Category: General

In Praise of the Great Bull Walrus

by Alden Nowlan

I wouldn’t like to be one
of the walrus people
for the rest of my life
but I wish I could spend
one sunny afternoon
lying on the rocks with them.
I suspect it would be similar
to drinking beer in a tavern
that caters to longshoremen
and won’t admit women.
We’d exchange no
cosmic secrets. I’d merely say,
“How yuh doin’ you big old walrus?”
and the nearest of
the walrus people
would answer,
“Me? I’m doin’ great.
How yuh doin’ yourself,
you big old human being, you?”

How good it is to share
the earth with such creatures
and how unthinkable it would have been
to have missed all this
by not being born:
a happy thought, that,
for not being born is
the only tragedy
that we can imagine
but need never fear.

Have you seen the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”? If you haven’t, it would be hard to miss its presence around Christmas time. It has attained the revered status of “Christmas classic”, along with innumerable versions of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol as well as some more modern offerings. For me, “It’s a Wonderful Life” has become a tradition. One way or another, I – and as many family members as I can talk into taking the time (some actually want to join me) – sit down for the annual screening.

While some might be ready to leave Christmas behind for another year, I was reminded of this favourite movie of mine when I attended the funeral of an old friend’s mother this morning. This is a family I have known quite literally since birth so, as you might expect, I’ve always thought I “knew” them.

When the funeral mass was over, a member of the Catholic Women’s League (an organization to which my friend’s mother had belonged for 62 years) came to the lectern and delivered what was, in essence, a very brief eulogy of sorts. It recounted the speaker’s experiences with _____ throughout the years and both the affection and the regard were obvious. I found it quite touching.

And remarkable, in the original sense of the word: deserving notice and worthy of comment. This was a life lived within a circle of family and of friends that might not have gained any universal notice but, to those who knew her, hers was a life well-lived. It involved traits that we value such as loyalty, determination, dedication, good humour, compassion and, ultimately, love. She was a presence in the world to all those who knew her and she will be missed, certainly, but, equally important, she will be remembered with fondness and with love distilled in memory.

I’ve often wondered why “It’s a Wonderful Life” has the power over me that it does. No matter how many times I watch it, it still gets me. George’s struggle with creeping despair, with frustration, with trying to figure out what his life signifies articulates something deeply human for me. I experience a range of emotions while watching but I always end in the same place: grateful to have my chance at living.

We live in an age where “remarkable” has come to mean “outstanding”, and, in order to be outstanding, we need to be noticed, a fact which goes a long way toward explaining why so many “put themselves out there” on the internet. If someone notices, a validation of sorts is gained. If we have enough “likes” for our Facebook post or our tweet we have the proof we need that we matter in an often sterile, digital age.

I feel this funeral I attended provided me with some insight into my love for “It’s a Wonderful Life”. For all that the central character, George Bailey, is remarkable within the context of the movie itself, it is his brother and others who have all the apparent success and renown. George, in many ways insignificant in his own eyes, is anything but for the friends and family who surround him. Similar to my friend’s mother, the most remarkable thing he did was live his life well.

While the details of what that means for the individual are just that – individual, the broad outlines are available to us in many ways: through friends, loved ones and, occasionally, through the “outstanding” who make their presence known in the broader world, to name a few. All of us, though, live most of our lives in the spotlight of those closest to us. Surely, that is the best place to shine.

I wish it were possible to ensure that more people had the opportunity to travel. And I’m not speaking of a winter trip to Florida or the Caribbean: I’m referring to what I would call life-altering travel, the type which can be jarring as you are forced to adapt to customs and practices which are outside your experience. This brand of travel requires that you escape the cocoon of North American reality which comes with so much of what we see on travel websites. When you opt for the cruise or the safari or whatever, chances are the objective will be to retain as many of the comforts to which the average North American with the means to undertake such travel is accustomed.

The stated objective of this blog is to argue repeatedly that things are not as simple as solutions offered in letters to the editor or through protests on any number of issues might indicate. Modern discourse is dominated by “positions”, even as the implications and subtleties in any position are seldom a subject for discussion. If you are branded as anything (think conservative, liberal, radical, misogynist, environmentalist, anything else you might want to label), images exist in the minds of most individuals of what such labels imply, even if no one is in any hurry to define such things explicitly. At some level, most people assume that such definitions are self-evident.

Implicit in such an assumption is the notion that human experience is largely shared; that habits, attitudes, foundational moral principles, etc., are a common heritage. In a certain sense, this might be true. I can’t think of any society which explicitly countenances murder, for example. However, if you are thinking about that statement, I bet you can summon an exception, in the sense that certain factions very obviously believe that killing can be justified. Today, we need only look to Paris for the most recent example.

I’m pointing to that extreme example to make a larger point. This “global village” that we share – and our attitudes toward and assumptions about it – is subject to the same oversimplification that so many things are. Even if we don’t spend a great deal of time articulating it, we all carry an image of reality with us. Currently, that reality seems to be more and more about “us vs. them” in so many arenas. The “us” includes all those perceived elements throughout the world that aspire to become like us: seeking democracy and freedom, wanting business modeled on Western examples, etc. The “them” are all those forces that oppose “us”. Please note that my definitions are necessarily vague. That vagueness embodies the aforementioned oversimplification.

Travel to parts of the world which are decidedly NOT North American, or generally part of the more developed world, reveals that nothing is quite that simple. Whether in Ghana, Thailand, Malaysia, or elsewhere, my personal travel has convinced me that while many parts of the world aspire to our affluence, they are not seeking to become us in any more comprehensive sense. Cultures with values and traditions thousands of years old can hardly be expected to imagine themselves as our poor cousins.

Internalizing this realization can lead to an appreciation of the subtlety inherent in any position or belief. Factionalism is the enemy to my mind. As soon as anyone settles on a fixed position as absolute, thought is banished. Allowing for complexity in virtually anything is the road to an open mind. An adage I’ve developed for myself regarding most things: if it looks simple, I’m pretty sure it’s complex; if it looks complex, I hope you’ve got some time on your hands.

Such a seemingly innocuous question: is there a Santa Claus? Imagine my dismay when I listened to a commentator on CBC parsing the various consequences of not being truthful with your children: will they see their parents as liars? Will they believe that lying is acceptable? Will a moral darkness descend upon their souls and turn them into sociopaths intent on deception, destruction and the downfall of civilization as we know it?

Okay, so the last question is for effect, but I really don’t think it is that much more absurd than the first two. How fragile do we imagine our children to be? Have we forgotten our own childhoods so completely? Is the fact that I don’t quite recall the moment when I learned there wasn’t a Santa Claus proof that I was so traumatized that the memory is forever embedded in my subconscious? Are the harmful effects being felt in ways of which I am unaware?

If you’ve been reading this blog (or if you haven’t), I would refer you to my first post and the two parts that followed where I sought to define the “progressive” mentality, one that I believe is at the core of the “Santa Claus crisis.”

I’m reminded of similar crises over which I have rolled my eyes: fears of allowing children to watch Bugs Bunny cartoons (and Looney Tunes in general) because of the violence; not releasing the original Bambi cartoon because Bambi’s mother dies; discouraging competition in team sports, to name but a few.

All such initiatives arise from a simplified view of the child, a largely mechanistic one, which imagines growing up as the acquisition, by an empty vessel (the child), of a series of desirable conditionings and/or traits that will create “the adult”. As with so many of the tenets of the progressives’ faith, none of this is well-defined but it is implicit in the approach.

So, my parents lied to me: Santa Claus does not exist. Rather than seeing this as some violation of the trust a child should have in adults, why not view it as taking a chance and allowing the child to deal with disappointment and to come to understand the world a little better? Mommy and Daddy were trying to allow for wonder and expectation and the unique joy that comes from watching that wonder unfold in the life of a child. Parents pursuing some kind of selfish agenda at the expense of their child? Oh, c’mon! Can anyone really be serious?

If this segment on CBC is any indication, sadly, the answer is “yes”. Somewhere along the way, over the last twenty or thirty years especially, it seems, the notion has taken hold that children are endlessly impressionable sponges. A child is, in essence, an incomplete human being, completeness being the purview exclusively of the adult, and then only possible if the said adult has been formed according to the vague moral precepts at stake in the Santa Claus dilemma.

This is where the notion of a mechanistic view of humanity is most evident. In my view, children are complete beings at a certain stage of development, a development which is determined by forces too various to mention, many of which are either beyond our control or mysterious in themselves. The mechanistic view imagines a model human being that can be created only through the ongoing adjustment of the unfinished product.

I prefer to believe that Santa Claus serves for wonder, imagination and any number of ineffable things. When the day comes that the truth emerges, the child will be a little older and wiser. Or maybe not. But that’s life.

Life: mysterious, complicated, dynamic and a source of endless wonder. The early experience of that might just be the best Christmas present we can give.

If you are following this blog, here’s a cartoon someone sent me. It’s a break from my rather serious musings. 

At my daughter’s urging (she’s well aware of my concerns and complaints) I watched the 12/08/14 episode of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, specifically a segment where he vilifies the largely “right-wing” media for taking a factual error he made on a previous show and allowing outrage over this mistake to overshadow the larger issues he was attempting to address. While I sympathize with his dilemma, sadly, both Stewart and his show are part of the reason, yet again, for the rush to over-simplification and polarization of opinion, even if Stewart himself might wish it were otherwise.

Specifically, Stewart was calling attention to what many, myself included, believe is the racial profiling and extremity of response evident in a number of widely publicized deaths of young black men at the hands of police in the US. He listed some of the prominent examples and, among the list was one young man who, in fact, had committed a burglary and later died as a result of an overdose, drugs he had consumed before the commission of the crime.

Sadly (but predictably – I think Stewart and I clearly agree on that), the larger issue regarding police and black men was overshadowed entirely by Stewart’s error of including this example with the other, valid ones. Fox News was provided with an opportunity to vilify Stewart for his smugness and his seeming willingness to play loose with the facts if it served his own agenda, the very thing, of course, that Stewart attacks Fox for a great deal of time. The term he coins to describe what he does – “counter-errorism” – is pithy and sure to get a laugh, as indeed it does.

And make no mistake, Stewart’s point is well-taken: we do need to be willing to address the complexities that underlie the apparent injustices and propensity for violence that circle around the dynamics of race and policing in America. Unfortunately, what I believe Stewart himself needs to acknowledge, is the contribution his show makes to the very over-simplification and polarizing which he decries.

In some ways, the problem is not of Stewart’s making – his contributions are inherent in the medium he occupies. How much complexity and subtlety can be built into a 22 minute television show composed of segments that might be 5 minutes long? Further, it doesn’t take viewing many episodes to realize that The Daily Show can be slotted into a very easily identified (yet far from clearly defined) “left-wing” slot.

What makes this especially regrettable is that further viewing reveals that Stewart (and his team of writers, I presume), really does try to play fair. It is not uncommon to see the show reveal the ineptitude and/or hypocrisy of many different players in the public forum. While his general sympathy for President Obama is evident, Obama and his administration can be taken to task if the situation warrants.

That being said, perhaps comedy precludes the possibility of balance. By its very nature, comedy directs its attention to the foibles, failings and absurdities of the human element and the comic attack on all facets of life and society is nothing new. Consider Jonathan Swift as but one example of such efforts in the political realm.

But, today, television largely stifles debate. Secure in our living rooms, we listen and chuckle and nod (at Stewart, Fox News, CNN, CBC or whatever we find most appealing) and then go about our business. We tend to engage with those things which confirm our view of the world. The challenge for Jon Stewart is to find a way to defeat the “us vs them” mentality which has poisoned so much of public discourse. More than confirming our positions, we need avenues that will cause us to recognize and to challenge the assumptions we make about our times, our world and ourselves. The Daily Show can be part of that but it shouldn’t be seen as the lone provider of balance and insight, however much it might be more so than Fox News.

Is there room for nuance? (conclusion)

And so it is, in my estimation, with so many of the tenets of the “progressive” faith. Fracking is bad; the province’s new forestry policy will destroy the forest; “conservative” is tantamount to evil (hence the characterization of Stephen Harper as a dictator and destroyer of the country); all those who agree with us love the earth and embrace common humanity– those who disagree are selfish destroyers of nature, health and the common good.

We hear a great deal these days about polarized opinions and “camps”. In part, I am arguing that such polarization results directly from the over-simplification of complex situations and concerns, an oversimplification that arises when anyone or any group, either formal (e.g., Council of Canadians) or informal (the “progressives” Wente references) imagines that truth can be absolute and that he/she possesses that truth. When I travel between Sussex and Saint John, nailed to a tree I see a sign which captures, perfectly and sadly, that trend: two boxes, one FOR Fracking and one FOR Health, and the viewer is asked to PICK ONE.

Does anyone really believe that the choice is that stark? That absolute? Sadly, it is but one small manifestation of a pervasive phenomenon, one where assertion substitutes for argument, where “yes’ or “no” is the only response we are invited to provide. Chances are a judgment of our moral character may very well be in the balance.

Personally – fracking being but the most current example – I believe taking the time to investigate and to think beyond the confines of a narrow interest is our most important responsibility, both individually and collectively. During my tenure as an MLA, I had the opportunity to ponder issues in considerable depth and I was repeatedly appalled at the oversimplification of complexity that was provided (through commercial media and/or online) and commonly embraced.

Overall, I want to encourage all those with an interest in public policy to avoid the absolute, to embrace nuance and to develop a carefully considered opinion. It will take time and effort – looking beyond the tweet, the headline or the online “study” – but it will be time well spent.

Is there room for nuance? (part two)

By way of an example, inclusion in education illustrates this trend very well indeed. If you are feeling a little wary when I mention this topic, chances are you have seen the derision commonly directed at anyone seeking to qualify, in any way, the orthodox claim that “inclusion is good” or, equally, that “inclusion is working”.

Be assured, I do not desire to undermine the idea. Inclusion’s goal – that all members of society should be given the opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of society – is noble. In fact, I believe that the overly simplistic, ideological approach to this topic (and many others) so common in public discourse these days does a profound disservice to us all; inhibits, in fact, the “adult conversations” (another buzz-phrase we hear frequently) we need to have if the pursuit of this noble goal is to be undertaken to best advantage.

In my recent experience as a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, I have been subjected to the repeated claim that “inclusion is working”. However much I would have liked to qualify and to clarify that statement, I did not truly have the chance because those making the claim had no patience for such things. In this instance, the real question is: what is meant when you say “inclusion is working”?

If all you are considering is operational practice, then, indeed, inclusion is working. All across New Brunswick, children are gathered together in classrooms without regard to anything beyond class size and available space. That is the first and most important requirement of inclusive practice for those whose support is primarily ideological. To clarify, for the ideologue of inclusion, no good can be compared to the simple fact that the child who was once somewhere other than a regular classroom is now IN that regular classroom the entire day (in the most extreme cases, exceptions may be made).

Such a position assumes that physical placement is inherently good, that, in fact, physical presence in a classroom with others is a good BEYOND challenge. And there, for me, is the sad and destructive result of triumphant ideology. Having achieved a simple ideological end, the details are left to those who must deal with the new, inclusive reality on a day-to-day basis, always considering the multitude of other roles, either clear or indistinct, that society imagines the educational system should play.

Ever vigilant and jealously guarding the righteousness of their crusade, the promoters of this particular model of inclusion will offer educational assistants and various theoretical strategies for the “inclusive classroom” as the means whereby inclusion will “work” in the broader sense of not having a negative impact on a classroom in general. The actual situation – the reality, if you will – which necessitates such strategies is never allowed to be challenged. Perhaps the saddest and most perverse manifestation of this thinking comes from Gordon Porter, the “expert” who quarterbacked both the development and the implementation of New Brunswick’s inclusive education policy, who claimed that if inclusive education wasn’t working it had to be the fault of parents or of educators.

Again, to my mind, the parallels with fundamentalist religious thinking are inescapable. Porter’s stance suggests that the theory upon which practice is based is tantamount to a creed, a core statement of faith that cannot be questioned lest one be accused of heresy. While this characterization might seem extreme, once again I would turn to my former colleagues in classrooms across New Brunswick and ask if their reluctance to discuss publicly inclusion and its challenges arises out of a fear of being subjected to a brand of inquisition where their commitment to fairness and to the ethical treatment of all students is called into question.