Book Review: “Truths Among Us: Conversations on Building a New Culture”
Truths Among Us: Conversations on Building a New Culture, is an important collection of in-depth interviews that prolific author Derrick Jensen conducted with a handful of radical thinkers whose ideas merit attention. Even if you disagree with Jensen’s views as expressed in his other works, all of these “conversations” are informative and may prompt you to reconsider what you know about some of the complex subjects discussed.
Undoubtedly, the issues explored across, and within, these interviews are vast. They range from the effects of violence depicted on television (George Gerbner) and why young urban kids join gangs (Luis Rodriguez) to how we process traumatic experiences as part of the human condition (Judith Herman) and the consequences of objectifying women in pornography (Jane Caputi). I also found myself fascinated by the interview with Paul Staments who explains the importance of fungi to our environment.
Jensen asks many thoughtful, pointed questions – some of which probe his interviewee’s about their own writing. Yes, he has done his homework, and this is evident throughout. For example, Jensen pulls a direct quote from Luis Rodriguez’s autobiography to open that interview (p. 77), and then asks a good follow-up question to further examine the marginalization that people have experienced in our society (p. 78). This kind of approach brings a certain focus by diving into some of the most pressing issues that are central to the reason why Jensen chose to speak with these individuals in the first place.
If I have any criticism, I would say that Jensen should have sought more of a balance between the number of men and women represented here. I believe that sex and gender inform perspective because the world is socially constructed, and therefore, incorporating additional female voices would have strengthened this work.
Also, I have mixed feelings about Jensen divulging his own personal views and stories. While revealing details about your own life (such as when he mentions how he associated abuse with water skiing on p. 134) might build rapport with someone, doing so shifts attention away from the person you’re speaking with. Not only does this have the potential to disrupt the flow of the interview, but you don’t want to influence what he or she has to say.
The word that immediately comes to mind when reflecting on this book is “possibility” because the content of each interview reminds me that there are always people in this world who are thinking on levels many of us aren’t. We can’t lose sight of that. The mere discussion of these ideas means there will always be the chance they can spread so as to transform the way we live. Yes, Derrick Jensen has accomplished his goal of piecing together some very provocative interviews that will stimulate thought the way I imagine he intended them to.
Film Review: “An Unreasonable Man”
Few people have influenced public policy the way Ralph Nader has in a career that spans more than four decades. The documentary, An Unreasonable Man, is a powerful, inspirational, and yes – sometimes critical, examination of his life that catalogs a number of his accomplishments working on behalf of the public interest in pursuit of social justice.
It begins with a discussion of his efforts on automobile safety in the 1960s and details how General Motors investigated him in an attempt to destroy his character. Not only did federal officials expose this effort in a congressional hearing (of which there is actual footage), but Nader also won a lawsuit against the company that provided “seed money” for him to found some of his organizations.
From there, the film briefly explores his childhood. Nader grew up in Winsted, Connecticut where he learned some invaluable lessons during his formative years. At home, his parents encouraged political debates at the dinner table. Also, he recalls coming home from school one day and his father asking him: “Did you learn how to believe or did you learn how to think?” All of this is important because his early life is reflected in the thoughtful, outspoken advocate he evolved into.
Among the film’s strengths are the interviews with former employees. Some of their accounts reveal how committed, i.e. rigid, he can be on both a political and a personal level. For example, when an employee of his, Joan Claybrook, accepted a position in the Carter Administration and did not seek to advance his agenda, this greatly angered him and resulted in them not speaking for a year or two.
While coverage is devoted to how Nader felt betrayed by President Carter (on the matter of consumer protection) and how President Reagan sought to undermine a series of regulations Nader had fought so hard for in years prior, the film could have focused more on his experience in the 1990s during the Clinton years leading up to the 2000 Election.
Much to the dismay of some on the left, Nader ran for president in 2000. While his candidacy did not receive the attention or respect it deserved (e.g. media coverage; the denial to partake in, or even attend, a debate at University of Massachusetts, Boston), Democrats blamed him when Al Gore lost by a slim margin. A political analyst points out this contradiction. Interestingly, the directors also interview Barry Burden, a political scientist at Harvard University (he now teaches at University of Wisconsin, Madison) whose statistical analysis does not find any evidence that Nader is the “spoiler” Democrats claim that he is.
The greatest message this film communicates is that Nader’s level of commitment is a model of advanced citizenship for others to follow, and that people can make a contribution if they engage the democratic process. Many of his contributions have affected our everyday lives. That said, it is also a strong indictment of a two-party system that must be opened to alternative voices.
Another semester of teaching begins
Three years ago when I pulled out of the high school parking lot and drove my thirty minute commute home for the last time, I felt a sense of catharsis and anticipation. I loved teaching social studies, but I can’t honestly say I felt the same about other aspects of my job at the time. When I began working in the archives that summer and shortly thereafter found myself immersed in my coursework, I appreciated the change in my daily routine, but I really missed being in front of a classroom.
During the following winter, I thought it would be a good idea to contact one of my former instructors from the community college I attended to see if they needed a political science instructor for the summer semester. Initially he informed me they did not, but a month or so later he called to offer me an adjunct position and immediately I accepted.
Last night I began my third summer of teaching U.S. Government at the college, and it appears that I have another solid group of engaged, intelligent, and articulate students to work with (perhaps the best group ever). My informal assessment is based upon our introductory activities that included a lengthy discussion of the many responsibilities that governments and citizens have. As one might imagine, there were some divergent viewpoints expressed, but everyone shared their thoughts in a respectful manner.
I think one of the many reasons I really enjoy teaching this class is because it will be the only political science course most of my students take. So, it’s important to teach them to analyze different arguments surrounding controversial political issues as well as the function and accessibility of governing institutions. Much of the time it appears the body politic is disengaged from the process, but education is one way to challenge such harmful normative behavior.
On process and responsibility in a democracy
Today I spent my lunch hour distributing campaign leaflets outside of the Holmes Student Center for independent mayoral candidate Lynn Fazekas. Generally speaking, I found most people to be receptive – at least those who intend on voting in the April 7 city election. One woman even stopped to chat with me for a moment and we had a very brief, yet meaningful, exchange.
Now, over the years I have done plenty of outreach on different issues, and honestly, I don’t know why some people appear unsettled as they approach and I greet them. Whenever I leaflet I dress in a neutral manner (like most college students in this case). Moreover, I keep the message simple, I use a polite tone of voice, and I always end by saying ‘thank you’.
As someone who believes very strongly in engaging the democratic process, I’m offended when people laugh at questions like: “Are you registered to vote in the City of DeKalb,” or ”Will you be voting in the DeKalb mayoral election next month?” Perhaps the laughter is a physical manifestation of embarrassment when confronted by the fact they know little about our local government.
Living in a democratic society we have numerous choices to make on a daily basis. Undoubtedly, our lives are often busy. From my point of view, elections should matter to everyone because they determine who will craft future policy. While people are entitled to disengage if they so choose, I fail to understand how being uninformed helps maintain the vitality of existing institutions. To me, it’s irresponsible – at best.
