Marxopoly

You collect $200 as you pass go. Evenly distribute your $200 between all other players.

I have had an on-going joke for a couple weeks now with a few friends of mine about inventing the game of “Marxopoly,” a version of Monopoly that’s not quite so capitalistic. There’d be an inescapable irony surrounding its invention, though. Creating anything “Marxist” in a capitalist system is often self-defeating. Would we copyright it?– Claim personal property over it? Or, even worse, copyright the idea as intellectual property? A Marxist society wouldn’t have property; yet, the game would have to be addressed as property. Further, if we wanted to mass-distribute it, would we sell it?– Make a profit on a game based on the theory that the profit-gaining model is inherently exploitative?

This alludes to a problem I find myself faced with. I suspect that Marx was probably on to something– while I’m not a die-hard Marxist [a wink goes out to my paramour in his Gulag], I definitely have Marxist leanings. Yet, at the same time, I’m an incurable consumer. It’s not that I buy on impulse, but when I do buy I do so snobbishly, settling for nothing less than the “best” and most expensive of what I’m purchasing. I recognize that I’m buying into a system of manipulation; the majority of things I “want” are constructed wants. The things I actually need are very few and I perpetuate inequity by directing the outcome of my wage-slavery to the constructed goals of the capitalist system. Despite what I might preach, at the end of the day I practice a very good capitalist lifestyle.

I read a news article some time ago that suggested that the happiest people in the world were Nigerians. This might seem unusual at first thought. However, most Nigerians rated their personal sense of self-fulfillment and accomplishment significantly higher than anyone in the Western world. The problem we have is such: all our basic needs are almost always met, and so we almost always want newer and better senses of fulfillment. My caveman and cavewoman ancestors merely needed to be fed to feel happiness. I need to be fed to stave off unhappiness. I seek, as a result of my lower hierarchy of needs being met by default, levels of pleasure and fulfillment much higher than I’m actually designed to be seeking. The consumerist mentality just keeps intensifying.

Theodor Adorno talked about something he called “commodification.” This is how the capitalist system subverts threats to it. It’s best to discuss Adrono in relation to the “Marxist” playwright Bertolt Brecht, as Brecht can provide examples of this behaviour. I read Brecht’s play “Mother Courage” and his essay “Theatre for Pleasure or for Instruction” in my Modern Drama course this past year. There’s an irony to how I encountered his ideas: I bought a very expensive anthology simply to read about how the capitalist system subverts attempts to undermine it through commodification. It makes its opposition a commodity. I paid to read this essay. I bought the ideas of Adorno and Brecht and paid the bourgeois publishing company to increase their economic power.

Brecht’s various Marxist dramas have actually been huge successes on Broadway. Adorno believes, for basically this reason, that music should never be a tool of revolution. He thinks that we simply get caught up in the beat and tune without hearing the words. As an example of this, consider the presidential race between Obama and McCain. I remember seeing two rallies, in which one group chanted “U-S-A” and the other chanted “O-ba-ma” to the exact same tune. This, for me, attested to the repetition of the democratic system. We think we’ve got two choices, but in reality it’s just two different lyrics for the same song.

We legitimately like to think we’ve got independent thought. We don’t like to be automatons. The capitalist system makes us feel that we have choices. Not only that, it makes us feel that we can simply opt out of it, too. Commodification takes something that exists in opposition to the capitalist system and markets it as something edgy and oppositional. A good example of this is punk music. It appears to be edgy and questionable. But, consider, for every person listening to music about smashing the state, how many CDs have been sold? To what extent has the wage-slavery of those listeners been further instantiated? How have their energies been re-directed? Consider, for a moment, the iconic punk, walking down the street with his neon-coloured mohawk listening to his punk rock on his new iPod. This energy– this need to rebel– is directed away from actual sources of oppression and instead towards the “self.” Instead of fighting to change the world, this individual necessarily accepts his wage-slavery and spends huge sums of money to fund his extravagant hair style and dedication to music. Commodification distracts one from the cookie-cutter nature of our group behaviour. Commodification gives the illusion of freedom of choice.

I should make it clear that I don’t really believe Marx has any answers– I’m not a Communist. I believe Marx asks the right questions, however. I’ve just stated that the capitalist system resists and subverts those things that oppose it– so, why bother trying to avoid it? I don’t expect a literal Revolution to pop up and destroy the system. It’s more complicated than that. But, I do expect that we should question the system and really decide if it’s inevitable.

The Greeks firmly believed in “knowing thyself.” I believe it was Socrates who said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I agree. If I don’t examine my life– if I don’t really decide who I am and what I am responsible for in the world– I may as not bother living at all. John Stewart Mill said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” He means to say that intellectual and rational pleasures outweigh the basic, animalistic pleasures. They’re what separate us from the animals. I agree. Truest pleasure for the human being is in thinking– it’s what makes us human. If I am not going to question, I may as well just lie in the mud with my brethren.

P.S. – While this is hardly what I would make, it seems someone has already coined the term “Marxopoly”:

Stylish Boot Stomping on a Human Face Forever

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.”
- George Orwell, 1984

So, 1984 has come and gone, and things didn’t turn out quite as Orwell expected. We don’t live in a totalitarian state where our every move is constantly monitored by the screens in our houses. We aren’t constantly bombarded with messages like Big Brother’s mantra: “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.” Nevertheless, this being said, one thing I’ve never liked about Orwell’s 1984 is that all of these tactics of social control are right on the surface. Everyone knows he/she’s a slave. Everyone knows he/she lives in a totalitarian regime. Further, as if it weren’t bad enough that the characters are painfully aware of the state in which they live, the narrative is interrupted part-way by an essay on social theory so that even the reader has it bashed into his/her head how this society works and what we supposedly must avoid.

I believe Orwell was a little too myopic. The future isn’t simply a boot stomping on a human face forever– the future isn’t an army of thought-police. The future is a stylish boot stomping on a human face forever: the real threat comes from fashion police.

The reason I’ve started thinking about this is because I’ve recently become employed again by a fashion retailer. I’m fairly certain that the clothes are made in less-than-reputable factories– I’ve even heard reports of slave labour. Yet, is the company entirely evil? While it may be the case that the profits come out of disreputable sources, it’s also among the most “socially responsible” companies around, partaking in and donating sizable sums to environment, social, and AIDS-related causes and charities quite often.

Further, I question whether I too become tainted by working for them. Living in a capitalist society, it’s quite necessary for me to be a wage slave. But, how should I respond to my wage slavery? Should I do it with regret, or should I love it?

If you’re read 1984, you may recall that it ends with the protagonist, Winston, finally accepting (post-torture) the authority Big Brother. He walks himself to his execution, admitting to the reader as he dies, “I loved Big Brother!” That’s the real threat. I doubt that it’s possible to blind humanity to slavery through fearsome tactics. Rather, you must convince the group that they love being slaves– that they love being what they are.

Machiavelli famously wrote in The Prince that it’s better to be feared than loved. Love is a luxury which lubricates the excerising of power– fear is what substantiates power. I don’t know that that’s true, though. I think that we’re always aware of fear and what causes fear– I don’t know that we’re always aware of love and what causes love. I’m talking, of course, about consumerism. Why do I work? Is it because I’m afraid of punishment if I do not? I don’t believe so. I believe I work because I want something– because I foresee reward.

George Bernard Shaw wrote a play which I always think of in this kind of scenario: Mrs. Warren’s Profession. Mrs. Warren is a brothel keeper. This fact is not known at the beginning of the play. Her only daughter, a staunchly moralistic woman, knows only that her mother is a businesswoman on the continent. Once she discovers the truth of her mother’s profession, she’s appalled– everything she is has been financed by the sexual exploitation of countless women. Moralistic Vivie (the daughter) wants to reject any further support from her mother. Her mother argues, contrarily, that one simply has to accept what society is.  Mrs. Warren’s sister died in utter destitution– she survived by becoming involved in this business. She has tried to help her sex workers as much as possible, either marrying them off or arranging permanent positions for them to be mistresses to wealthy men. She has also kept Vivie “clean”; Mrs. Warren argues that she sullied herself to keep her daughter from ever having to get involved with anything so disreputable. In the end, they part ways, presumably never to see each other again, both too stubborn and obstinate to try and compromise.

I think we all find ourselves in a similar, albeit less dramatic, situation. Do we stick to our morals and reject profiting at the expense of others, or do we accept that the society necessitates this behaviour and act on it? I don’t have a good answer. But I know personally, for all my morals and Marxism, at the end of the day I want a new pair of shoes and a new pair of jeans. I love the system. I worry sometimes that I love Big Brother without even realizing it. There’s a stylish boot stamping on my face and I may as well yell, “Stomp harder!”

The Fiction in My Pants

In retrospect, I wonder if I came down a little too hard on science fiction yesterday. I made sweeping generalizations about how it always just re-presents the present with some silvery consoles scattered about. This need not always be the case, however. Granted, I think the majority of science fiction we see on television and read in published book form is just the present with a slightly different twist, but there are those who take science fiction to its fullest potential:

Well, perhaps that’s not the fullest potential, but I think you see what I’m trying to get at. There’s two lines I’d like to look at from the clip above: “First contact with an alien– not quite what I expected,” and, “You people and your quaint little categories.” We typically suppose that somehow aliens will look and behave in essentially the same way we do– at least, in television science fiction serials. As I suggested yesterday, it’s necessary not to make your audience feel too alienated by changing things like the banal, quotidian constants like the gender coding of hair length. Also, one must keep in mind that you need actors to play the aliens, so it’s easier if they’re essentially just humans with some small twist on them.

Worth watching just for this reason.

Torchwood, from which the clip above was taken, is a little different from most other contemporary science fiction serials. A spin-off of Britain’s long-running and world-renowned Doctor Who, it’s produced by openly gay Russell T. Davies. The program’s main character is Captain Jack Harkness: a pansexual man from the future. The argument behind his pansexuality is that humans in the future, having dispersed from earth and interacting with different alien species on a daily basis, have sexualities which necessarily permits interaction with and attraction to a variety of different creatures– as such, gender and sex become little more than a “quaint category” in the scope of all the different manifestations of life that might exist.

This is not to say that Torchwood is free from criticism. While it is perhaps the queerest science fiction on television, it nevertheless represents gender norms. The male characters are “masculine”; the female characters are “feminine.” Even when they do find themselves in legitimately gay or lesbian scenarios, there’s never any questioning of why they are attracted to each other. That is, if indeed humans somehow proliferated the dimensions of sexual attraction to include a multitude of alien species, how would we know what was attractive? Will the bald chick be as attractive as the one with long, flowing hair? Would a deep voice be equally as appealing on a “man” as a “woman”? In terms of what I’d like to see on Torchwood– seeing as they’ve already taken huge strides towards blurring the lines of sexuality– is a blurring of the lines of gender, as well. I’ll keep you posted on how the next season turns out.

So, ultimately, Torchwood does not challenge conceptions of gender, but does challenge conceptions of sexuality. Indeed, what is perhaps to be appreciated about Torchwood is that it’s not a Batman/Robin scenario: it’s legitimate man-man and woman-woman attraction and love that they display. After this semi-infamous clip from the series, the characters proceed to lightheartedly argue which of them was the “wife” in their relationship– it’s not to be taken seriously, though. The queerness on Torchwood does transcend simply providing one with a  parody of heterosexual interaction.

If Torchwood can get away with showing this on television– legitimate gay and lesbian attraction and love– why can’t Star Trek? I find myself wondering how I would have reacted if they hadn’t inserted the Uhura love triangle into the new Star Trek movie. Would there simply be tongue-and-cheek jokes made about Kirk and Spock à la Batman and Robin? Or, what if they had openly and beyond question paired up Kirk and Spock at the end? Would it hailed as a “gay movie” and follow a path to infamy similar to “Brokeback Mountain”? Would it alienate fans?

When Kirk and Uhura kissed in the original series, their interracial kiss made history. When Spock and Uhura kissed in the movie, did anyone bat an eyelash? I doubt it. Forty years after the original interracial kiss and none of us really thinks much about it. If the movie had been released in another ten or twenty years, would the audience bat an eyelash at a kiss between Kirk and Spock? I suppose time will only tell with that one.

Would it have been easier to tell the story without the Uhura sub-plot? When I was writing yesterday about how Kirk and Spock’s relationship is elevated to the level of fate and destiny, it started to sound reminiscent of some sort of Greek myth. We tend to filter Greek myth today– downplay the fact that Hercules had a boyfriend, for instance, make it seem more like there is a variety of close friendship and relations that really the Greeks never would have implied. I wonder if this tactic is still in operation in our culture: this tendency to set up a relationship in a particular way, and then do backflips to ensure that it’s not “read queer.”

While I certainly never expect to see it, I think that simply allowing a more genuine affection to be shown between Kirk and Spock would make for a better story. The Greeks never really had a concept of homosexuality– they just knew of different kinds of love and attraction. I think the Uhura subplot takes something away from a valid, mutually empowering relationship between Kirk and Spock. In fact, it’s an insult that we need to see some sort of intermediary. Regardless as to whether the relationship is homosexual or homosocial (i.e. – they really are just friends), I think it’s part of the sad state of our culture that we can’t just let it be.

Hard, Throbbing Spock

If you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie, you were doubtlessly dazzled by the dynamic camera work, high-adrenaline storyline, and unforgettably attractive cast. The film is highly watchable; it offers something to Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike. I know a few people who have gone to see it with virtually no prior knowledge of Star Trek who have enjoyed it immensely. As a dedicated Trekkie, I can tell you the film winks to the Trekkies in the audience often– for example, Sulu’s combat training is in fencing (a callback to an episode of the original series where a deranged Sulu inexplicably starts to fence with security officers), or the inevitable fate of the “red shirt.”

Having done a bit of research on how people interpreted the new characters, I found one very interesting assessment: Spock always has a “beard” in parallel universes. In the original series, when Kirk takes a misfortunate trip to a parallel reality, we immediately see that the parallel Spock has a beard on his face. Now, if you’ve seen the movie, you know that Zachary Quinto’s Spock does not have a furry face. Rather, his beard is Uhura.

The love-triangle of Kirk-Uhura-Spock varies greatly from the original series. The original Star Trek received attention for being the first program to show an interracial kiss on television. While Spock almost never “got the girl”– or even pursued the girl to begin with– Kirk got every girl, regardless of colour, species, or appearance.

It was a novel twist to give Spock the girl and leave the womanizing Kirk all by his lonesome at the end of the film. But, was this simply done as a wink to those familiar with Star Trek lore– a coy subversion of the typical outcome of Kirk’s relentless womanizing and Spock’s stoic attitude– or, is it an attempt to assuage accusations of Kirk and Spock being just a little too close?

Let’s consider Star Trek’s track record. It was the first program to show an interracial kiss on television. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was the first program to show a “lesbian” kiss on daytime television:

This “lesbian” kiss was met with some contention by viewership, however. Not because it was a kiss between two women– nay, in 1987 Gene Roddenberry promised to have put a gay character in Star Trek. Rather, the contention is such: the two women kissing are not kissing because they are attracted to each other as women, but rather because they have the memories of being a heterosexual couple in their “former lives.” Deep Space Nine, before its conclusion, did have a more legitimately “lesbian” kiss. In the final “mirror universe” episode, Ezri’s parallel self is indeed a lesbian. The kiss she shares with parallel Kira, however, is again not quite an expression of lesbian desire. Mirror universe Kira may or may not be bisexual– regardless, she is manipulating Ezri by feigning an interest in her. Ezri’s legitimate lesbianism is used against her by a primarily heterosexual woman.

The various Star Treks touched briefly on issues of gender and sexual identity. In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Outcast,” the crew of the Enterprise encounters the J’naii, a species without gender and possibly without sex. In their history, they “rose above” the need for sex and now reproduce using incubation chambers. Members of their population occasionally manifest the “vestiges” of gender– one such member admits “her” attraction to Commander Riker and begins on the path to becoming a female before she is taken back by her people to be treated for her perverse behaviour. See clips the best clips from the episode here.

So, despite having ample opportunity to explore the ranges of gender and sexuality, the Star Trek franchise has made a couple– for lack of a more sophisticated word– half-assed attempts at fulfilling Gene Roddenberry’s original promise. This is a universe in which there are countless alien species with diverse biologies and customs, and yet almost without fail every one of them functions according the heterosexual dynamic. In this way, I must express my opinion regarding most science fiction: it’s just a repetition of the present. Especially science fiction television programs, dependent on speaking to a present-day audience, must simply repeat the present in a slightly different way. If Captain Janeway had been completely bald, or Captain Picard had had long, flowing hair, how would viewership respond? Even minor tweaks in the notion of gender representation are potentially cumbersome. It’s difficult to present a future where professional men would have long, flowing hair and women in positions of power could shave their heads as they pleased. Even something so simple as hair is difficult to change– we want the future to be the present moment with a lot more silvery consoles around.

So, back to my original point: what’s up with the Kirk/Spock bromance? I said at the beginning of this post that Spock’s “beard” is Uhura. The word beard in this context is a gay individual’s heterosexual partner used to distract from or cover up that individual’s sexuality. Having seen the film for a second time last night, I feel that the Uhura subplot was necessary to put heteronormative viewership at ease. Kirk and Spock are presented as having a fated, inevitable, and necessary connection to each other. Their opposition brings them each some immense strength. Their relationship is elevated to the level of destiny. If not for the Uhura factor, I believe this could be quite easily interpreted as a gay relationship.

I was almost tempted to say at first that Kirk/Spock is akin to everyone’s suspicions of Batman/Robin. But, I believe that analogy is impercise. Batman/Robin may “read queer,” but it’s also a reiteration of the heteronormative idea of passive-active. Batman is the “man,” Robin is the “woman”– or, at very least, the “boy.” Batman and Robin have a power dynamic. Kirk and Spock compete and complement. What is perhaps most threatening about allowing suspicions of a Kirk/Spock relationship is that it flies in the face of the typically heterosexual approach to queerness. Instead of some parody of a heterosexual relationship– such as manly Batman and submissive Robin– Kirk/Spock would permit a genuine reciprocal “man love.” The two are both masculine and neither expressly and permanently has power over the other.

More on this tomorrow.

American Idolatry: Christian vs. Gay

We live in a mad world:

I find it kind of funny; I find it kind of sad. The word is on the street that the two finalists on this year’s season of American Idol received divided support for more than just their musical talents: unbeknowst on the program proper, Kris Allen is reportedly a worship leader and has done missionary service in the past, while Adam Lambert is openly gay. With Kris Allen’s win last night, despite a never-before-seen standing ovation for Adam Lambert’s performance of Mad World only a few weeks ago from the nefariously cantankerous Simon Cowell, many people are speculating now on how these additional factors worked in. Did Christianity really win Kris Allen the title of American Idol? To what extent is the American consciousness shaped by a motto like, “in hoc signo vinces,” even today? Or, conversely, did people vote against Adam Lambert because of pervasive rumours– which he has neither confirmed nor denied– that he is openly gay and has been in several publicly-recognized gay relationships?

My real question is this: why do we think in terms of “Christian vs. gay”? Are the two really mutually exclusive? What I appreciated about this unique situation on this year’s American Idol is that it pitted the two against each other. Even if the rumours about the two are not true, they nevertheless are publicly perceived in a sort of black-and-white way: the Christian vs. the gay.

Another reason to consider the outcome of something as vapid as American Idol is that it represents a microcosm of the democratic process in America. It will likely be some time before we see the a gay man running for president– but, will it play out the same way? Do we want to see things in opposition? A Christian man vs. a gay man? If the Democrats submitted a gay man as their candidate, would the Republicans be more likely to submit a fundamentalist Christian?

Perhaps what is most intriguing about American Idol is that it represents a more direct form of democracy. There’s no counting states differently, tabulating counties, etc. Everyone has perfectly equal representation. In democracy, it’s really not the best candidate who wins. It’s the candidate who represents the majority of the voting population. And, if American Idol attests to anything, it’s that Christians are motivated to vote and vote as a block for those who they believe represent them– this article recaps several other American Idol wins according to their religious affiliation.

I’m reminded of something Judith Butler had to say about gay marriage. Despite being one of America’s primary queer theorists, a gay activist, and a lesbian, Judith Butler does not believe in gay marriage. For her, incorporating the queer subject into the marriage structure simply subverts queerness and strengthens the heteronormative cultural hegemony. She urges queer-identified people not to demand the participation in social institutions, but to be counter-cultural. My point is this: perhaps queerness has no place in democracy.

Consider for a moment how gay marriage came about in Canada. It wasn’t done through the democratic process– our elected officials didn’t make it happen. Rather, it was done through the legal system. This is still not to say that gay marriage should necessarily be the desired goal, but it is to say that democracy merely sustains a status quo; democracy is rarely the path to change.

Many of our notions of marriage are descended from contemporary Christian values. I am always a little skeptical of the gay Christians I meet: are the two really mutually possible? I personally do think they’re in opposition. This is not because I believe Christ would have been homophobic; rather, the current Christian institution seeks to perpetuate the heteronormative dynamic.

In terms of the behaviours of religious institutions, I would like to mention that earlier today I was talking to my roommate about my recent post on Islam and Malcolm X’s belief in its ability to unite us. She posed a very worthwhile question: why would we want that kind of unity? It’s a unity in which each of us submits totally to a system of unquestionable laws. It’s a unity which is oppressive towards women and denies their autonomy. I don’t mean to sound Islamophobic; nevertheless, she pointed out the Koranic prohibition against menstruating women being allowed to prepare food. It is a system which, at very least, disempowers women to be self-determining.

Something else she drew attention to was the instantiation of economic power dynamics in religious texts. The texts written when men controlled nearly all economic functions bespeak patriarchical power distribution. To put in play the same Koranic laws today is to perpetuate the oppressive dynamics of seventh-century Arabic culture.

However, religion is not so rigid as we sometimes think it is. Medieval Christians, for instance, would have no concept of “Christian vs. gay.” In Foucault’s History of Sexuality, the historian draws attention to the Medieval written prohibitions against homosexuality, and then the virtually non-existent records of anyone ever being punished for it. Similarly, Medieval Christians had very different notions of when something was or wasn’t a sin. Homosexuality was among the gravest theological sins– yet, if one looks at the guidelines given to Priests to administer confessions, homosexuality was a minor misdemeanor. Why? Because the Church likes to look the other way. Whatever prohibitions they theologically stated, they nevertheless tried very hard to ignore the reality of monks sleeping with monks, Priests with their parishoners, and the other things real people do in their real lives. It’s only since the social concept of “gay identity” has arisen that the Church has made such strong statements against it.

My conclusion? The heteronormative power dynamic of Western culture should be resisted in order to affect actual change. The religion backing American Idolatry is pervasive and certainly worth more contemplation.

Fisting Obama

Last night, I showed a good friend of mine the following video, regarding Fox News’ inadvertant accusation that the Obamas are into fisting:

Needless to say, she encouraged me to make a blog post about it. Are the Obamas really into fisting? Let’s consider the evidence. The woman in the aforementioned news clip has since clarified that by “fisting” she meant the Obamas’ trademark “fist-bump.” She didn’t actually mean to convey that they engaged in the sexual practice.

Still, though, it got me thinking. Firstly, Michelle Obama has received plenty of attention for her now semi-famous “Obama arms.” In fact, she’s quite keen on wearing dresses without sleeves, and many people have made note of her impressive arm musculature. Now, if fisting were my paraphilia of choice, I imagine showing off my arms would be among my highest priorities. Michelle Obama doesn’t need to show off her cleavage to feel attractive; she only needs to show off her bulging biceps.

I would also like to note that Barack Obama is a man who doubtless feels very comfortable with himself. His characteristic, laid-back swagger attests to this. Further, though, he’s among the most unique individuals in America: a black man with fairly far-left politics who is president of a primarily white, right-wing country. Why stop there? If we can accept that a black man can be president, why not a kink fetishist? This is the new millennium, after all.

The next question that comes to mind is, “does it matter?” Would it really matter if the Obamas were into fisting? They do it in private, they’re presumably monogamous, and they presumably do it as part of the spectrum of their affection for one another. Should we care?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the notion of “colour blindness”– not the medical condition, but as a social stance towards racial issues. Should we be colour blind? — See everyone in the exact same way regardless of colour, race, ethnicity, or origin? As we extend tolerance to a black president, would we also extend tolerance to a president who’s into kink?

I don’t know that colour blindness is the answer to race issues.  The presumption there is that our identities are irrelevant. To digress for a moment, I have another friend who’s very interested in science fiction. She told me she once read a debate between a white science fiction writer and several “people of colour.” The science fiction writer said that the way to write an alien is to take yourself an add something to you. For example, Spock from Star Trek– you just take any man and add pointy ears and emotional control. Instant alien! The response is intriguing, however: is a black man just a white man with different coloured skin? Is a woman just a man with long hair and his genitals turned inwards? The question is really: is identity something added onto a base template, or is it constitutive of our core? To be a woman is not to be a man in a different way; to be black is not to be a different shade of white. I don’t think we can ignore Obama’s race– nay, I don’t think we should. His blackness is integral to him.

What if the Obamas are into fisting? Should it be public knowledge? Should we care? Again, I think it’s something integral to them if that is the case.

The other day, I attended the “Rally Against Homophobia.” The message I took from it is an important one: tolerance is not the goal, but rather compassion, understanding, and acceptance. We should not simply tolerate those who are different from us. We should not simply try to look past their differences and see some automaton that functions devoid of identity. Rather, all of us should strive to understand and accept each other’s identities. Tolerance is a cop out– acceptance is the real goal.

If Obama is into fisting, that doesn’t make him any less of a good leader. Rather, we should strive to understand the unique perspective it gives him, just as we should strive to understand the unique perspective he gains in being black.

Should we care if the Obamas fist? Yes. But, that does not mean that we should judge them on it, but rather seek to understand and accept them for it.

Malcolm X-cellent

The land of the free.

Recently, my TV and I made up. In fact, it was mere days after I had decided I wanted it dead that I found myself again watching late-night television. However, unlike the last time I had done this, this time my TV showed me something interesting which expanded my mind. My TV showed me a documentary called something like, “Islam in China.” It was fascinating! Not only are there Muslims in China, but there are Mosques in China that are hundreds of years old. Many Chinese Muslims have been Muslims all their lives: they had to practice in secret right after the Cultural Revolution, but now the Chinese government has relaxed the laws of religious freedom. What was so fascinating about the Chinese Muslims to me was this: Chinese Islam functions syncretically.

You have no doubt heard about the Danish satirical cartoon which caused an uproar in the Muslim world not simply in that it depicted Muhammed as a terrorist, but also in that it depicted Muhammed at all. Muslims are forbidden from depicting their patron prophet; I believe this also extends to any other things or people of spiritual significance. This is why architecture and caligraphy is so important to Islam– unable to depict their spiritual figures, Muslims have for centuries adorned religious texts and temples with ornate designs instead.

However, Chinese Mosques do have religious figures on their exterior.  Not only do the Chinese Mosques look distinctly far-Eastern in architectural design, they also are adorned with creatures from Chinese myth. The controversy is such: the Islamic Mosque should not be adorned with these things, and yet the Chinese Muslims see nothing wrong with them. China has adapted Islam. Young Muslim women get married in Muslim fashion– yet, the dresses they wear are more typically Chinese.

Perhaps the most interesting adaption is this: China allows for female Imams. Since the Cultural Revolution, the place of women in China has changed dramatically (although, perhaps not always for the better). Women are called to “state service” just as much as men. Women can, too, be made Imams in China as the Chinese have no notion of prohibition against it.

What really struck me about the program was how myopic I’ve been with regards to Islam. We’re told it’s this mysterious force in the Middle East: some imperative to be “backwards” (by Western standards). And yet, Islam has been in China longer than it’s been in many places, and there it is a force of community and celebration and liberation.

He's looking at you.

Today is Malcolm X’s birthday. Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little but also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was a controversial civil rights activist. He was a member of the Nation of Islam: a black separatist group in contrast to white America. His tune changed significantly after his pilgrimage to Mecca. These are some quotations from his auto-biography:

“Packed in the plane were white, black, brown, red, and yellow people, blue eyes and blond hair, and my kinky red hair– all together, brothers! All honoring the same God Allah, all in turn giving equal honor to each other.”

“That morning was when I first began to reappraise the ‘white man.’ It was when I first began to perceive that ‘white man,’ as commonly used, means complexion only secondarily; primarily it described attitudes and actions. In America, ‘white man’ meant specific attitudes and actions toward a black man, and toward all other non-white men. But in the Muslim world, I had seen that men with white complexions were more genuinely brotherly than anyone else had ever been.”

“They asked me what about the Hajj had impressed me the most. [...] I said, ‘The brotherhood! The people of all races, colors, from all over the world coming together as one! It has proved to me the power of the One God.’”

I suppose my point is this: all religion is not the same. A typical Marxist adage is, “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Is it, though? Not everyone realizes that Marx never utter those words. His original statement was, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” This is not to say it is an aberration: religion is a response to hopelessness.

The origin of the word “despair” is my final meditation. It means, figuratively, “far from God.” Perhaps religion is not so opposed to social change; we just need to reframe how we look at it. Chirstianity is not the be all and end all it claims to be. Perhaps religion is more than we think it is.

Why I Hate My TV, Society, and Darwin

TV is the stronger creature. Its offspring will thrive.

I am pissed off– for an unlikely reason. Last night, after discovering my download had failed and my paramour had signed off for the night, I decided to make use of my parents’ cable television while I was still visiting. Naturally, there were slim pickings late at night on a Sunday. However, I noticed that TLC was airing a show called “The Science of Sex Appeal.”

Two or three years ago, I would have sat back passively and enjoyed this program. I probably would have repeated the information gleefully the next day. But, last night, it pissed me off. Not because it was “wrong”; rather, because this is what everyone is taught to be true: we’re all just baby-making machines. If you’re not making babies, you’re a broken machine.

Where do I even begin? Let’s consider the heteronormativity of evolutionary psychology. What do I mean by this? I mean that evolutionary psychology operates under the belief that each person enters into the world capable of reproduction through heterosexual coitus and that each person is seeking to do so. It’s glibly Darwinian: me and every other man is competing to get into the pants of every woman– oh, nay, only the most “attractive” woman. Men only settle for “unattractive” women if they can’t get horizontal with the beauty queen. Wanting an ugly woman is a compromise. She compromises, too, but programs usually mention this second.

So, of course, all these psychologists were able to prove this theory about mate selection. They showed how men rated a woman as more beautiful without even knowing that she was ovulating at the time of the highest ratings. See? Perfect correlation. Everyone wants to fuck the chick who’s ovulating; sex exists to make a lot of babies.

You’ve probably also heard that women have wide hips to bear children, hmm? Well, as it turns out, men do find wide hips and a slim waist attractive– but, they find the dimensions that would make childbirth completely impossible to be most attractive.
It’s not reproductive capacity they’re scanning for: it’s simply indicators of being female. Barbie is every man’s dream girl, apparently. Yet, this flies in the face of the theory that we’re looking to reproduce– why are we attracted to characteristics that would simply be sexually gratifying, but not viable for reproduction?

Let’s consider some facts about human sexual behaviour, particularly “aberrations” from the rule.  You’ve probably heard that one in ten people is gay. This is a little skewed. The correct fact is 7% of the general population identifies as gay and 3% as bisexual. However, 20-25% of men will, at some point in their life, engage in mutual genital stimulation– that is, some form of sex, whether oral or anal– with another man. A much higher percentage will engage in communal sexual self- stimulation– that is, the “circle jerk.”

Here’s another thing to consider: humans are group animals. Our young are defenseless. We require caretakers well into adolescence. We have one of the most complex social lives of any animal. We make connections naturally, interact naturally, learn to speak naturally, and love naturally. We’re hardwired to be social.

Bonobos, my favourite animal, are very similar creatures. They’re chimps with no group violence whatsoever. Why don’t they have any violence, you ask? Because they’re fucking monkeys: they have regular group orgies to calm down and increase group cohesion. Consider, now, how a species’ reassigning the sex drive from its reproductive primacy instead to function as a tool of group cohesion would benefit a species in the long-term.

If, instead, we’re not programmed to make babies, but rather programmed to give one another mutual physical satisfaction, then in fact we’re not looking for reproductive capacities. Rather, reproduction is a “happy outcome” of the real intent of sex for a social species like ours: mutual pleasure and group harmony. Group harmony means that the group will remain functional. None of us can survive on our own; a functional group means that children will be cared for. This is the true evolutionary logic. We’re not hermits: we want group cohesion first, and reproduction second. We want to be able to satisfy one another, then we want babies.

I wish to return to my data about homosexual interactions among men: a very small portion of the population will pursue a solely homosexual lifestyle. Yet, bisexuality makes a great deal more sense for a social species. Humans are likely to “experiment” during adolescence. Surprise, surprise– this reduces mate competition and increases group harmony by defusing sexual tension and increasing feelings of pleasure and satisfaction with respect to one’s peers. Those “circle jerks” are bonding experiences: those young men probably don’t desire long-term stimulation from one another, but temporary stimulation especially during a period of such high sexual energy leads them to in fact help one another win over other desirable mates and reduces the possibility of violence between them.

It’s the myopia of our civilization– a dog-eat-dog supposition about our particular evolution, society, individuality, humanity, and sexuality– that irks me to no end.