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.
Reflecting on the story of Chris McCandless
Recently I decided to read Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer, the true story of a young man named Chris McCandless who embarked upon an adventure following his graduation from college – an adventure that ended with his tragic death in the summer of 1992. Despite the fact that I have been preoccupied with my schoolwork lately, I finished the book in less than two days and spent a bit of time reflecting on what little we know about this person who has been – for better or worse – shrouded in a certain mystery.
As a reporter, Krakauer does an incredible job writing a narrative that is grounded on interviews with people McCandless encountered during his travels, as well as McCandless’ own personal writing in postcards to his friends, his journal, and his notes inside of books that he carried with him. Much can be gleaned from these primary sources. However, there still are a number of questions that surround what happened to him in Alaska and why.
I don’t have any interest in denigrating him or proliferating theories about his unfortunate fate. When I think about this story, I see a complex individual in conflict with himself, his family, and society. While these conflicts aren’t anything new, the way McCandless acted in response to them is thought-provoking. How many people are willing to abandon their privilege and take that kind of chance on the unknown? Not many. Most young adults from suburbia end up following a very predictable path in life, and for those who are exposed to radical ideas during their formative years, well, any adherence to those ideas is usually abandoned rather quickly.
Now, we don’t know what kind of person Chris McCandless might have evolved into had he survived, but we do know that he pushed himself during his 24 years while alive. Did he act out of naivety? Perhaps. Was he ill-prepared to handle some of the challenges he faced? Yes. Here I would argue that all of what he experienced in the year and a half before heading to Alaska wrongly informed his perception about his capabilities. Then again, nobody ever acts with perfect knowledge and it’s always possible that pushing yourself leaves you exposed in ways that cannot be anticipated.
Some might argue that this kind of behavior is as arrogant as it is selfish, after all, taking chances that result in death leave others who care about you grief-stricken. I simply reject this claim altogether. I don’t think McCandless sought to cause anyone emotional distress. The way I see it, a person must always be true to him or herself, and it is imperative to live according to your principles. Moreover, if someone experiences a certain restlessness that emanates from the core of his or her being, then it’s important to address those thoughts and feelings – not deny their existence. While I don’t view Chris McCandless as heroic, I believe his motivations were genuine and many of his actions worthy of respect.
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.
