This world doesn't know what to do with its intelligence.

You keep using that word...

Ponderous parables for pivotal paraboles

Once upon a time, there was a human child who wanted to know the Good.  Being the insufferably inquisitive and rather philosophically minded youth they were, they figured that the problem wasn't so much identifying the Good, (there were already lots of suggested candidates), but rather determining a method by which to validate the Good.  Well, the kid did find a sort of litmus test, a rather radical one at that.

You see, this kid was raised Christian, and so they were already quite familiar with the traditional parables.  In fact, this kid would ultimately go on to endure most of their Confirmation before dropping out at the last moment.   This kid wondered whether they needed religion in order to live and be just, whether the Good was predicated on traditions and consensual wisdom, or whether it had any contingencies at all as alluded by some of its progenitors.

On the way home from elementary school one day, this kid was contemplating hell. You know.  The bad one.  Where one would burn.  Forever.  The kid was already skeptical of the existence of hell, especially since they had already studied how allegorizing hell became a tool of church compliance and coercion from the 15th to the 20th centuries historically and even earlier pre-historically.  As this kid approached the turn in the sidewalk that redirected to their home street, they stopped walking as their reflection shifted to a consideration of Jesus's divine sacrifice, especially the willingness to sacrifice mortal existence.  Within this space of reflection, this kid noted that a morality becomes transcendental in character, relative to Christian systems, the moment the agent has identified a conviction for which they would be willing to sacrifice beyond their mortal existence, assuming the verity of a transcendental existence.  Hell was conceived, or at the very least <used>, as a method of enforcing compliance to an alleged transcendental morality.  However, this threat and its invoked fear are consequential only when one's moral system is subject to and therefore determined (at least in part) by the threat of hell.  The moment you believe in a moral code self-righteously such that you would bear that code in any and all eternities in any and all transcendental existences, this coercive form of Christianity no longer has any power over you.  

Furthermore, this conviction that authentically survived an existential threat of eternal damnation likely comprises or can be characterized by the Good, if we're conceiving the Good as its progenitors did: as a universal, unchanging, and all-encompassing form.  For how could the substance of that imperative be naught but Good for someone to willingly suffer eternally?  If it did not comprise the sum total value of everything they believed and/or assumed to be right or good, would the willingness to suffer eternally be naught but insanity?

In the words that the kid used to articulate this insight at the time, the moment you become "willing to burn in hell for all eternity for what you believe", you become liberated from all preceding and subsequent moral systems.  It's a different kind of freedom.

Although this kid grew up to be relatively agnostic, exercising a reasonable measure of doubt with regards to any kind of afterlife, since that moment, that kid has been relatively fearless.

---

A word has been frequently floating in and out of my reflections as of late: "subsumption."  It seems that every action, resistance, and aspiration to significance supports or is eventually constitutive of a subsumption, a subsuming of the intents and character of the action, resistance, or aspiration into a more general category—notably, in democracies a category generally acquiescing of what people call the "middle class".  Historically, people called this latter process gentrification; i.e. the process of changing the nature of actions and contexts such that they further satisfy the gentry, the traditional middle and upper classes (think "gentlemen" and "gentlewomen").  

I've often attributed this trend to tribalistic exigencies and the dominant classes' exclusive rights to delineate the parameters of signification.  Self-identifying groups of people are naturally inclined to defend and further their common interests.  The middle class emerges as the bulk of the normal distribution of their collective needs and subsequent demands.  Notably, this collective reserves control over signification: the identification, renewal, and creation of significance.  For evidence of this control, look no further than the burgeoning demands and sequitur supplies of popularized formulaic T.V. shows and movies.  Especially in democracies, this dominant group generally dictates which meanings have the most power.

Subsumption, then, presents the means by which the middle class renews its power.  As both the product and producer of subsumptions, the middle class regulates meaning-making and the power (read: significance) of meanings.

I've commented on this Blog before about the cyclical nature of dominance and resistance, especially how both sets of aspirations eventually normalize; i.e., that the status quo/societal homeostasis necessitates their constant renewal.  These days, I would characterize these Sisyphean (r)evolutions as yet other forms of subsumption.

Why does this happen?

Simply, they're engaged in the classical pursuit of meaning and purpose.

On my own permutation of this quest, I infrequently engage in the following thought experiment: if we're trying to identify the most meaningful and significant values—the usual source of purpose—and actions, then start from the opposite.  What is the most meaningless thing a person can believe or do?  I usually turn to expressions like "all tautologies are tautologies."  But even the categorization of expressions of A = A has meaning and significance, especially since the meaningfulness of other expressions of relations hinges on the alleged meaninglessness of simpler expressions.  Maybe it's the void?  It's telling that vacuousness draws from the same etymology as "vacuum."

Or, maybe it's more useful to consider meaninglessness according to its (in)significance.  However, this merely politicizes the question of meaning by evaluating meaning according to its power, as what does "significance" signify?

Logically, if the most meaningless choices, values, and actions were dichotomized, then the most meaningful choices, values, and actions could be characterized as the most exhaustive, unique, and powerful.

Yet, in the endless pursuit of purpose and meaning, a staggering proportion of people find themselves "settling down to start families."  Inhabiting the aforementioned logic of this post, this domestication follows from a subsumption of intents and purposes under a set of generalizable traditions.  But I remain perplexed as to the following: is it not suspect that so many individuals' pursuits of purpose and meaning have been resolved in starting families?  That after millenia of human development, the consistent stopgap for the problem of living with meaning is to furnish the next generation of people who will undoubtedly have the same problem?

Potential vacuousness notwithstanding, even monogamy raises the specter of a failure of the imagination to do something with one's intelligence before or after the status quo.  "Welp, I have run out of ideas.  Might as well chase tail."  

I realize that the more nihilist-leaning among my readers might counter with the axiomatic assumption that existence has only the meaning that we ascribe to it; i.e., there is no guarantee to any inherent purpose or meaning in anything.  But can we not do better?  

Especially when faced with an existential threat?

Obviously the species needs to reproduce itself at some point, but there's a threshold after which existence is merely existed for the sake of existence.

What does it mean to succeed in the midst of global turmoil?  Does it mean the same to you now as it did in September, 2019?

People tend to define success in numbers.  Equity, valuations, and margins.  There are people who I've encountered that I pity every day because the system is so absolutely rigged against them.  I have yet to encounter a "successful" company or personality cult that doesn't have at least 1-2 bodies mortaring its foundations.  I promised myself in the earliest days of my social justice and peace studies course work that I would never slit a single throat, metaphorically or otherwise, to get ahead; I'm increasingly convinced that many of my classmates didn't share that conviction.  The global pandemic just aggravates these moral and integrous discrepancies.

This world doesn't know what to do with its intelligence.  Our public schooling systems in Ontario are about to crumble wholesale because our administrations, among the ministry, school boards, and unions lack the organizational and creative capacity to imagine and to implement a new vision of schooling necessitated by one of the greatest threats of our lifetimes.  Smarts won't save us; they might give us a better way to mitigate the effects and infectivity of this virus, but this is just one relatively benign pathogen.  I predicted at about the age of 16 that antibiotic resistance alone could bring this world to its knees; you don't need to search too deeply into Google to ascertain with relative certainty that this is only the beginning.  

We've survived this long because we've adapted.  The most maladaptive systems will degrade and degenerate as we're witnessing on the daily.  Classists hate change, yet I'm not calling for a "Marxist (r)evolution."  Our systems, starting with our schools, need to refocus and reconstitute their operations in accordance with their long-standing mandates.  

And this stuff aerosols.  For the love of reason, don't pack elementary school students into enclosed spaces with no exit or contingency plan.

I worry that the problem is less about whether we have the collective intellect to survive this, than about whether we have the moral convictions and courage to think laterally and take risks.

Otherwise, private industry is going to take over every failing public system; it was already happening among pre-college schooling in Ontario; this crisis has been an invitation for private schools (especially those structured and equipped for online learning) and for privatized health care to build and to consolidate empires in Canada.  My own school is restructuring in anticipation that publicly schooled students could fall behind their private and home schooled peers by almost a year as of September, 2021.  Theodore Sizer is/would be churning in his grave.

---

"Civilization" is a derivative Anglicization of its root, "cīvis", a rough Latin equivalent to our current word "citizen."  It's legal definition succeeds its essential and primordial meaning of "city-dweller".  Citizen-ship, or the rights and responsibilities inherent to constituting a city, implies higher duties than simply participating in the governance and perpetuity of the polis; thriving usually requires more of us than surviving.  We can still thrive under these conditions, as we should; but we need to commit to this end.  I know it's hard.  My own commitment wavered after March, partly due to my experiences with the bad faith of certain members of the graduate student community of UofT.

But we cannot give up.  Doomscrolling is a deontological necessity, in moderation of course.  Our appreciations for and exhaustive grasping of the significance and consequence of the Good and the right depend in part on our lucidity of the darkness.

This world cannot abide the unwillingness to speak the honest, good faith truth of our experiences, courageously in adversity.  Wisdom cannot be wasted on the wise unwilling or too dispassionate to act Justly when we're on the brink.

Do you really want to be popular?

In memory of those who said unpopular things.

Do YOU really want to be popular?

Well have I got the strategy for you!  It doesn't require money (although that would help), and physical beauty's not requisite.  All you need is the right approach.

---
Storytime.  Last week I attended a Streetlight Manifesto concert with a good friend.  One of the opening acts involved a guy by the name of Dan P.  He's a well-known front-liner for Streetlight and he's great at warming up the crowd.  His strategy, which has occupied my mind since I attended the concert, involves pandering to the audience.  For the market of Toronto, his act involved telling us how nice we are.  People just ate it up.
---

To say that we're terribly vain by nature probably doesn't surprise anyone anymore.  From advertising to live entertainment, people capitalize on this vanity constantly.  People have become so self-absorbed that bringing this to your attention might seem redundant.  But upon significant reflection, I've realized that the success reaped from pandering to people can involve much more than simply telling people what they like to hear.

If you really want to be popular, then give people exactly what they want to see, hear, think, and feel.  Moreover, give them what they need.

People have biases that can be traced to produced and to reproduced value orientations.  In my experience, our civilization is becoming ever more effective at satisfying your values.  To date, we've developed machine learning algorithms that shovel content to you in digital media for your consumption that has been tailored to your needs according to your exact digital footprint.  People are becoming ever more comfortable in their own skin, because companies capitalize on our desires for self-security.

Our world has become a bias confirmation engine with greater sophistication and efficiency every day.  I laughed when I saw this scene from Wall-E, but, the way things are going...

As I said in a caption for my last blog post, "I once told my entire school to never become comfortable."  The staff at my old school including myself were asked by our graduating class for some final advice.  Mine was that comfort sets a limit on your potential.

Growth, like change, is uncomfortable.  And when I say this, I'm not just concerned with the conservatives out there whom feel victimized.  I'm actually more concerned with the self-described radical leftists.  We are all capable of shutting people out if they don't satisfy our biases, whatever they may be.  I've lost friends on Facebook because of this reality in the past (ironically most of whom were social justice and peace studies students).

But I can't stress enough how important it is to maintain a level of uncomfort and the true danger of absolute self-satisfaction.  Absolute comfort creates an absolute stasis.  The internet and its current abuse has undoubtedly contributed to the normalizing of your thoughts and values.  And that's potentially dangerous, for everyone.

My spiritual mentor, one of the few people that I truly look up to, Socrates was famed for his self-affirmed "gadfly" approach to changing society.  He challenged people's conceptions by forcing them to think through their assumptions and beliefs.  He knew that moral education is uncomfortable.  As it should be; it concerns the most important aspects of our lives.  Moral education most often involves suffering ~ that's why we need to be careful as parents and teachers.  The things that we value most can destroy us, and so their deconstruction must be handled with the utmost care.

One of my favorite professors once said that we should "beware of the very notion of the popular teacher."  He had a pretty good argument considering that the most popular teachers tend to ask the least of their students and to do the most to make their students feel comfortable.

In sum, if you really want to be popular, then give people exactly that which satisfies their values.  Even if those values originate from or inculcate fear, hatred, ignorance, isolation, and/or insecurity.  It's that easy.

But considering this reality, and as a wannabe gadfly myself, I would ask you...

Do you REALLY want to be popular?

On appreciation

Christmas Truce of 1914

As the first round of holy-days draw to a close, I'm reminded of all those who could not for diverse trials and tribulations celebrate them with the same warmth and comfort as myself. 

I treasure holidays as an opportunity for reflection: an opportunity to reflect, yet again, on all that I, and my community, take for granted.  Just as consciousness is always becoming, growing, and fostering, so is our understanding of our privileges.  So many of us take for granted the reality that we'll never realize just how much we take for granted.  The wisdom that we know next to nothing will ironically never cease to serve as an impetus and agent in the fostering of new knowledge.

My reflection intensified as some members of my friends and family exchanged racist and homophobic remarks and jokes during one of our gatherings, as I'm sure some of my colleagues and peers may have witnessed with their own friends and families.  My siblings and I were fortunate enough to be gifted with a liberal education that inculcated a relatively greater respect for all human beings regardless of skin colour, ethnicity, gender, and sexual affinity.  An education that itself is often underestimated; one that often contributes to the formation of impossible expectations for those without such an education such as of those making the racist and homophobic comments.  I found myself in a situation where I had ample opportunity to unleash an indignant inclusivist self-righteous fury.  But I didn't.

Because an "indignant inclusivist self-righteous fury" is an oxymoron.  Militancy with regards to inclusivity can be both thoughtless and careless.  As I stated in the forerunner to this blog post

"just as it's easy for the conservative to turn inwards, it's easy for the liberal to turn their back on the conservative.  All you accomplish by turning your back on conservatives is to alienate, victimize, and thus, feed their conservatism even more.  It's easy to mock Tea Partiers, but much more difficult to empathize with them - to invite them to come together for the benefit of all."

All I would have fostered by going on an inclusive offensive was greater defensiveness, more justifications for feelings of victimization, more walls, and ultimately more exclusion.

I find myself cautioning my former classmates and all those involved in the movement for sustainable self-actualization.  We won't win converts to our cause by oppressing them, even if they are in fact ultimately in the wrong.  We'll win converts by fostering their appreciation. 

In one of my more abstract series of posts on this blog, I argued that unity is the way.  In the context of the current post, it's unity between the racists, the homophobes, and those they prejudge and fear, that is the good life for all.  Even the most oppressive human beings on the planet were, and still are, human beings.  Paulo Freire once argued that the oppressed must liberate their oppressors.  I can't imagine a situation in which unleashing a self-righteous fury could be liberating, unless it was truly directed towards unity. 

Education more often than not is simply a call to appreciation.  Whether it's an appreciation of processes, identities, events, ideas, or wisdom, one of our roles as learners and educators is to create appreciation where there was none before.  Just as we'll never realize just how much we take for granted, we'll never appreciate just how much we will never appreciate.  I embrace holidays as an opportunity to grow in appreciation and to slowly foster appreciation in others.

To quote the wisdom of Confucius a second time in this blog, “It is not the failure of others to appreciate your abilities that should trouble you, but rather your failure to appreciate theirs.”

On Methods: How Dialogue will Change the World, Part 1

Statue of Sir John A. MacDonald vandalized, Jan 10, 2013.

I knew my first new post to this blog would have "dialogue" in the title, but my recent struggles to understand and appreciate the Idle No More movement, currently engaged in Canada, galvanized me to broaden this post to discuss "methods" in general.

If I had to pinpoint the one thing that separates myself from almost all my peers currently enrolled in, and graduated from, the Social Justice and Peace Studies (SJPS) program, it would be methods.  In 4 years of study of social justice and peace, rarely if ever did discussions cross the threshold into debating how to actually affect change.  I argued throughout my time in the module, and continue to argue, that this remains one of the greatest failures of the program.  We spent 4 years investigating the superstructure of capitalism, neoliberalism, corporatism, and social injustice, but not once did we discuss the efficiency and ethics of actually doing anything about it.  So in the end, the program pumps out students with an unbridled morality and passion to affect change without the critical thinking, honesty, self-discipline, and understanding to actually wield these gifts effectively.  As a result, they end up perpetrating acts like those in the picture.

I've alluded to the former before, especially in this post: "Vacation"

Rather than reiterate what I've already written, I'd recommend reading from "If what I do is "Serve the Cause," then how do I serve it?" to the end and then come back here.
---
Honestly, I deeply desire to love activists' direct-action approaches.  But every time I come close to supporting such an approach to change, I've always found a lack of discipline or, even worse, a complete absence of self-criticism of methodology.

In fact, my self-criticism of my own methods has lead me to more or less abandon conventional direct-action approaches to change, in part for the reasons in my "Vacation" post, but also due to the experiential nature of reality.  If you haven't already, this post is basically a must-read for this blog: Experientialism - "What is the Matrix?"
---
Experientialism explains how activists participate in a war for peoples' minds, especially at this juncture when most people remain unaware of just how much of an impact their experiences and thus indoctrinations have on their actions and beliefs.  People are fighting for the minds of our children, and even our own minds.  After all, there's an economic interest in doing so - take mass marketing for example.

In this war, direct-action approaches: like waving signs, blocking traffic, and lighting yourself on fire, all have the potential to raise consciousness, and affect change.  However, some methods are more efficient and ethical  than others.
---
Although I may sometimes appear to idolize Socrates, I don't, because in Plato's Republic Socrates recommended that we essentially lie to the masses in order to establish a utopia.  In the context of Ancient Greece: e.g. small agrarian towns and cities, this might have worked, at least temporarily.  But today, this model just isn't feasible.

Rather, I believe the key to a self-actualizing civilization is the truth: the naked honest truth.  We require an education system that aims to make people conscious of the experiential nature of reality: to raise humanity above the war for peoples' minds: to make them conscious of the war itself.  Not to sound cliche, but an indirect goal of mine is to end this war.

And dialogue remains one of the best methods available to investigate and pursue the truth, regardless of whether there actually is one.  I've argued and continue to argue, that dialogue is one of the, if not the best, method of affecting change available, especially when it comes to stimulating conscientization (a critical consciousness for those of you that haven't come across Paulo Friere's works, and those of his interpreters).  
---
This wraps up the introduction and premise of the next post.  I wrote an essay for my Introduction to Curriculum class on dialogue and how it can and will change the world.  Rather than summarize it here, I'm going to publish it in it's entirety in the next post.

"What the [politically correct] is Adam Hill actually trying to do?"

(originally published  Dec. 18, 2012)
This note has been in my drafts for ages.  I started writing it after posting my Statement of Academic Intent.

A recent conversation with some close friends has prompted me to polish and publish it.  As briefly as possible, I'm going to explain the title.
-----------------------------------------
Before I explain "what" I intend to do, I'll explain "why" I intend to do it.

I can still vividly remember my 2nd year Social Justice and Peace Studies class, the Service Learning Project.  After taking on what the professor referred to as "the most challenging" position, I became a co-facilitator at Changing Ways.  I supported a group of men in their development of non-violent approaches to relationship conflict and to accountability.

But that's not important.  What's important was what happened in the actual Service Learning Project classes at King's.  Every class was a seminar with students leading one every week on some topic assigned by the professor or about their placement.  Every sociopolitical problem, every issue brought forward in that class, ultimately resolved in a need for some kind of education or consciousness raising.

Reiterating what I've suggested in many other notes, the world is not what it could be.  Human capacity is far beyond most of our current understandings of what we are and what we can become.  Much of the world is suffering, and not just people in this generation, but potentially people in many generations to follow.  If you want a further explanation of the former, I laid it out here.

What's more, we have the means available to reach our full potential as a species, education or, more specifically, edification.  And we have the institutional structures at our fingertips to affect it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this brings me to the "what."

Well, I'll start from my incendiary statement that I made almost 1 year ago: "[politically correct] it - M.Ed. then march on high school - The greatest tragedy of modern civilization is that we put a price tag on edification."  That statement preempts how I will become a teacher, in order to become an effective administrator, in order to eventually become a part of education governance.

To the best of my abilities, I will reform the public education system.  I know that to many educators, this sounds very cliche.  But it's the best method I've encountered to do what my profile has stated for years, that of "expanding my consciousness and the consciousness of others as fast and efficiently as possible in order to bring about sustainable sustenance and self-actualization for all life and all life not yet lived."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The what inevitably leads into the "how," and the how is more complicated.

As I stated to my friends, in order to create systemic change in a democracy, you have to convince the public.  I've experienced many different initiatives that aspire to do just this, including one of my own, Students Teaching Students.  The trick, and ultimate paradox, to convincing the public is to make them value the best education system possible, before they have the experiences necessary to value it.  But this paradox can be overcome; there's mountains of evidence.  Take the expansion of public education to this day.  Back in the early 19th century, most people thought universal primary education in the West would be an impossible feat.  Guess what?

In other words, we're already on the way to this "New World Order," to use a phrase that will get conspiracy theorists wringing their hands.  But there's many ways each individual can contribute to it.  And to my knowledge, to this day, reforming the education system remains the best method available to achieve it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy to hear alternatives, and until I hear a better one, look for me in our schools and eventually in the Ministry of Education.

On freedom of speech

(originally published Nov. 14, 2012)
Rather than paraphrase my old professor, I'm opening this note by suggesting you read his blog post to get a background in what I have to say, because rather than repeat him, I'm going to build on his words.  http://measureofdoubt.blogspot.ca/2010/03/coulter.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well everyone, unsurprisingly, we did it again: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/13/fordham-college-republicans-rescind-invitation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excuse me if I end up sounding prophetic - I have an enormous personal investment in what follows*

Since the emergence of the earliest democracies, dialogue has played a vital role in shaping and facilitating our existences.  The essential role of free and open dialogue in political culture cannot be underscored enough.  Without it, power will inevitably shift from the hands of the many to the few, and eventually, the one.

As such, in order for democracies to function effectively, dialogue must be free from repression.  It is the former necessity that has manifested in rights codes and constitutions globally that have enshrined laws that protect freedom of speech.

There is no greater threat to human and global development than repression.  It has been wielded by every institution from the church to totalitarian dictatorships in order to consolidate power through the disempowerment of the masses.  "Knowledge is power" in every sense of the phrase.

Let me make myself clear - I am no libertarian - but when we accuse another individual or group of hate speech, we are participating in this repression.  There is no greater hypocrisy, especially, no greater threat to our species and the planet, than when those claiming to represent the politically Left repress those they don't agree with, because they don't share their values.  These same people preach unity, yet aren't prepared to dialogue.  They preach equity, yet won't share their liberty.  They preach progress, yet refuse to move forward together.

How  can they ever hope to create real change, if they're unprepared to have a free, open, and respectful dialogue with everyone?  Is this not the foundation of a real effective democracy?

"Hate-speech" represents one of the immediate counters to my former line of argument, which my professor also addressed.  There are very few people in this world who maliciously assault others for no reason at all.  As I've argued in my other notes, we usually act in such a way to protect or enact our values.  Therefore, hate-speech is rarely a thing in itself: i.e. people don't just hate on other people for the sake of doing so.  They do it because some one or group's behavior or way of life threatens their own.  Hate-speech then, is not what most believe it to be: an objective moral judgement, but is simply a situational perspective.  Accusations of hate-speech represent one of the ultimate forms of repression, because those who would accuse others of "hate-speech" most often do so self-righteously.  In reality, they're doing more harm to progress and the planet than good.  As Robert Bolt's Thomas More pleaded, "give the Devil benefit of law, for [your] own safety's sake!"

Barack Obama (or possibly his speech writers) put it succinctly, "The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech."

"Vacation"

(originally published  Aug. 8, 2012)
I've been ruminating as to whether or not to write this note for the past several months, ever since my "vacation" to Cuba over reading week for my brother's wedding. Today marks the end of a two week forced "vacation" to my hometown during which this note came to mind again.  I hope the following will help explain why I place vacation in quotation marks on paper and in my mind, then, and now.

Every once in a while, some unwittingly brave soul asks me the same question they'd ask anyone they'd met for the first time: "what do you do?"  My first reflex is usually to wince in my mind as I reflect on the high value the denizens of Western culture place on what we do (or more specifically: how we make money) rather than on who, what, or how we are.  My response, the same response I've given for the past 6 or so years, would be, in some form or another "I serve the Cause."

Over time I've adopted the word, Cause, to express what I do on a day to day basis without alienating those closest to me.

What do I mean by "Cause"?

By Cause I refer to my single overriding objective of making the world better than it is, and hopefully, the best it can be.  Coming from a Social Justice and Peace Studies background, one might expect that my former class mates would instantly understand what I meant when I used the word cause in association with what we do.  However, this is not so.  Most of my friends and acquaintances from school interpret the Cause as an ends of environmental sustainability, and/or global equality, recognition of the inherent dignity of life, etc.  Even together, these goals are merely shadows of the true Cause.  It's one thing to make the world sustainable or liveable; it's another altogether to make it good.

It's probably easiest to express the substance of the Cause through an explanation of what the world would look like if it is actualized.

If the Cause is served, people will no longer be the objects of sophists; they'll be subjects of critical thought.
If the Cause is served, sacrifice will no longer be a requirement for happiness.
And if the Cause is served, the wise will no longer regret bringing new life into this world, but treasure its genesis more than their own.

In sum, to aspire to the Cause is to pursue the best for humanity and the planet - not just environmental sustainability or protection of inherent and inalienable human rights.

---------------------------------------------------

If what I do is "Serve the Cause," then how do I serve it?

I'd argue that we can, and do, serve the Cause in many ways at many different times throughout our lives.
Maintaining the former sentiment put me at odds with many of my class mates.  Many of my peers would claim that the only way to serve it, or to serve even a shadow of the Cause, is by waving a sign, getting arrested for civil disobedience, or shouting through a megaphone.  I've even had class mates go so far as to claim that I have no idea what social justice is.  Look people, anyone can serve the planet, even working day to day - it depends on what they do at work and how they spend their money/leisure.
Along with other students, I've even ended up at odds with one of my favorite professors with regards to how best to affect change.  Every year while I worked/mostly volunteered at the Center for Social Concern he asked me to go to the School of Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, and every year I turned the offer down for the same reasons:

First off, I already have the morality that I'd develop out of the experiences I'd have at Fort Benning.
Secondly, there are far more efficient and effective ways to minimize American "neo-imperialism" and militarism in Latin America than to put crosses in a fence.

I highlight my refusal to participate in the SOA because participation in this event exemplifies the main barriers that afflict the efforts of many modern activists.  I find that most self-proclaimed activists struggle with two obstacles:

1)  A weak vision, or at least weak goals.
Most activists set the bar relatively low, and in doing so, handicap their efforts.  Let's be serious, no one can eliminate poverty by itself.  Setting the relative nature of poverty aside, (for the sake of this note, let's define poverty as absolute poverty), it cannot be overcome until we overcome all the issues that feed into it, such as conservatism, racism, and patriarchy.  This same systemic nature applies to basically every cause worthy of the title "social issue," including homophobia, food security, cosmopolitanism/sovereigntism, etc.  Activists often willingly drown themselves in a struggle without acknowledging the connection of their struggle to various other causes.  Honestly, even though "their hearts are in the right place," they're merely wasting time and energy, especially in light of the big picture and thus the available alternatives.
In most cases, a grand vision of change would be dismissed as just that: grand.  However, I think in this one case: the betterment of our world, it's beneficial to go all or nothing.  Due to the systemic nature of social problems, they are best overcome systemically, which means targeting the entire system is often the most desirable form of activism available.  Of course, by systems, I'm mostly referring to our institutions: the behavioral modifying engines that organize our society.
I sometimes scoff to myself when activists claim they're raising consciousness (and by one of the better means at that) by waving a sign, when we have this giant institution that we pour billions of public dollars into each year called public schooling.  To claim that waving a sign is the best means available to bring systemic change is be ignorant of the systemic nature of our society and subsequently its institutional foundations.  You want change?  Institutionalize it!  I can't stress this enough.  Human beings didn't have "rights" until they were enshrined in law and enforced by a public security - what are all these beings but institutions -

And this brings me to the second barrier...

2)  Short-sightedness.
Most modern activists are looking for short-term solutions to long time coming, complex, problems.  Anyone that's even grazed a Western Civ text book would understand it took us an incredibly long time to get where we are, and that where we are after all this time isn't much further than where we were anyways - exhibit Ancient Greece.
As an amateur historian, I can almost promise you that revolution is a neat in theory, but never truly happens in practice.

System wide change can and will occur the same way it always has: gradually, like a slinky.  Our best bet as activists is to harness our institutions and strive for quicker long-term change.

All this to say, most likely the greatest activists you've ever encountered, you didn't even realize were activists.  This relatively new breed of activists never asks for or expects thanks, because those they aid almost always belong to the future.

In reality, I'll probably never go on "Vacation," because to me the Cause is always right in front of my eyes.  It's not limited to the sites of protest and civil disobedience.  It's on the sports fields and in the class rooms of our children.  It's in the hearts and minds of those who care.  The Cause is everyone, everywhere.

On Women and Visual Culture

(originally published May 8, 2012)
Allow me to preface this short essay by stating that I am no expert on gender, women's, or feminist studies.  I've studied feminist historical disciplinary methodology for a term last year in my course at Brussia, Elizabeth: The Virgin Queen. I also took a North American Women's History course at main over both previous terms.  In both these classes, I was understandably the only guy.

I've always been fascinated by women, due to both previous sexual attraction as well as my general appreciation of humanity.  For a while in high school I was even a bit of a "man whore."

As a Social Justice and Peace Studies (SJPS) student, I had some exposure to the academic study of women, gender, and feminism because arguably 1/5 of SJPS is women's studies.  This reality is a result of the values proselytized in the program as well as the gender break down of most SJPS classes.  All compulsory classes I took in SJPS had at least 4 females for every male.
---------------------
In sum, I'm used to being surrounded by women in almost all my undergraduate classes.  Under such circumstances, I find myself on edge every time a discussion makes its way to an evaluation of the status, identity, or actions of women.  In a discussion of Elizabeth I's political prowess, especially her inability to reign in much of the male English nobility, I found myself chanting in my head: "I'm walking on egg shells, woh-oh" to the tune of Katrina and the Wave's I'm Walking on Sunshine.

In fact, I've desired to write this Facebook note for a while, I just lacked the courage and the balls.  Now I just don't give a damn.

I've set this note aside to discuss Women and Visual Culture.  Why?  They're symbiotic - interdependent.  Visual culture shapes the feelings and actions of many women.  Many women value the visual (being seen and seeing) above and beyond all their other values - even they're own lives occasionally.

The evidence of this relationship between women and visual culture is everywhere.  Much of women's self-worth is based on what they think other people think about how they look.  That's why much of society has taken to consistently reassuring women that they are aesthetically pleasing.  If certain women don't have this reassurance, they feel "valueless" and turn to coping methods, such as drugs, anorexia, bulimia, and even deliberate self-harm.

For far too many women, how they think they look negatively affects how they feel. Now, this is not to say that this  relationship is exclusive to women.  Of course most men care how they look, but this value is no where near as high a value for men as it is for many women.
---------------------
Women's relationship with visual culture is extraordinary in its lack of documentation.  In an entire year of study of North American Women's History, we never once touched the topic of women's relationship with the visual.  I - as the only guy - had a unique sensitivity to this relationship - I think most women take it for granted.  For example, my self-proclaimed radical feminist professor wore (extensive?) make-up to every class - and never once talked about it.

I believe people need to talk about this.  Especially academics.

I write this note, because I'm a bit disgusted by many of my female friends' and acquaintances' wide-spread use of the term "free spirit" when describing their female peers' actions.  As with arguing with defenders of free will, my first question to those using this description would be "Free from what?"  Many of these same women would be quick to respond "free from patriarchy," or "free from gendered stereotypes."  How can you be free from patriarchy or gendered stereotypes if you submit to male demands for you to look and, by consequence of values, feel, a certain way?  I'm sorry, but this is hypocrisy of a high order.

[February 2021 addendum: I don't edit these posts in order to preserve my development as a writer.  However, the above paragraph merits some clarification.  A few amazing women with whom I grew up were kicked out of their homes/disowned from their families for being bi, gay, or even non-binary.  Members of my community most often referred to these young women by the label "free spirit."  My anger when I wrote the above paragraph could be attributed in part to my witnessing the appropriation of that term.  It takes guts to be true to yourself despite your family, friends, and community.]

The professor for my North American Women's History class once stated that women, when it comes to heterosexual relationships, "have the choice between being right and being happy."  She argued that as an outspoken feminist she had to give in a little in order to be happy in her personal life.  I'm sorry, but I'll never be happy if I know I'm wrong.
---------------------
Due to the nature of women's relationship with visual culture, there's a plethora of relevant images I could attach to this note: from magazine covers, to weight loss ads, to wedding pictures (weddings representing the arguable apotheosis of this relationship).  Here's a few. [top]

What I learned from 4 years of Social Justice and Peace Studies

(originally published March 30, 2012)
As today was my last SJPS class of my undergraduate career, (because next Friday is Good Friday) I felt compelled to write a Facebook note to consolidate and commemorate my 4-year exploration of social (in)justice and peace.

I'll always remember my first SJPS class.  I had professor [anonymous].  Like most introductory liberal arts courses, it was lecture-based with short tutorials. In the lecture, [anonymous] broke down the roots of classical liberalism and therefore the ideological roots of modern Neoliberalism.  [anonymous] divided classical liberalism into four parts: self-interest, individuality, merit, and equality.

It's ironic, by the end of the SJPS program, it's kind of accepted that you despise, or at least are highly critical of neoliberalism, (as evinced by the exam question I just answered two weeks ago regarding the architecture of the neoliberalist agenda).  Yet none of my professors ever took their contempt, or at least their criticisms of this ideology, to its logical conclusions.

What does a rejection of neoliberalism really mean? and what does this rejection require?
Lets start by deconstructing its four pillars.

---Self-interest---
Since neoliberalism is often interpreted as one of the roots of social injustice, then its ideological opposite must be just.  As such, if one rejects self-interest, they must value selflessness.
---Individuality---
Continuing this line of reasoning, a rejection of neoliberalism must include a rejection of individuality.  What does a denial of individuality look like?  An acceptance of the community.  A rejection of neoliberalism requires a glorification or at least a valuing of the community over the individual.
---Merit---
This one's more complicated.  The literal opposite of merit would be the devaluing of the process of rewarding good behavior, i.e. the glorification of bad behaviour.  Therefore, I think it would be truer to reality to describe the opposite of merit as simply the absence of merit.  One way of enacting the opposite of merit would be to value excellence for excellence's sake, not a reward.  (I couldn't find an antonym for merit --- to my knowledge, there's no word for the absence of reward systems)
---Equality---
Let me be frank, most SJPSers do not reject equality.  The literal opposite of equality would, of course, be inequality, but I promise you, no one I've encountered in my program is arguing for inequality, even when they claim to reject Neoliberalism.  If anything, this is the only pillar that most SJPSers do not contest.  [edit as of Nov. 26 2013: SJPSers value equity over equality.  Equality is where everyone is treated the same.  Equity is where everyone gets what they need.]

So based on a deconstruction of its contentious pillars, here's what a rejection of neoliberalism looks like:
a rejection of neoliberalism requires the glorification of selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of meritocracy (meritocracy being the "rule of merit").

See where I'm going with this yet?
What sociopoliticoeconomic model is based on selflessness, community, equity, and the absence of reward systems?

Communism.

Not Soviet communism, not Maoist Communism, not North Korean communism, not even Latin American communism.
Old-school, Marxian and Engelian 'Communist Manifesto' communism.

In my four years of undergraduate Social Justice and Peace Studies, no one dared drop the "C" word.  Instead, it was always more politically correct to call it "Socialism."
There's a good reason for this linguistic subterfuge.  The word communism was completely bastardized in the 20th century by regimes claiming to be communist even though they probably never actually read Marx (Granted, I could barely claim to have "read Marx" myself as Marx wrote countless volumes of material that incorporated his perspective on just about everything relevant to his age).

Believe me, Marx never EVER even suggested that a communist revolution should end in a dictator: even a temporary dictatorship. He always argued that communism would come about by a collapse of capitalism. Marx framed his desired sociopoliticoeconomic system as a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (of the common/working class person) specifically to accentuate the absence of any centralized authority, especially the centralization of authority in an individual.  As my close friends have heard me say time and again, a communist-dictatorship is a an oxymoron: it is a complete contradiction of terms from a Marxian perspective.
---
To be honest, I'm slightly outraged when reflecting on my four years of Social Justice an Peace studies, because no one ever had the balls (or ovaries) to be honest about what we were actually talking about/advocating for, all along.  I know there's politics involved, i.e. the politics of this college being Catholic with a mandate to respect "Catholic Values."  I've been exposed to these politics for years: I've worked for the coordinator of the program for 6 terms and he happens to be passionately pro-Palestinian - which doesn't fly so well at the college.

But honestly, we're talking about the future of the planet.  Today we watched a video that explored the current success of "socialist" regimes in Latin America.  It's like it's so obvious, yet no one is prepared to have the conversation.  Seriously though, what negative consequences could there be for a system based on selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization?

Let me put it this way.  One fear many people share with regards to communism is its implied threat to religion.  Marx may have had his misgivings with the church... but so do actual Catholics today.  I know most Christian moderate Republican business leaders may wince when I say this, but Jesus was a communist.  He believed in selflessness, community, equity, and self-actualization.

Religion and democracy do not contradict communism.  Hello Latin America.  People seem to forget that communism was framed as the literal rule of the people (especially the common people) for the people.
---
But, I also know we're not ready to make the move to communism either, at least not yet.
Communism requires a significant shift in general societal values in order to be successful.  And more importantly, I've learned in the last four years that any successful communist revolution would require significant human capital.  I truly believe, as I'm writing in my final essay for SJPS, that this revolution will not occur in the way Marx argued: that is, a revolution from the bottom.  Rather, I believe the precursor to a communist utopia is a revolution from the top.  Specifically, an intellectual revolution.
Why an "intellectual revolution"?
We will require significant human capital including such skills like empathy in order for individuals to value the lives of others over their own.  They also need to value, and therefore understand, community - and not just community within their nuclear family - I'm talking cosmopolitanism.  Finally, they'll need to be able to self-actualize and thus find their happiness in this new reality, which may be the hardest change of all.  Many of us have made and continue to make great strides towards this new world, but it can't be rushed or it will fail.  In the end, people have to choose it, on their own terms.

I realize I've detracted from my original focus for this note and I don't know where to end it.  Hope you enjoyed my rant.  I couldn't find a picture that captured the meaning of this rant... and apparently Facebook's note application doesn't like my dancing Kirby emoticons - or any emoticon for that matter.  So imagine your own relative picture.