While perusing the Winter 2007 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report this past week, a song melody and the words, "number one in America" emerged from the recesses of a memory stored away sometime in the mid-1990s when I picked up a copy of singer-songwriter David Masengill's CD, Coming Up for Air. I knew of his work both from WFUV-FM in New York, and from having seen him perform at the Hudson Valley Writers Center in Sleepy Hollow.
The third song on the disc, "Number One in America," a wonderful almost-eight-minute perspective on race in America, provides some insight into the songwriter's roots in Bristol, Tennessee and among other things, ponders what it will be like when "a black is President." Three of the song's final four stanzas depict a poor white family in a K-Mart on Christmas Eve and what happens when the youngest of three children selects a "black-skinned doll" as her one toy. The first time I heard the song, among some other very powerful images this particular scene riveted my attention. After the fifth (or fifteenth) listening, I wanted to know more about that K-Mart family, and this poem emerged in December 1997:
Everything We Need
(for David Masengill)
Twenty-five windless degrees
allows each miraculous flake
a perpendicular freefall to a
starring role in a white Christmas
Eve, which lets Lawrence leave
his third job four hours early
and thirty-six before he has to
work again.
Uneven crunch of workboot sole on
snow recalls his childhood joy at
snowflakes only visible in amber
glow then fading past the streetlamp's
jurisdiction. He stops,
watches them fall within
the stilled boots' perfect silence,
then turns toward the bus stop.
Aboard, back seat seduction long
gone, he sits behind the driver,
imagines a car and just one job,
checks his pocket for the cash,
rests his hand where he feels it.
Eight familiar stops bring Lynn
aboard, the kids in tow, Larry bouncing,
Lisa glowing with the season: Daddy,
Daddy, Santa Claus is coming! He
smiles, hugs and kisses, feels the
tug of love, the slap of scarcity—
a full heart and thin wallet
competing for his consciousness.
K-Mart looms bright red as they
step down, wish the driver
Merry Christmas, follow the
store's beacon, its promise
of domestic perfection.
Inside, Larry and Lisa dash
toyward, Lynn's reminder lost
in the shopping sprawl: One
each—remember, only one each.
Lawrence marvels at her smile,
tries to return it through his
sense of deficit. It's okay,
she tells him. It's okay with
them; it's okay with me. We
have everything we need.
Larry grabs a basketball,
thirty-five dollars;
Lawrence finds one for
fifteen that Larry likes
as much; Lisa hugs a
twelve-dollar doll, its skin
much darker than her own.
They check both toys for
cracks and blemishes, find
none, pay $28.96; nearsighted
cashier glimpses doll-hugs and
ball-bounces celebrations. Smiles.
I'm sure we have some white dolls left.
Yes, Lynn replies, you do, but
Lisa wants this one. The cashier
shakes her head, says, Kids.
Will there be anything else?
Lawrence wishes he could say yes,
feels Lynn's hand, comfortable
on his arm; gazes at Lisa and Larry,
whose eyes envelop him in their
pure joy; mysterious tears
roll forth and he understands
now that it is okay.
No, he says, we have
everything we need.
From Who Lives Better Than We Do (From the Heart Press, 2001)
Copyright © 1997 by Reggie Marra
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Steroids, Hurricanes and Terrorists: a Systems Approach
As dramatic as the media coverage of George Mitchell's report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball may have been, and as amazing (and understandable) as Commissioner Bud Selig's understated response to the report (and to MLB's ongoing drug crisis) has been, both the media drama and the commissioner's understatement were predictable for anyone who no longer believes that magical wishful thinking is the most effective remedy to the pressing issues of any given day.
Contrasted with cycling's and track and field's fallen heros and heroines, baseball's millionaire gladiators--and I'm writing here about those who actually have used banned substances--will pay ever-so-slightly, if at all, for their transgressions. No Marion Jones hits for them. These men were victimized by a culture and an infrastructure that rendered their behavior unavoidable. They cheated because the environment demanded it.
It was a systemic failure--baseball's failure, the players' union's failure, the teams' failures and the owners' failures. How could anyone expect an individual elite athlete to withstand the pressures that come with the expectations that come with playing baseball in public for lots of money? Those players who don't cheat are the true enigmas--they're the ones who should be investigated. They must be doing something wrong to resist what their counterparts have so readily embraced.
Remember Hurricane Katrina? No one at FEMA, or at any state or local agency did anything wrong (although the poor who insisted on living where a hurricane might hit surely must bear some responsibility). Systemic failure that's still obvious right now in many areas devastated two years ago by that storm again reared it's ugly head. Brownie did a heckuva job, resigned, then pointed out how all the systems failed--except the one that allowed an unqualified individual to head FEMA.
Do you recall September 11, 2001? Then National Security Advisor Rice has made it very clear that, you guessed it, a systemic failure--especially during the Clinton administration--made that day possible, and that she, her boss and their colleagues would have moved heaven and earth to prevent what happened that day had they had better intelligence. According to her, the system dictated that the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" was simply a historical document, and not one that should raise concern about an imminent threat, although she's less clear about what the system had to say about the June CIA communications entitled "Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent" and "Bin Laden and Associates Making Near-Term Threats."
Damn systems, I swear. Responsible for thousands of deaths--allow terrorist attacks, can't provide competent aid in the aftermath of a natural disaster, and now encourage scandal in the national pastime--and all of those traumatic arguments that have already begun among sportscasters and fans.
What's an individual to do? Are there even any individuals left?
When things go wrong, I mean.
Contrasted with cycling's and track and field's fallen heros and heroines, baseball's millionaire gladiators--and I'm writing here about those who actually have used banned substances--will pay ever-so-slightly, if at all, for their transgressions. No Marion Jones hits for them. These men were victimized by a culture and an infrastructure that rendered their behavior unavoidable. They cheated because the environment demanded it.
It was a systemic failure--baseball's failure, the players' union's failure, the teams' failures and the owners' failures. How could anyone expect an individual elite athlete to withstand the pressures that come with the expectations that come with playing baseball in public for lots of money? Those players who don't cheat are the true enigmas--they're the ones who should be investigated. They must be doing something wrong to resist what their counterparts have so readily embraced.
Remember Hurricane Katrina? No one at FEMA, or at any state or local agency did anything wrong (although the poor who insisted on living where a hurricane might hit surely must bear some responsibility). Systemic failure that's still obvious right now in many areas devastated two years ago by that storm again reared it's ugly head. Brownie did a heckuva job, resigned, then pointed out how all the systems failed--except the one that allowed an unqualified individual to head FEMA.
Do you recall September 11, 2001? Then National Security Advisor Rice has made it very clear that, you guessed it, a systemic failure--especially during the Clinton administration--made that day possible, and that she, her boss and their colleagues would have moved heaven and earth to prevent what happened that day had they had better intelligence. According to her, the system dictated that the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" was simply a historical document, and not one that should raise concern about an imminent threat, although she's less clear about what the system had to say about the June CIA communications entitled "Bin Laden Attacks May Be Imminent" and "Bin Laden and Associates Making Near-Term Threats."
Damn systems, I swear. Responsible for thousands of deaths--allow terrorist attacks, can't provide competent aid in the aftermath of a natural disaster, and now encourage scandal in the national pastime--and all of those traumatic arguments that have already begun among sportscasters and fans.
What's an individual to do? Are there even any individuals left?
When things go wrong, I mean.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Cutting Edge (of What, for Whom?)
Almost everywhere we look as we head into the latter stages of the first decade in the 21st century, we find experts on "the cutting edge" of everything from medical technology, human consciousness, sales and marketing, communications, the arts, bathroom remodeling, educational strategies, having it all, and that one missing bit of knowledge that we all need in order to have it all.
Developmental models, including, but not limited to Maslow's work with needs, Kohlberg's and Gilligan's respective research on moral reasoning, Loevinger's and Cook-Greuter's studies of self-identity, Fowler's stages of faith, Graves' work, continued by Beck and Cowan, on values, and Piaget's early work with cognition, begin with a somewhat oblivious creature who has no sense of self, grows into an ego-centric (me!) individual, and then into an ethno- or group-centric (us!) member, and perhaps into a world-centric (all of us!) citizen, followed by a Kosmos-centered (all that is!) Self, at which point everything that arises is the Self.
Each of these researchers studies a different developmental line or intelligence, and employs very specific language for that unique exploration, and their findings uncover anywhere from six to twelve or so levels through which an individual might grow. Don Beck and Chris Cowan assigned colors to designate the levels of values that Graves' research first discovered: Beige, Purple, Red, Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow and Turquoise, the meaning of each not relevant for this discussion (interested readers can refer to the links in the October 9 post on this blog to find out more).
What we find in our "cutting edge" world is that each of these levels or stages of growth has its own cutting edge--essentially, that final series of steps that will give us a taste of the next stage: Purple's cutting edge is a glimpse or taste of Red, Red's is a hint of Blue, and Green's an insight into Yellow. To further complicate matters, each developmental line or intelligence carries its own content, so despite being "hosted" by the same structure of consciousness, the cutting edge of an ego-centric values system is not identical to the cutting edge of an ego-centric self-identity.
All of us, this writer included, recognize a personal cutting edge when we gain insight into something that is new and capable of pushing us to the next stage of our growth, transcending and including the previous stages--even if a million other people on the planet have resided in or even grown past that stage already.
So, beware. When you're presented with a "cutting edge" solution, innovation, gift, tool--anything at all--be sure to explore for whom and of what it is truly an edge.
Developmental models, including, but not limited to Maslow's work with needs, Kohlberg's and Gilligan's respective research on moral reasoning, Loevinger's and Cook-Greuter's studies of self-identity, Fowler's stages of faith, Graves' work, continued by Beck and Cowan, on values, and Piaget's early work with cognition, begin with a somewhat oblivious creature who has no sense of self, grows into an ego-centric (me!) individual, and then into an ethno- or group-centric (us!) member, and perhaps into a world-centric (all of us!) citizen, followed by a Kosmos-centered (all that is!) Self, at which point everything that arises is the Self.
Each of these researchers studies a different developmental line or intelligence, and employs very specific language for that unique exploration, and their findings uncover anywhere from six to twelve or so levels through which an individual might grow. Don Beck and Chris Cowan assigned colors to designate the levels of values that Graves' research first discovered: Beige, Purple, Red, Blue, Orange, Green, Yellow and Turquoise, the meaning of each not relevant for this discussion (interested readers can refer to the links in the October 9 post on this blog to find out more).
What we find in our "cutting edge" world is that each of these levels or stages of growth has its own cutting edge--essentially, that final series of steps that will give us a taste of the next stage: Purple's cutting edge is a glimpse or taste of Red, Red's is a hint of Blue, and Green's an insight into Yellow. To further complicate matters, each developmental line or intelligence carries its own content, so despite being "hosted" by the same structure of consciousness, the cutting edge of an ego-centric values system is not identical to the cutting edge of an ego-centric self-identity.
All of us, this writer included, recognize a personal cutting edge when we gain insight into something that is new and capable of pushing us to the next stage of our growth, transcending and including the previous stages--even if a million other people on the planet have resided in or even grown past that stage already.
So, beware. When you're presented with a "cutting edge" solution, innovation, gift, tool--anything at all--be sure to explore for whom and of what it is truly an edge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
