themselves completely in a floating world.  The rise of the hikikomori and its spread to North America and Europe has prompted several artists examine to examine the dangers of diving deeply into a floating world, for after a time it is difficult to say where reality ends and the floating world begins.
            Perhaps the most direct exploration of an immersion in a floating world is the 2002 anime .hack//SIGN, which is set in a MMORPG called The World.  This series follows a user of The World, Tsukasa, after he becomes trapped in the game.  Although the series as a whole moves slowly, Tsukasa demonstrates extreme introversion in the first episode; indeed, the episode closes with his statement “This [being trapped in The World] isn’t so bad.  After all, this way I don’t have to return to that absurd world [reality].”
            By the end of the first episode, hikikomori and ukiyo symbolism already runs rampant.  Tsukasa’s use of the game to escape reality reflects the hikikomori, as does his loss of the ability, desire, and even memory of living outside the floating world.  The game’s very name, The World, indicates the game’s role as a second reality, in which players can posses a different identity.  For many players, such as Tsukasa, the game becomes more compelling than the real world.
            The first half of .hack//SIGN can be crudely characterized as Tsukasa’s attempt to minimize contact with the external world.  This extends to the point that Tsukasa refuses to meet with other players who are trying to help him escape The World.  Entire scenes consist of alone in a private space; in this “world within a world,” Tsukasa can finally achieve his desire of escaping all interactions that might make him face his internal scars.  Yet, ironically, Tuskasa’s attempt to guard against the hedgehog’s dilemma only deepens his depression, until even painful interactions become preferable to no interaction at all.
            In the last two-thirds of .hack//SIGN, Tsukasa slowly connects with a group of other players that seek to free him from The World.  Yet this, too, has several implications, for it is only in The World, a fundamentally artificial existence, that Tsukasa and the other characters meet, interact, and learn to trust each other.  Most of the major characters in .hack//SIGN are physically or emotionally crippled in some way, such that The World becomes their only significant method of social interaction.  In a sense, The World is their world, and physical existence only a shadow realm; even the artwork reflects this, with The World’s vivid colors contrasting with the choppy, grey scenes of “reality.”  The watcher is left to wonder whether The World has eclipsed the world, and if so, which is more “real.”
            Ultimately, Tsukasa and his newfound friends decide to meet in the world after escaping the game.  Tsukasa’s declaration that he wishes to leave indicates a newfound maturity and personal strength that he lacked at the show’s start.  Tsukasa’s interaction with others, though painful at times, forces him to confront his emotional trauma and construct an ego that can withstand the burdens of reality.  This contrasts with the goal of Tuskasa’s floating world, which offers only the promise of forgetting his emotional pain rather than moving past it.  Tsukasa matures only by interacting with other people; his retreat from society is but an escape from his problems, not an answer to them.
            Serial Experiments: Lain, although dealing with similar subject matter as .hack//SIGN, has a much darker and more dangerous tone.  Whereas .hack//SIGN opens with the scene somewhat reminiscent of birth, Serial Experiments: Lain begins with a suicide.  Where .hack//SIGN begins with a problem and works towards a solution, Serial Experiements: Lain begins with normality and descends into madness.  Most notably, whereas .hack//SIGN ultimately affirms the supremacy of reality over The World, Serial Experiments: Lain questions the relationship and the very existence of reality relative to the information and representations in The Wired.
            Serial Experiments: Lain follows the immersion of a pre-adolescent girl, Lain, into the world of the Wired, which is a larger and more powerful version of the Internet.  Although the story is difficult to follow, the notions of reality and ego are chipped away throughout the show.  Indeed, in the first episode Lain receives emails from an apparently dead classmate, who states, “I’m not dead.  I’ve simply left my body.  I still exist.  Here.  In The Wired.”
Serial Experiments: Lain continually questions the need for a physical existence—or, indeed, even the reality of a physical existence separate from The Wired.  The apparent existence of Lain’s classmate even after suicide is only the beginning; it soon becomes apparent that information in The Wired reflects reality to such a degree that editing the information in The Wired literally edits reality.  For instance, as Lain becomes more powerful in The Wired, she gains the ability to edit “real,” non-electronic information.  So complete is this ability that she overwrites a disturbing rumor in her classmates’ memory; their physical, mental memory, not their computers.  This instantly calls into question what is “real” and what is “virtual”; after all, what we perceive as “real” is ultimately only the representation that our brain constructs from data inputs.  This challenge grows stronger as the series progresses, as “virtual” beings take on “real” forms and “virtual” information overlaps with “reality.”  By the end of the series, the line between “real” and “virtual” has blurred to such a degree that one cannot even say what constitutes a “real” existence.
            The flip side of this coin is that, by midway through the series, one must ask whether data in The Wired can fully describe a human being.  Serial Experiments: Lain strongly hints that it can; Lain’s classmate’s claim that she still exists in The Wired requires that the data in the Wired represents her ego completely.  Similarly, as Lain dives deeper into The Wired, her influence and existence become so tightly linked to The Wired that she is able to directly upload data to and from herself, to the point that it is suggested she is only a program with a body.  Yet ultimately, it seems that The Wired cannot account for all the interactions and maturations that a human ego must undergo.  The Wired cannot predict the effect that Lain’s closest friend has upon her, nor can data in The Wired recreate a physical existence.  In short, data cannot account for all the nuances of reality.  A person may be able to abandon their body to enter The Wired, once they have entered The Wired to that degree, they cannot leave, nor can they change.  The last scene demonstrates this; several years after the events of Serial Experiments: Lain, Lain reappears to her former friend in a body identical to that she possessed upon leaving the world.  She has not changed since that time; reality, on the other hand, has moved on.
            In a strange twist, modernity has created a floating world so dramatic that it has begun to intrude upon the “real” world.  As the floating world has grown in power and influence, it has begun to question its own role in society; the very artists who use consumerism and technology have begun to question how beneficial its effects are.  Although the series mentioned here generally declare the preeminence of reality over the floating world, the questions that they raise remain relevant.  How the modern world responds to these challenges thus remains critically important.  I must wonder what changes will come as the floating world continues to grow.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

My politics, in a nutshell


            With the U.S. election only a few days away, I feel a need to start a political conversation here.  As most of you know, I lean in the liberal direction.  I firmly believe in the tragedy of the commons and that society has a duty to protect and aid all its citizens.  Further, when put in context, I think that Obama’s “You didn’t build that” comment wasn’t as ridiculous as many claim.  However, I would hesitate to classify myself as completely liberal.  On some points, I lean in the conservative direction, particularly on the fiscal side.  Thus, I’d like to outline my political leanings in the hopes of starting a conversation.
            Since my conservative leanings are less well known, I’ll start there.  The liberal side of the U.S.A. makes a lot of noise to the effect that we should never cut or otherwise privatize entitlements, such as Medicare or Social Security.  Unfortunately, that’s not realistically possible.  The fact is that entitlement spending is consuming an unrealistically high percentage of the U.S. budget, and the problem is only getting worse.  Will these programs be solvent in five years?  Yes.  In ten years?  Probably.  In fifty years?  Unlikely.  When the shoe falls, it will fall hard.  The best way to reduce the impact is to deal with the problem now, while we still have time to make the change gradually.  By punting, we only make the oncoming pain all the worse.  Thus, I’m in favor of entitlement reform.
            Related to the above post, I do think that the federal budget (and government spending in general) is bloated.  There should be a process or a committee that vets projects to ensure that they are necessary or otherwise useful.  I add a caveat, however, in that my idea of which departments should be trimmed may differ from conservative views.
            Finally, as far as civil liberties are concerned, I am a libertarian.  America’s civil liberties are our most precious resource, and we should preserve them to the greatest extent possible.  Do certain liberties need to be regulated?  Yes: the classic example is screaming “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre.  However, when regulations begin to encroach on a man’s ability to practice his civil liberties (obtaining permits for peaceful protests, for instance, or ignoring due process), I must object to that.
            On to the liberal leanings.  My approach to capitalism can be best described by channeling Winston Churchill: capitalism is the worst form of economy, except for all the others that have been tried.  While capitalism has an amazing ability to reduce costs and prices, it rests on some assumptions that require oversight.  History teaches us that unregulated capitalism is a sure way to channel treasure to the top tier of society and leave little for the bottom, largely because the powerful game the system.  As such, I think that some government intervention in the economy is necessary.
First and foremost, I worry about our environmental impact, and I absolutely believe that this requires federal regulation.  The reasons are as follows:
·      Environmental issues are rarely single-state problems.  Water, air, and animal movement cares nothing about state lines, so if one state has a problem, others are likely to suffer as well.
·      Industry often threatens state governments by saying that if environmental regulations are enacted or enforce, the industry (and the jobs that it generates) will have to leave the state.  Thus, in order to attract industry, states have an incentive to engage in a race to the bottom.
·      Industry is not likely to enact costly environmental protections unless forced to do so.  Ultimately, corporations exist to make a profit, and preventing, containing, or cleaning an environmental problem is likely to hurt that profit.  Most businesses have an incentive to leave environmental issues to the local community.

All this adds up to a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.  The environment is common property of every human being.  It provides resources that we need to survive, and that we cannot manufacture elsewhere.  However, since it is common property, one man’s problem becomes every man’s problem, and every man’s problem is no man’s problem.  Thus, a community body (the government) must regulate the common property in order to ensure that it remains viable for future generations.
            Second, anti-trust and quality controls are essential.  Capitalism operates on the assumption that the highest quality/price ratio will be successful.  However, this assumes that every producer is working in competition and that every consumer has enough options and information to make an educated choice.  Realistically, these consumers are very rare.  There simply isn’t enough time to research every producer, so most consumers make their choices on incomplete information (typically price).  Since looking at a package tells consumers very little about the quality of a product, producers have an incentive to cut costs in ways that are not immediately obvious (lowered wages, cut quality controls, etc).  Further, they may collaborate to set prices artificially high.  All this happened nationwide in the late 1800s, until Teddy Roosevelt declared his “war on trusts.”  Even today, we can see small-scale versions in stores that cater to a captive market (campus bookstore, anyone?).  Thus, some agency is necessary to ensure a certain quality floor, below which industry cannot go.  Further, an agency is necessary to ensure that industry remains competitive, rather than conspiring to raise profits at the expense of consumers.
            Third, I think that a social safety net is essential.  Capitalism creates winners, which is good, but wherever there are winners there are also losers.  Some system needs to give those losers, and their descendents, a second chance.  Thus, I wholeheartedly support quality public education, health care, and unemployment support.  Such aid must come with the requirement that the recipients try to obtain work again, but the opportunity to climb the socioeconomic ladder should always be available.  Education is one way to provide this opportunity; protection from illness is another.
            In addition to the safety net, the powerless in society need protection.  For example, Adam Smith notes that business owners and workers have conflicting incentives.  The workers seek to raise their wages and improve their work environment; the business owner, on the other hand, has every incentive to push the workers harder, depress wages, and neglect the work environment until the point that it impacts production.  Thus, worker’s unions are essential to press the worker’s opinions.  Such a need must be balanced with the need to efficiently produce quality goods, but worker’s rights cannot be neglected.  This same principle can be applied to almost any weaker social class in society, such as an ethnic or religious minority.
            Fourth, I think that the government can and should make technological and scientific investments.  These investments are a huge reason that the U.S. can be the richest country on the planet.  Manufacturing requires transportation infrastructure, paid for by U.S. tax dollars.  Technology relies upon scientific and engineering research that was initially paid for by government grants.  The semiconductors that let me write and you read this article, for instance, were developed using U.S. taxpayer dollars.  That kind of revolutionary technology is rarely privately funded, because the chance of failure is so high and the payoff is so far in the future.  Some incentive or public funds are necessary.
            Finally, I think that Elizabeth Warren and President Obama have a point when they claim that the wealthy have a duty to pay taxes.  As noted above, government investment is a huge reason why America can be as wealthy as it is.  All the wealth that is generated on the assumption of transportation, computers, and security (which is to say, all wealth) bears a direct debt to U.S. taxpayers, and that debt must be paid.  I’m not advocating socialism; the tax rate must allow those who are successful to gain wealth.  However, the successful owe their success in part to the investments made by the people of the United States, and they should acknowledge that.

            I’d like to start a conversation about differing beliefs here.  I don’t claim to know everything about either the economy or the government, so additional input will likely prove enlightening.

Monday, August 13, 2012

America's Great Divide

While poking around in 57th St. Books the other day, I came across the book Coming Apart: The State of White America by Charles Murray.  This book claims to explore the division arising between the "upper" class and the "lower" class in this country.  Despite the word White in the subtitle, Murray claims that this book discusses a problem common across race and creed, a problem that depends only on socioeconomic class; essentially, the problem that the upper class and the lower class no longer live similar worlds, that for all intents and purposes they live in separate countries.  This post reflects on my experience with such a divide.

Let me start by saying that, if we divide America into upper and lower classes, I definitely fall in the upper class.  I live in Georgetown, Washington, DC, which is hardly a cheap neighborhood.  My grandmother is paying my way through college, and my parents paid for private education for all three of their children.  I enjoy eating at fine restaurants despite the high price tag.  My 21st birthday party was held at BOKA, an excellent restaurant in Chicago's Old Town, and most of my immediate family flew in to attend.  My father impulsively bought me an $1,800 racing bike at Bicycle Pro Shop because I'd expressed a (not entirely serious) desire for a better set of wheels (this is how I started racing bikes).  Short version, I've never had to worry about money, because my family doesn't lack for it.  I feel no shame for this--my grandfather and my father earned every cent that they have--but the point is, I was born and raised in the top 5% of American society.

Coming to the University of Chicago was something of a culture shock.  Of course, I knew intellectually that we were better off than most of America, but I never realized how much better off until I came to UChicago.  Despite the stereotype of wealthy college kids, a lot of people at this school are not wealthy.  They have to watch their expenses.  They're paying some of their tuition and taking loans for the rest.  They have need-based financial aid.  Many of the activities that I do and love, they do not participate in because they can't afford it.  That was a new experience for me.  My family can't afford to buy a second house or snatch up a new car without planning, but weekly pizza (not from Domino's) or eating out on the weekends has never been a problem, and hell, all five of us vacationed in Italy this spring.

As a direct result of this economic divide, many of my friends have very different interests, activities, lives than mine.  With a day off, I might ride my bike, wander the city, eat at cafes, examine a bookstore--in short, participate in activities that may require money (either prepaid or not).  On the other hand, many of my friends are content to read, watch TV, play video games, and so on.  Their idea of a good meal is a neighborhood restaurant in Hyde Park or Chinatown.  They have no objection to eating at Wok n' Roll, and McDonald's is a fact of life.  A movie marathon is a graduation party, Rehoboth Beach is the yearly vacation, and an apartment party is the ultimate weekend activity.  These are UChicago students who I know and respect--they are smart, hardworking people, not so unlike me (hell, some of them work a lot harder than I do).  But their interests, their lives, their culture is so different from mine that sometimes it's hard to believe that we come from the same country.

At this point I may sound like a rich snob.  That's not entirely inaccurate.  However, as I wrote earlier, my parents and grandparents have earned every cent that they have.  My mother's father was the first in his family to attend college.  He died wealthy, not because he inherited, but because he earned the reputation of the best obstetrician in Lancaster county.  Similarly, my father's family was solidly middle-class, just a notch or two above blue-collar.  My father earned his reputation and his money by being one of the best tax attorneys in the business, and his salary continues to be tightly bound to the fortunes of his firm.  My family wasn't born wealthy; we earned our money, and we understand the value of it.

Now onto another class divide: that between the 5% and the 1%.  As noted, my family has not lacked for money for quite some time, but our coffers are hardly limitless.  Contrast that with the top 1% of the country, the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Romneys.  My family may live in a swank neighborhood, but it's a neighborhood, not a gated community.  We live in a beautiful, completely refurbished house, but it's a rowhouse, not a mansion.  We have two Toyota Prius cars, not a fleet of Lincolns or a private jet.  We can't afford to collect luxury cars or private art pieces.  And we certainly don't think that paying for college by selling off stock options is "roughing it," or that the minimum comfortable income is $1,000 per person per day (I wish we made that kind of cash).

This, in a nutshell, is the class divide that Murray discusses in his book.  If the division between working-class America and my family is as large as I've experienced in college, then how can someone in the top 1% have any idea how the average American lives?  These people go to different school systems, participate in different activities, eat different diets, have different pastimes.  Working-class problems don't exist for the upper class because the upper class can afford to buy filtered water, go to private school, live within two miles of work, eat nutritious and delicious food, pay for top-level health care.  We don't live near coal plants or industrial sites, and the police keep gangs well away from our doors.  It's not even that the upper class doesn't care about the problems in the country--it doesn't know about the problems in the country, because for us those problems don't exist.  That is the class divide in America today.  The upper class and working class may de jure live in the same city, but de facto they live in separate countries.  That is, perhaps, the most important lesson that the University of Chicago has taught me.  What concerns me is that I don't know how to bridge the gap, but unless it is bridged the division, and the problems that it causes, will only grow more severe.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Faith and Philosophy, Rough Ore

A few weeks ago, I came to some realizations about my issues with some of the beliefs of born-again Christianity.  I've been twiddling with these thoughts in my head since then, and decided it was finally time to put them to the rhetorical paper.

My principal problem is the born-again concept of an all-forgiving, all-powerful God who will wash away our sins and problems as soon as we accept Him into our lives.  A comforting thought, to be sure; believe in Me, and you shall live forever, in peace and harmony.  I shall comfort you, care for you, give you strength, aid you through your struggles and your follies, and all that you have done before coming to Me will be forgotten.

Unfortunately, I fundamentally disagree with this view.  Men are frail beasts, prone to sin and evil, but we are also also intelligent beings with free will.  If we wish to have free will, we must accept the responsibility that comes with free will.  When we sin, we are responsible for that choice, or the lack of a choice.  Adopting a new worldview does not wash away past failings; if it shows us our past errors, we must correct them ourselves.  Asking God to fix our all problems for us is like a child asking a parent to clean up their mess, but as adults, we cannot think like children.  God and man best help those who help themselves.

I should offer some caveats to the above view.  Accepting a new philosophy, a new faith, a new belief system does not wash away sins against other human beings or institutions: a thief is a thief, no matter how often he may be born again.  To show that he has repented of his previous ways, a man must offer recompense to the people whom he has harmed in the past.  However, accepting a new faith may offer a blank slate in violations of religious doctrine; God can hardly expect nonbelievers to follow His teachings before they come to believe.  In short, civil and criminal crimes are unchanged when a man changes his life's philosophy; violations of religious doctrine may be ignored in the time preceding the shift.


Another issue that I have with this worldview is the black-and-white shades in which it paints the world.  Perhaps I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but I would claim that night and day are not foes, but friends.  Life needs the balance of light and dark, wind and water, earth and fire, day and night, yin and yang.  Shadows cannot be cast without light; light cannot shine save in the darkness.  Charity helps the poor and is rightly praised, but without ambition the world would remain in paleolithic times.  The challenge is not to eliminate one in favor of the other, but to find balance.  Man is flawed, and will remain so; we may not celebrate these flaws, but we should not deny them.