Tag Archives: culture

Sitting at the Front of the Bus

No, sorry, this isn’t about Rosa Parks, nor is it a riff on the great Otis Redding song, although I listened to his greatest hits this morning. This post is about a far more quotidian subject, namely my daily commute.

Every day I take the express bus downtown to my office. Here in San Francisco, express buses are double-length, with some seats running along the walls and other seats perpendicular to the walls. The first several seats, 10 or so, are all along the walls, and they are all meant to be given up to elderly or handicapped passengers. In fact, a big blue sticker above these seats clearly states that:

Federal law mandates that the front seats of the bus be given up for seniors and persons with disabilities. Please do not sit in those seats if a senior or person with a disability needs a seat.

The express bus is a commuter bus, so there are almost never elderly or handicapped passengers. 99% of the passengers are healthy yuppies heading to work; therefore it would be silly to leave those front seats empty, waiting for some Nana who will never board the bus.

However, I find it interesting that it is nearly always women who sit in these seats. Men will move to the back, standing if the bus is full, rather than sitting in the front seats. Women, on the other hand, often don’t even look to the back; if the front seats are open, they plop their apple-shaped derrieres right down.

I’m not sure of the reason for this disparity, but let me throw out a few possibilities:

  • Women wear high heels and want to sit down as soon as possible
  • Men are afraid of breaking the rules
  • A man knows that if a senior actually boards, he will be expected to give up his seat before a woman, and he doesn’t want to hassle with the mid-ride change
  • Women internalize that one day they will be pregnant, and these seats thus will be reserved for them

Again, nobody is actually taking seats from seniors, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in these front seats, but I find the strong gender difference to be fascinating. Any suggestions?

Seth Rogan and the Mortgage Crisis

Professor Gary Cross, of the University of Pennsylvania, has a new book out, called Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. In it he traces concepts of adult masculinity from Victorian gentlemen to the man in the gray suit of the 1950’s through the deconstruction of tradition in the 1960’s counter culture and culminating in the modern boy-man, exemplified by the genial slackers portrayed by Seth Rogan in virtually every movie he has ever been in.

What does that have to do with the mortgage crisis? I place Professor Cross’ cogent analysis in a broader context of evading responsibility, which has become more and more the American paradigm during the period Dr. Cross analyzes. As men have transitioned from working downtown to getting stoned while they play video games…

….so too Americans have transformed themselves from a thrifty nation of hard workers into a society of debtors who leapt at the “free money” given them by cheap mortgages and (falsely) rising house prices.


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

And while Mr. Rogan’s character in Knocked Up became responsible toward the end of the film, it took the crisis of Katherine Heigl’s pregnancy to force that maturation. In the same way, not until this year’s financial crisis did Americans recognize that they were living beyond their means. They would have continued to toke at the mortgage-backed bong, one hand on the joystick and the other in the Cheetos bag, had not Fannie and Freddie’s financial water suddenly broke, uncomfortably thrusting us all into mandatory adulthood.

Post Scripts

None of this should be taken as an attack on Seth Rogan himself. He is clearly way too busy to actually be a stoned slacker, and I’m sure he now has more than enough money to support several giant mortgages.

Also, lest you think Professor Gary Cross is something of a dilettante, you can download his extensive publication list from the Penn website. Full disclosure, however: he is a fellow graduate of Harvard Divinity School, so I tend to support him.

Politics and Culture, Part 2

Tuesday’s post was about Lee Siegel’s theory that Republicans win by focusing on heartland culture while Democrats waste their time talking about policy. Today’s post addresses what Democrats can do about this problem.

Some of the easiest, fastest responses are tactical. For example, Democrats should divide and conquer: they can discuss policy with standard liberal audiences and talk culture to the heartland. In addition, they should be advancing their own cultural narratives, particularly those that tap into Siegel’s call for “vicariousness.” Show Obama and Biden being regular people: shopping, going to church, driving their kids to soccer practice. Distribute the message via the cultural milieu itself rather than through the media. Have the candidates talk about their personality and their dreams. And Obama, please, lighten up a little. The Democrats should take Spiegel’s trope of “ordeal and humiliation” and use it, playing up their own descent and rebirth narratives. Obama has the single mom/neglectful dad angle, and Biden has his car crash (yes, it’s utterly debased to use it, but his son already opened that door during the convention).

But these tactical moves don’t really turn Siegel’s thesis to our advantage. A larger solution is to emphasize the Democratic culture. Fortunately, that culture actually synchronizes with policy, unlike the Republican culture, which fundamentally conflicts with Republican policy. But what is this Democratic culture, and is it lived like the Republican one?

I posit that the Democratic culture is the culture of the founding fathers, which is so ingrained in the American psyche, so elemental to our identity, that we live it every minute of every day. The Democratic culture is one of equality and opportunity, where people who work hard deserve a better life for themselves, regardless of class, color, creed or gender. This is a culture that takes seriously the words “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Declaration of Independence is one of America’s totemic documents, and I think just as powerful as the Jungian archetype of descent.

For the Democrats, this culture is not a political strategy but the very essence of the party, the manifestation of their values, and thus is inseparable from policy. This is a culture, backed by policy, which favors hard work over family connections. It sides with student loans, not yacht owners; with sick children, not insurance companies; with producers, not paper pushers; with main street, not Wall Street. During a week when financial debacles are destroying value at unprecedented rates, it is worth remembering whose culture, and whose policies, support a market that is free but regulated. Democratic culture lives in churches that help the needy, in safety nets that help the disadvantaged, in methods of supporting families’ choices, and yes, in the ability of a mixed-race man with a single mother to become president.

If indeed people respond more powerfully, more viscerally, to culture than to policies, then let’s talk culture. In both red states and blue states people believe in the culture of forming “a more perfect union,” but only one party includes everyone in that union.  The Democratic culture is built on supporting the average American, on making real a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” so don’t hide that culture – embrace it, spread it, and follow it to victory. Because what’s great here is that Democratic culture can speak to the heartland just as forcefully as the Republican culture can, and the Democrats can back their culture up with policies that reflect and actualize their culture of equality and opportunity.

Many thanks to Septa for her thoughts and edits.

Politics and Culture, Part 1

Cultural critic Lee Siegel wrote a great article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal describing how Republicans created the culture wars and continue to win them because Democrats don’t even understand the game they are playing. I’ll quickly summarize his argument, but strongly encourage you to read the article.

Siegel claims that Republicans view culture as something lived: your religion, your family or your sexual preferences. Liberals look at culture as something separate from daily life, something to be dipped into (e.g. opera), which means that they discuss policies as something distinct from culture. Republicans don’t even need to discuss policies…they just discuss culture, which, because it is personal and emotional, captures people’s hearts in a way that policy cannot. Culture trumps policy. As long as Democrats are talking about economic policies while Republicans are talking about a lived culture, Siegel states, Democrats will lose.

In general, I find Siegel’s argument fairly compelling. It explains why hugely qualified Democrats (Al Gore) lose to clearly unqualified Republicans (George W. Bush).  It helps explain how Bill Clinton (an exceptional Democrat in that he came across as cultural more than policy-driven) beat George H.W. Bush (who was more wonk than culture warrior). It explains the dynamic that Thomas Frank described in What’s the Matter with Kansas. And as a committed liberal, I find Siegel’s piece profoundly disturbing, because the process he describes seems to be getting more and more severe.

However, I am hoping that by unpacking some of Spiegel’s ideas, we might be able to find some ways that Democrats can integrate policy with culture and turn this dynamic to our advantage.

In the article Siegel discusses “contemporary democracy’s leveling maw.” This leveling is a key piece that Siegel touches on repeatedly but rarely addresses explicitly. He talks about how McCain “is not above us,” contrasting that with the three elite intellectuals (Gore, Kerry and Obama) the Democrats have nominated in the last three elections.

He touches on this again by discussing the growth in “vicariousness….We love people who make it possible for us to imagine inhabiting their lives.” He ties this to the growth in memoirs of regular people (e.g. James Frey); we want our lives glamorized just as the authors’ are.

Siegel combines the leveling and the vicariousness to explain Sarah Palin’s appeal. “Gov. Palin’s blatant struggles with inadequacy serve as proof of her potential to lead. She wins the vicariousness sweepstakes hands down.” But is this really where we want America to head? Where a person’s inadequate resume and messy personal life are actually their selling points? This is a problem. I don’t think society wants a race to the bottom, or even the middle, in its leaders. The person running the country should excel, rather than be average.

Finally, Siegel notes that “heartland conservatism” has a trope of “ordeal and humiliation,” in which an authority figure must be humbled before he can lead again. McCain’s torture in a POW camp leaves him pre-humiliated and thus perfectly positioned. This trope fits the classic hero pattern of descent and rebirth, which, as James Frazer and Carl Jung pointed out, is among the most common in human society. Republicans are thus able to take advantage of a very powerful mythology.

Tomorrow: what Democrats can do

Flip-flops and Long Pants

I was driving the other day and saw a woman waiting to cross the street wearing work pants – slacks, or trousers, or whatever you want to call them – with flip-flops.

Her pants were long, so they dragged on the ground as she walked. This is not an uncommon sight; I see a woman similarly dressed several times a day here in downtown San Francisco. I asked my friend Lisa, who was in the car, to explain. “Well, long pants are very stylish for women right now. Of course, they need to be worn with high heels to look right. But high heels usually hurt like hell, so we wear flip-flops to and from work.”

That seemed logical, and Lisa is my definitive source on such matters. “But,” I queried Lisa, “I see that all the time, and it totally frays the pants. What do women do about that?” Lisa looked at me as if I were a moron (not the first time she gave me that pitying look, by the way) and declared “they get new pants.”

I had always been annoyed by the flip-flop with long pant look, but never really knew why. Maybe it was the discordance of combining beach wear with work wear. Maybe I’m just compulsive enough that the dragging hems vexed me. But during my conversation with Lisa, distaste crystallized into theory. I began to see this look as emblematic of something more than just fashion; I saw it embodying a troubling aspect of our society.

Allow me to explain. The woman I saw crossing the street – let’s call her Sarah – wants to be fashionable, so she wears long pants. But long pants demand high heels, which hurt. Yet Sarah wants to be comfortable too, so she switches out the high heels for flip-flops whenever possible. She wants fashion AND comfort. There is a cost to Sarah having her cake and eating it too: frayed pants. But that cost doesn’t faze Sarah, since she can always buy new pants.

Sarah is like America: she wants to look good and feel good, and damn the consequences of having it all. She refuses to suffer even a modicum of discomfort for her style, and solves her dilemma by overspending, throwing away pants that cost more than the entire wardrobe of much of the world.

In many ways beyond fashion, America wants to have it all. We want to drive giant SUVs yet not pay much for gas. We want our taxes cut yet our services increased. We want cheap and easy mortgages yet our bank deposits to be safe. I personally want to date supermodels who are also nuclear physicists. But in each case the reality is that we can’t have it all.

As a final little fillip to this flip-flop entry, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an article on a California legislator who is trying to ban helium-filled mylar balloons because they float away and can short out power lines or kill sea animals who swallow them. The party planning industry is fighting the ban. Says one party planner of her clients: “everybody wants something high-end and glitzy.” Exactly. They want their 10-year old’s birthday party to look like a celebrity wedding, even if it kills a sea otter or two.