Men

We saw the play Allegiance this spring.  The play is set in one of the prison camps the United States set up to incarcerate Japanese-Americans during World War Two on the basis of race. During the first few minutes of the play, I had to tamp down my anger at this example of unfairness rooted in baseless fear.

At about midpoint of the first act, the lead character, Sam, reflects, in song (because Allegiance is a musical) on what it means to be a man. Toward the end of the second act, he returns with a reprise of the song with an understanding that comes from the events of the play in between.

We people of a certain chromosomal makeup have, over time, heard varying answers to the singer’s question presented to us. Just in my lifetime, philosophers and pundits have been opining regularly about what it means to be a man without any particular success at finding an answer. Not being a woman, I don’t know if that segment of the human race has engaged in the parallel question as much—what does it mean to be a woman—perhaps because they have been so busy multi-tasking., at which, I understand, they excel over men

Rudyard Kipling’s poem, If, might be the most well-known attempt to provide a definition. I was raised on If by a father who subscribed to the validity of many of Kipling’s descriptors: keeping your head, picking yourself up after setbacks, living each moment to its fullest, being courageous.

Sam, the singer in Allegiance, first sang the song in the spirit of Kipling—show you are a man by doing your duty to your country, your country’s unfairness toward you notwithstanding. Only as events unfold does Sam come to realize that another man who suffered the consequences of standing up for what he believed and a third who stood up to authority and was beaten down for it might be fine examples of a man as well.

Here’s a rub: Most every definition of what it means to me a man uses descriptors that would be seen as virtues of a woman as well (absent the Warrior Myth for men and the Weaker-sex nonsense for women).

So, gentlemen, aside from musculature and plumbing, what makes us so special? Aside, of course, from the fact that most of the written history of humankind has been penned by men, mostly about the doings of other men, and that a lion’s share of the advantages in a large number of societies have accrued to men.

Shakespeare gave Hamlet some great lines about men (and women, too) in Act II, Scene II: “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals.”

Of course, he follows with “And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust. Man delights me not nor woman either…”

Now Hamlet was a troubled guy. That gives the play its dramatic tension. But he was clever enough to be brutally ironic, it seems, seeing the potential of man consistently unachieved. They might be able to think and act nobly, but more often than not, they are dust. The paragon of animals has more often been animal than paragon of anything.

It’s not so hard to substitute “woman” in these lines, although it disturbs the rhythm of the poetry, and Hamlet/Shakespeare was not intending to comment on women at this point in the play.

So, if Kipling’s If and Hamlet’s “piece of work” can apply to woman as well, what distinguishes men?

Gender issues are discussed more openly in popular culture these days than when we People of a Certain Age were growing up. About all we had was Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons in 1963 imploring guys to “walk like a man” even as someone else (in this instance, a girl) was spreading rumors about you. (Not bad advice for girls either; would it be “walk like a woman?”)

Gender issues are hard to escape in the media: gender identification, gender-free language, gender-neutral bathrooms. Even the #MeToo movement is, at some level, a clash of gender understandings within our culture.

I am happy to be a Person of a Certain Age when it comes to such matters. I daresay the youth of today are bombarded with myriad conflicting models of what they are supposed to be in order to live up to the ideal of what a man or woman should be.

Should be. Maybe it is time to drop the “should be.” Why not become aspirational and focus on striving to live up to Hamlet’s ideal or understanding that Kipling’s male-centric poem can apply to all people, male or female?

Many schools post their school values in prominent places on campus, things like justice, kindness, generosity of spirit, concern for others. On a recent visit to our collegiate alma mater, UC Riverside, we saw such banners attached to the light poles leading away from the student union.

Many Hawaii schools do the same, only the words are in Hawaiian: pono, malamalama, ha’aheo—acting justly, caring for others, humble pride. These values have no gender.

Daniel E. White

July 22, 2019


Daniel E. White

July 22, 2019

What Would You Give Up

When I was teaching AP U.S. History, I required students to read a short book, Plunkett of Tammany Hall.  George Washington Plunkett worked a ward for the New York City Democratic Party political machine in the latter part of the 19th century and wrote about his experience.

Plunkett described a situation that offered me a chance to engage the students in a conversation about competing values. In brief, there was a fire in a shop over which the owner and his family lived. Everything in the shop and the home was destroyed. The first person on the scene after the fire brigade was the ward boss for the political machine. In short order, he arranged for housing, clothing, furniture and food for the family and a job for the husband until the shop could be repaired.  All the boss asked, Plunkett wrote, was for the man’s vote in elections.

Would that be, I asked the students, a reasonable deal?

Plunkett came to mind when I heard the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, talk with Jimmy Fallon about his military service in Afghanistan. Fallon showed the audience a photograph of Mayor Pete in full combat gear with a group of kids playing in the dirt street.

“The kids were acting like kids, laughing, running, playing.  All their parents really want is a chance to be left alone and live normal lives,” said the mayor.  There used to be a system of warlords in Afghanistan that supplied order and peace for the people, not democratic but generally secure. If the warlords insured people the chance to live normal lives, is that a reasonable deal?

Buttigieg’s observation came the same day candidates for the Senate in the Philippines loyal to President Duterte won all 12 of the seats being contested. Despite Duterte’s willingness to have drug dealers and users shot without the benefit of a trial, his popularity with the people of his country, according to independent polls, stands at 80% approval.

The NPR reporter asked his colleague, a BBC person stationed in the region, to offer explanations for why Duterte remains so popular even when his actions offend the sensibilities of people in other countries, including the United States. The BBC man replied that people were feeling safe on the streets again. Before Duterte came to power, promising to kill the people he seems to be killing, the reporter continued, people believed that drugs—buying, selling, using—were the underlying cause of substantial levels of violence that often endangered innocent people.

For someone living in Manila or some other city in the Philippines, is trading security for Duterte’s rule a reasonable deal?

People of a Certain Age, these examples are not just stories from other times and other places. We face decisions regularly that pose the same question; is that a reasonable deal?

Among myriad political discussions that are derived from false dichotomies, one that poses this question starkly, centers around government regulation. One hears some folks argue against any government regulation, overlooking such obvious regulations as stop signs and speed limits, zoning laws, truth in advertising, standards for clean water and food safety. Government regulation in these instances seems a reasonable deal. My freedom to do some things may reasonably be constrained for a greater good.

The real debate, then, is not about regulation or not, but about what is reasonable. Reasonable people often disagree about what is reasonable. That’s what fuels the political system.

Plunkett describes a trade that many people would consider corrupt; aid and services exchanged for a vote. How does that differ from a government committed to “promote the general welfare,” as the Preamble of the Constitution stipulates, elected to enact policies that support the economic well-being of its citizens?

Duterte promised security. “Common Defense” is another job of government on behalf of its citizens according to the Preamble. He defined an “enemy” and is acting as he said he would to combat that enemy on behalf of the citizenry. The citizens like what he is doing.

It is easy in the abstract to criticize political machines and autocratic leaders. Such criticism would point out that there are no restraints on either. Hence, machines or autocrats could easily move beyond the actions they have taken that seem beneficial to the citizenry to undertake possible actions that would be harmful to the citizenry.

But if you feel unsafe or have lost everything…

The fear of unrestrained power is what animates the idea of democracy, where regular voting is intended as a check on power, not to mention the separation of powers established by the Framers.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand has led the “Christchurch Call” in the wake of the killing in that city. The “Call” is aimed at eliminating violent extremist content from spreading online as happened in the March massacre. The Christian Science Monitor observed that in some parts of the world, such a call would raise issues about freedom of speech.

“In some parts of the world” refers to us in the US. Freedom of speech is enshrined in our history and culture.

Would the regulation Prime Minister Ardern is seeking from governments and social media firms be a reasonable deal?

This Fourth of July, let’s toast a political system where reasonable people can engage in reasonable dialogue about what constitutes reasonable deals. Now, if we could just do so.

Daniel E. White

July 4, 2019

people can engage in reasonable dialogue about what constitutes reasonable deals. Now, if we would just do so.