QOTD (2009-10-05); or, In Which Rousseau Is Relevant to the 21st-Century Political Discourse

My political theory class has been much taken with the fact that it’s hard to grasp Rousseau from a present-day standpoint, and that the politico-social environment in which he was writing is just so radically different from our own. But this passage in the Social Contract stood out to me:

Again, it is true that in such cases it is impossible to be too careful about observing all the formalities required in order to distinguish a regular and legitimate act from a seditious tumult, and the will of an entire people from the clamor of a faction. And it is here above all that one must not grant anything to odious cases except what cannot be refused according to the full rigor of the law…. And it is also from this obligation that the prince derives a great advantage in preserving his power in spite of the people, without anyone being able to say that he has usurped it.

Someone should tell that to the teabaggers (not it!).

QOTD (2009-10-04)

Rousseau, On the Social Contract, Book III, Chapter I:

I am warning the reader that this chapter should be read carefully and that I do not know the art of being clear to those who do not want to be attentive

Dude, he’s totally talking to me. Totally.

This may be the shortest post I’ve ever written.

Things That Are Lost

In my class called American Places, we’re studying four cities: New York, Detroit, San Antonio, Los Angeles. We’re still in New York presently, and this week is 9/11. It is enormously bizarre even so many years later to think that it is no longer possible to study the city without studying what 9/11 did to it.

One of our readings this week is two chapters from a book called After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City, edited by Michael Sorkin and Sharon Zukin. It’s architecture criticism, about the impact of those towers on the skyline and what they symbolized to the people who live and work in the city. For people my age, who don’t remember the city before 2001, the towers seem like an addition, Photoshopped into an old photograph. For anyone older, there is an empty space now, a scar on Lower Manhattan.

I bring this up not to pontificate about something I shouldn’t, not to offer my opinion on a city I have no claim on and can barely understand, but to point out this video:

This video was made sometime in the ’80s—YouTube doesn’t tell me when—and shot by Nelson Sullivan, whose video camera documented bohemian ’80s Village life. And it was shot, YouTube tells me, at the World Trade Center plaza. The World Trade Center is the most obvious thing in that video that no longer exists, but I still couldn’t see it being shot today, no matter the location. The society it imitates, I sense, is probably not quite the same anymore; there’s an element of insider camaraderie that threads throughout all Sullivan’s videos that I, at least, haven’t noticed today. Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough. Maybe I just don’t live in the right neighborhood. But somehow I don’t think that’s the case. Somehow I think things really changed when the century did.

In Angels in America the end of the century and the start of a new millennium is a really big deal. Coping with the meaning of that impending earthquake is the entire point of the play. But when it did come, pedants argued about whether it should be celebrated-and-feared in 2000 or 2001, and it wasn’t till after either of those events that the new millennium slowly started to lurch into gear. George W. Bush was inaugurated. And planes hit the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. And I grew up in a world where camaraderie was shattered, because you didn’t take care of your dying friends and throw parties to stave off the fear of a virus. You took off your shoes for an airport metal detector and you wondered whether it was right to send our soldiers to war.

I survived the transition to the new millennium relatively insulated from its ravages, and it’s only now that I come into sudden visceral contact with its legacy. I’m not quite sure how to look that in the eye, how to work with it or fight it. The fact that I learn about these things in school means the twentieth century is slipping out of our grasp, and it is terrifyingly odd to think that kids in elementary school now saw none of it. And I don’t know what that means, or what our moment now will mean. But I feel as if watching the video above is not like watching older archival footage, because here it is easier to see how quickly time moves. The World Trade Center went up, and then it came crashing down again, and now it is Ground Zero. A non-entity. An emptiness. What are we to assume: that the 20th century was a presence, and the 21st is an absence?

I’m not sure I like that.

I was going to post this in the morning, but I realized it is the kind of thought that can only be timestamped 2:00am.

The Alternate Frenzy and Calm of Routine; or, A Little About My Daily Life

I love term-time, as our neighbors across the Atlantic might call it. In part, I love it precisely because our neighbors across the Atlantic call it that; I have a tendency during term-time to use words like “term-time,” and also to say I run into people “in the staircase,” or—in the manner of a British friend whose phrasing everyone we know seems to have adopted, that I am going to eat dinner “in hall.” “Hall” is a more dignified-sounding way of saying “the dining hall,” but it also seems to better characterize my mealtime pose, the one term-time causes me to adopt. When I was living in DC this summer, I ate a hurried and distracted sandwich at my desk, and then later that day cooked yet another batch of pasta to the strains of NPR’s All Things Considered. When I was spending time with my family, our meals were characterized with only the sorts of in-jokes my family can manage—from the “spy names” we invented and with which we labeled our plastic water cups to some really arcane commentary on Paradise Lost.

But during term-time I spend hours in hall, with a languorousness it’s impossible to manage when my schedule is dependent on my family’s or my employer’s. I arrange my course schedule to ensure I can allow at least two hours a day for lunch, and I’ll sit at one of the long wooden tables my residential college (if I’m feeling particularly Anglophilic, I’ll leave out the oh-so-American “residential” clarification) thought appropriately atmospheric to include in its dining hall. I’ll drink cup after cup of coffee. I’ll read my assigned reading, or a New Yorker, or the school newspaper, or the internet. Sometimes I’ll see my friends and we’ll talk, as we always do, with in-jokes to rival my family’s, though perhaps not quite as absurdly silly as theirs. But it’s also frequent that the hours will slip by alone, and I’ll feel a distinct sense of solitary ownership of my college as I walk forth to the coffee machine, and back to my book, and forth to the coffee machine again. I do the same at dinner—just without the coffee.

In the evenings I come home (sometimes before dinner, sometimes after), and I jog the four flights of stairs—my staircase—to my room over the archway—my archway—where I put on the kettle and make a cup of tea. I read and I drink tea, and I’ll pull up my Baroque station on Pandora. Sometimes I’ll write. I suppose I am the very picture of pretentiousness, but the beauty of term-time is that the routine is utterly my own. I get to structure my day, and my week, so that there is time to spend looking down at the path below my archway, drinking tea, Edith Wharton (or whatever I was assigned in a given week) held open on my lap.

But I don’t get the three days of calm without the four days of frenzy, and so during my four-day week my cheap brown leather shoes pound the sidewalks, my corduroy blazer flaps behind me, and my bookbag slung over my shoulder bangs against the back of my thigh as I trace my habitual paths across campus. It’s classrooms and library and student center and coffeeshop, and it’s scribbling notes in lecture or typing emails while I wait for lecture to begin, and it’s running into friends on the paths of my day and catching up, or just answering questions about the latest queer-related thing I’m planning. And sometimes I’ll get some one-on-one time with a professor; sometimes I’ll have a particularly productive meeting. Sometimes, all too unexpectedly, the frenzy will give way to calm, and I’ll find myself with a half-hour to kill. I curl up in an armchair in the college common room. “I suppose I should use this time to read,” I think to myself, because staying caught up with the page counts is the curse of term-time. And then I nearly make myself late to class, because suddenly I’ve killed an hour.

When I go to an admissions committee meeting, or strategize about campus LGBT activism, or write a piece for a campus publication, I’m part of Princeton. And more often than not, I do shove myself into the fabric of this place. But I suspect I simultaneously live in a mental universe with no resemblance to anyone’s fabric, one wherein tea and hall and staircases blend seamlessly with Allen Ginsberg and The Muppet Show and (when I can bear it) Congressional politics. I was recently accused of not “enjoy[ing] drinking, music, and fun,” and when you’re leveled with such a bizarre accusation, your inclination is to dispute it. But my profound antisociality, my profound Anglophilia, my profound nerdiness, and my profound joy at sitting on my window seat, listening to Bach, and drinking tea probably speak for themselves. For all that I go to Princeton, and care about Princeton, and talk a lot about Princeton, I apparently have dual enrollment with The University in My Head.

The University in My Head (I guess its sweatshirts probably say “UMH”) reminds me of moments from this summer in DC. I spent nine hours a day absorbed in politics and news and finding things to say about them, and in learning how to be a journalist. But it was the times I didn’t have to think about those things that were the most beautiful times: when I plowed through book after book by Edmund White, when I wrote poetry, when I went to the Smithsonian and the National Gallery, when I sat for hours in the coffeeshop the way I do in hall here. If I were aiming for cliché, I guess I’d say that at UMH, it doesn’t have to be October to be term-time.

I guess I’d also tell myself that I also go to a real university, where the reading actually has to be done before next week’s lectures. But that’s okay, because I think I’m discovering how to make from my life my own beauty and joy.

New Feature: Links!

So I know we have the Quote of the Day that doesn’t happen every day. And the two-clause post titles. And the posts that have nothing to do with the link or book or song or whatever that supposedly inspired them. And your twice- or thrice-weekly dose of The Latest Random Fact Related to Gay Male Writers. And Princtoniana ad nauseam. But what we don’t have are links! And lots of them!

Those of you who are my Facebook friends probably get your news feeds inundated with the links I post to Facebook several times a day. But not all of you are my Facebook friends, not all of you use Facebook, some of you probably removed me from your news feeds long ago because of ALL THOSE LINKS, and so every week (or, okay, probably not every week, but when I remember) I’m going to post a round-up of all the links I thought interesting enough to point out over the course of the week, with their original comments included. Without further ado, I present this week’s links!

  • And people wonder why I love the Chronicle Review so very much. Reader, it’s because of things like this.
  • Oh Towleroad. You really know how to write an entertainment headline.
  • I feel like this article isn’t one of the Crimson‘s better products.
  • Yay Canada!
  • Lolz.
  • This is a rather funny article that I would be quite interested to hear thoughts on. I mean, bravo to the BBC for running it, but. Obviously gay men are prone to sexism and misogyny just like anyone is, and historically gay culture has often been quite sexist. But I’d argue that manifests itself in different ways than the ones this article suggests. This article is suggesting that the jokes Norton or the general public make are homophobic, not sexist—at least, that’s my reading. And anti-lesbian homophobia is not something I’ve ever experienced from gay men, so I’m rather surprised to see it raised here. I mean, Graham Norton is also rather ridiculous. Is it specious (my new favorite word) of the Beeb writer to insinuate that he speaks for all gay men?
  • Celebrate Banned Books!
  • This is a bizarre and rather troubling story.
  • YES.
  • I can’t wait for this book!
  • I think this is probably in the top five things I’ve ever read in the Prince. I don’t agree with every word of it, but it’s well-argued and the prose is good. The last sentence especially.
  • Any chance some professor could take up the cause and import this class to Princeton?
  • This is interesting, but I’d add that gender and gender roles play just as important a part as religion. I think there’s a pattern in conservative woman activists of inconsistency between the women’s gender roles they preach and the extent to which they themselves exemplify those gender roles. Phyllis Schlafly is another example that springs to mind.
  • … and at Princeton? This article calls Dartmouth “the conservative Ivy,” but everything about its campus culture suggests that it’s, if not sex-positive, at least much less sex-negative than Princeton’s. At Dartmouth, it seems like sexuality and sex-positivity has a visibility that it simply doesn’t have at Princeton. Happily, there are folks here working to change that. Bit by bit, folks. Bit by bit.
  • Hair is one of my favorite cultural phenomena ever. That said, I think it’s interesting how marriage equality is the new “radical chic.” Do we think that’s what it means to be a hippie or a radical leftist in 2009?
  • This doesn’t sound good…
  • The Princeton crime report is one of my favorite things ever.
  • Can I just say how much I love Big Bird? Also the FLOTUS, but mostly Big Bird.
  • Historiann does a good job of highlighting the interesting passages from the interview in question.
  • This is great—particularly the footnote—and the comments are just as good.
  • Whoa. Oh academic freedom, you are a cruel mistress.
  • Hey check it out: there might be jobs in Australia!
  • I didn’t have the head for numbers to do more than skim this, but maybe some of you do. Thoughts?

Sometimes You Just Have to March

So I went for publicity over dignity and pitched an op-ed to the Daily Princetonian. To my pleasant surprise, they liked my pitch, the editing process was actually quite congenial, and I’m reasonably proud of the result. The article is about why the National Equality March happening in Washington on October 11 is a good thing for LGBT rights and a good thing for college students specifically:

Thanks to civil rights activists working long before any current Princeton undergraduate was born, it is possible for queer youth to live out and proud lives to an extent that it wasn’t 30 years ago. But as long as being LGBT means second-class citizenship, more progress must be made. Some change can be enacted through laws and policy proposals, but broader societal support for those laws and policy proposals is essential if they’re to be effective. And sometimes getting that support really does necessitate marching in the streets.

On Oct. 11, thousands of people who believe in civil rights for all will converge on Washington, D.C. They’re participants in a National Equality March, which will wind its way through downtown Washington and culminate in a rally at the Capitol. The march has one demand — “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, now” — with which it aims to transcend disagreements about which particular aspect of LGBT equality should be the first priority.

Read the rest here.

And then come to the march! There’s a group of us at Princeton getting together a bus to go down to DC, and if you’re a member of the university community who’d like a spot on that bus you should let us know.

In 1965, a group of Princeton students under the auspices of a campus SDS chapter participated in the national anti-Vietnam March on Washington. They carried a banner that read “Even Princeton.” I love this story, because it reminds me that however frustrating this campus climate may seem at times, there’s nothing to stop you from marching for justice and equality and freedom and civil liberties in the name of its students and in the name of students—and all people—everywhere. I’m going to make a sign to carry at the National Equality March that says “Even Princeton,” and I’m going to be proud to represent my community in DC.

(cross-posted)

In Which I Get Defensive About Princeton, Again; or, Ivy League Admissions from Across the Rubicon

I usually think Kevin Carey is really smart and spot-on when it comes to analyzing higher ed policy. And given the poor decisions Harvard has made recently in doing damage control on its endowment losses, I thought I would really appreciate his most recent piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education (you might need to have a subscription/be on a university network to access that link):

Harvard spent the money on many things. But not a dollar went to increasing the number of undergraduates it chose to bless with a Harvard education. In 1990 the university welcomed slightly more than 1,600 students to its freshman class. In 2008, $32-billion later, it enrolled slightly more than 1,600 freshmen.

That is remarkable stinginess. Harvard undergraduate degrees are immensely valuable, conferring a lifetime of social capital and prestige. The university receives many more highly qualified applicants than it chooses to admit. Because the existing class includes underqualified children of legacies, rich people, politicians, celebrities, and others who benefit from the questionable Ivy League admissions process, Harvard could presumably increase the size of its entering class by, say, 50 percent while improving the overall academic quality of the students it admits.

I have my issues with the first paragraph, but I find the second one far more problematic. Carey states as fact that “the existing class includes underqualified children of legacies, rich people, politicians, celebrities, and others who benefit from the questionable Ivy League admissions process.” I know, I know, there’s been bestseller after bestseller that has attempted to demonstrate the extent to which Ivy League admissions are unfair to the earnest but non-connected student who just can’t get into Harvard because s/he doesn’t know people in power. I’m sorry, but that’s just not the case. You have to meet a basic standard of academic competence to be admitted to Harvard. Or Princeton. Or any of their peer institutions. I know, I know, George W. Bush, but since about the late ’80s family connections have begun to be far less of a point on which college admissions turn. If you’re worried about nepotism, you should be taking your concerns to politics or journalism and publishing, not colleges.

One phrase of Carey’s stands out to me—maybe, if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you’ve already figured out which phrase I’m referring to: yes, it’s “underqualified children of legacies.” First of all, that’s not the right phrasing: “legacies” are the children of alumni, so unless Carey’s referring to third-generation admits (and yes, they exist, but are no more dangerous than second-generation ones), he’s at least a little confused. But to make an actual point, alumni children are not de facto less qualified than other admits. In fact, if anything, they are likely to be a very academically well-qualified constituency: their parents received a very high-quality education. They probably went on to become middle-class, if they weren’t already. The children were probably raised with encouragement to academic pursuits. They probably had a certain number of environmental advantages.

You probably know that I’m the child of a Princeton alum. And I find the insinuation that I am less entitled to be here because my mother spent 10 years on this campus pretty insulting, frankly. I wouldn’t have lasted very long here if I couldn’t engage with my professors and my peers on a higher level, and I worked very hard both throughout high school and in the admissions process to get here. I find it very hard to believe that all this places me at some greater advantage, or suggests I’m less qualified to be here, than the kid whose parents also both have graduate degrees, but got them from different universities than mine did. If there’s anything that places me at a disadvantage here at Princeton, it’s the fact that I went to a crappy California public high school with no funding, while some of my peers went to excellent public or private schools. My friends who went to Andover or Exeter or Deerfield, or Stuyvesant or Bronx Science or Boston Latin, or even Princeton High School itself, had a better secondary education than I did. That’s a pretty big leg up. And so we all have our advantages and disadvantages, and we all come here with different skills and weaknesses. But to say that the fact that my mother was here 30 years ago gives me less right to be here today? That’s just plain unfair.

I don’t hide the fact that I’m the child of an alum partly because I don’t believe it’s something of which I should have to be ashamed, but also partly because I think that, now that I’m here—however I got here—it gives me an interesting perspective. Because I know a great deal about my mother’s experience here, I can see the contrast between my Princeton and my mother’s Princeton. I see how, in the intervening 30 years, my Princeton has become much more in-line with modern progressive America. And I see how my mother was a part, however small, in making that the case. If I didn’t want to further that legacy—if I didn’t want to do all I can to make Princeton the best possible social/cultural and academic environment—I wouldn’t think very highly of myself. There’s a way to say “legacy” without ritually spitting over your shoulder. Someone ought to tell Kevin Carey.

On Knowing; or, the NYT Lends Itself to Yet Another Personal Rant

In a sentiment that is hardly unusual, some New York Times readers express surprise that their children and other teenagers they know could possibly have any knowledge of their sexual orientation at such a young age:

My question is about the Q (Questioning) subgroup of L.G.B.T.Q. Youth.

Surely most teens will be in this group at least until they experience a “full” sexual relationship with another person?

[…]

Teen years are so full of doubt and confusion about self and identity. Teens are suggestible, peer pull is strong as is the desire to forge an interesting and individual social identity for themselves.

My concern is for all those teenagers experiencing doubt and sometimes a lot of hidden angst and silent but very real suffering in a world which is incredibly difficult to navigate at their age.

“Don’t worry, they will know if they are gay” is a standard answer. This may be true for adults who have had some experience, but is it really true for many teenagers? It seems too simplistic and inadequate. Any guidance and thoughts would be much appreciated.

I’ve heard this before, of course—I came out for the first time at 14, and over the past few years I’ve heard this many times. I mean, now I’m old enough and enough of a professional queer that folks don’t question the labels I assign myself or allow to be assigned to myself perhaps even as much as they should. But back in early high school, I heard things like this a lot. “You’re too young to know.” “Most teenagers go through a phase of same-sex attraction.” “You’ve never had a relationship.” Well, yes, the last two things were true. But facts B and C do not imply fact A. I don’t see, given the structure of our society, how you can possibly be too young to know.

Our society is very, very clear on what constitutes a normal or normative sexuality. I’m not too long out of high school, and I have friends and a sibling who are still there. I know that when teenagers ask each other “So… who do you like?” they expect you to answer with an opposite-sex name. I know that it is not easy to ask, and then take, a same-sex date to the school dance. I know that there is pressure after pressure, be they from students or parents or teachers or general cultural forces, to define heterosexuality as normal and all other sexualities as abnormal.

And so when you’re different, you know. Believe me. You see it if there is something powerfully and fundamentally (if amorphously) different about the way you interact with people both of the gender to whom you’re supposed to be interacted and the one to whom you’re not. You see it if there is something different about the way you understand and express your own gender. To teenagers, that line is very clear. You know if you’re not like your peers, just like you know when you don’t have the same stuff they do or talk the same way they do or have the same cultural values they do. The lines of difference are very strong in adolescent culture, as are the undercurrents of sexuality. If anything, it is more obvious that your understanding of sexuality is different from your peers, than any other contrast.

Literature shows us this, of course. I’ve read many memoirs—from men, mostly, because that’s what I read, but also because of how adolescent male sexuality is less repressed than and also homoerotic in a different way from female sexuality—in which the writers all say that they knew their queerness from the instant puberty set in. And even if they didn’t know any gay people, or if they were growing up before “gay” became a thing that you could be, they knew there was something different, something strange that made them not like their peers. It’s an undeniable fact of this entire genre, that you start in adolescence with this vague sense of not-belonging and go from there.

I’ve tried on many labels in the past five years. I’ve gone through bisexual and gay and queer and asexual and I don’t know what else. But it’s always been “different” and “other.” And sure, I envy anyone who can make it through adolescence without squirming in desperate confusion when yet another crowd at a lunch table or a birthday party asks, “So… who do you like?” But when you don’t know how to answer that question, or you fear to answer it honestly, you at least know, as I did. And you begin to construct an identity based on that knowledge, however old you are and however much sexual experience you’ve had.

(cross-posted)

QOTD (2009-09-28)

Rousseau, On the Social Contract, trans. Donald A. Cress:

In Europe there is still one country capable of receiving legislation. It is the island of Corsica. The valor and constancy with which this brave people has regained and defended its liberty would well merit having some wise man teaching them how to preserve it. I have a feeling that some day that little island will astonish Europe.

What a delightful non sequitur. Of course, then there was Napoleon, who probably came as close as anyone to putting Corsica on the map.