Monday, January 09, 2006

wrr: old mole underground


What is this “old mole,” and how can a mole root down a mountain? We can trace the figure of the “old mole” back to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In the first act, the ghost of Hamlet’s father speaks from beneath the ground (or beneath the stage), following and echoing Hamlet’s demand that his comrades keep secret what they’ve seen. In reaction to the ghost’s pursuit and speech, Hamlet says, Well said, old mole! canst work i' the earth so fast? / A worthy pioneer!”

The phrase was taken up by Hegel, in his lectures on the history of philosophy, where he substitutes the spirit of the times –or Spirit, with a capital S—for the spirit of the ghost. He says Spirit is “inwardly working ever forward (as when Hamlet says of the ghost of his father, “Well said, old mole! canst work i' the ground so fast?”) until grown strong in itself it bursts asunder the crust of earth which divided it from the sun, its Notion, so that the earth crumbles away.”

Karl Marx, of course, cared more for the earth than for its crumbling, and famously inverts Hegel’s idealism. In an afterword to the first volume of Capital, discussing “the mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands,” Marx observes that “With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.” So Marx’s old mole is not the Spirit that speaks, but the Revolution that grubs, that burrows, digs, undermines, or agitates.

In an 1856 speech in honor of the anniversary of the Chartist People’s Paper, Marx said, “In the signs that bewilder the middle class, the aristocracy, and the poor prophets of regression, we do recognize our brave friend, Robin Goodfellow, the old mole that can work in the earth so fast, that worthy pioneer — the Revolution.”

But what has a mole in common with a pioneer? Both, as it turns out, are terms drawn from mining. A mole is a person who works underground or a machine used for tunneling, and a pioneer is an old word for a miner.

Miners have been in the news recently, among the latest victims of the transfer of resources from workers to capital.

Pierre Tristam on Commondreams.org, notes that
“In its crudest but truest terms, the West Virginia mining tragedy . . . is an example of corporate dividends at the expense of workers’ safety. . . . the mine in Sago, W.Va., was a documented disaster zone of safety infractions. . . . But [few make that connection] between the cost of true safety in day-to-day, working America — in the workplace anywhere, in the mines, in the meat-packing plants, in the rail yards — and the cost of corporate corner-cutting in the name of shareholder demands. In all, 5,703 people were killed in job-related accidents in 2004 [the last year for which figures are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics] [and (58 of [those died] in West Virginia). It takes money to pay for government inspectors of workplaces. It takes money and commitment to make the federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) be more than a wrist-slapper. But the Bush administration despises regulatory agencies like OSHA and sister agencies like the Mine Safety and Health Administration (to say nothing of the Environmental Protection Agency). It starves them of money and authority, enabling companies working under them to snub their noses at them.

In 2004 eight workers at the Sago mine in West Virginia were injured badly enough to be kept off the job for at least a year. The entire year, the company sustained $9,515 in fines. . . . They call that safety regulation. It’s as toothless as a dentured crash-test dummy. The bottom line isn’t safety. It isn’t keeping Americans secure in their job. It isn’t doing what it takes to hold employers accountable for workplace safety. The bottom line is the bottom line. . . . the West Virginia mining tragedy is a parable of Homeland Security America.”

That transfer of resources form poor to rich has been going on a long time (it’s currently known as capitalism), but it’s been accelerated in recent years.

The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy recently found that in 2004 the ratio of C.E.O. pay to worker pay at large companies has grown to 431 to 1. If the minimum wage had advanced at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would be $23.03 an hour instead of $5.15.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, of Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, $578 billion or 33% went to the top 1% of income earners, while the top 20% of income earners received 71% of all

Henry Giroux, in a recent essay on dissidentvoice.org, puts these economic developments in a broader context. He traces a series of authoritarian developments, including market fundamentalism, religious fundamentalism, attacks on critical education, and rising militarism, Giroux writes,

“Recent revelations in the New York Times about the Bush administration’s decision to allow the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without first obtaining warrants, the Washington Post disclosure of the chain of secret CIA torture prisons around the world, and the ongoing stories about widespread abuse and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan are just some of the elements in the popular press that point to a growing authoritarianism in American life. The government, as many . . . critics . . . have pointed out, is now in the hands of extremists who have shredded civil liberties, lied to the American public to legitimate sending young American troops to Iraq, alienated most of the international community with a blatant exercise of arrogant power, tarnished the highest offices of government with unsavory corporate alliances, used political power to unabashedly pursue legislative polices that favor the rich and punish the poor, and disabled those public spheres not governed by the logic of the market. Closer to home, a silent war is being waged against poor young people and people of color who are either being warehoused in substandard schools or incarcerated at alarming rates. Academic freedom is increasingly under attack, homophobia has become the poster-ideology of the Republican Party, war and warriors have become the most endearing models of national greatness, and a full-fledged assault on women’s reproductive rights is being championed by Bush’s evangelical supporters -- most evident in Bush’s recent Supreme Court appointment and nominee. While people of color, the poor, youth, the middle class, the elderly, gays, and women are being attacked, the current administration is supporting a campaign to collapse the boundaries between the church and state.”

Giroux doesn’t make the point, though we might, that fascism is arguably a sign of the disintegration of the capitalist system. But he does argue for the importance of critical education in responding to the authoritarian challenges to bourgeois democracy. Giroux argues that “Education is the terrain where consciousness is shaped . . . and the capacity for self-reflection and social change is nurtured and produced. . . .” He acknowledges that “Changing consciousness is not the same as altering the institutional basis of oppression,” but stresses that “at the same time institutional reform cannot take place without a change in consciousness capable of recognizing the very need for such reform or the need to reinvent the conditions and practices that make it possible. . . . Fortunately, power is never completely on the side of domination, religious fanaticism, or political corruption.”

If the Sago miners are the latest in the flock of canaries in the coal mine of capitalism, we need to educate ourselves and each other to interpret the “the signs that bewilder the middle class, the aristocracy, and the poor prophets of regression.”

Here’s one last bit of mole trivia for the day: a group of moles is known as not a flock or a pride but a labour.

The labor of moles on the Old Mole Variety Hour is doing our part to read the bewildering signs of the day, to discover our usable history, and to root down the mountain of capitalism that threatens to bury us all.

(young mole photo by bob travis from flickr).

Thursday, December 15, 2005

feral children

Perhaps certain mental aspects can be learned at one age under certain circumstances, but at later ages or under inappropriate conditions learning is impossible, or greatly impaired. The lack of early education of the feral children could mean that they could never learn. It is difficult to draw conclusions from studies on feral children; each case was very different - the background of the feral child, the goals of the experimenter and the method of teaching all have to be taken into account. Of the five children, Kaspar Hauser appeared to be the most successful in learning how to talk, but Kaspar had not been raised in the wild.

I know, I know, I haven’t been posting. Apologies to my hypothetical reader.

Monday, October 17, 2005

movie mole: a history of violence

J & I reviewed A History of Violence, directed by David Cronenberg.

Nothing new here.

The film opens with a slow shot of a couple of guys, evidently criminals on the lam, “checking out” of a motel. This involves killing the folks who run the business, and the small girl who might have been a witness. We cut immediately to another small girl, screaming. She's had a nightmare about monsters, but her father, brother, and mother all pile into her bedroom to reassure her. The over-the-top contrast between the two sequences sets the tone for the film. Viggo Mortensen plays the devoted father of the small screamer, Tom Stall, who runs a diner in an Indiana town apparently without franchises, chain stores, or big box developments. When the criminals from the opening try to rob the diner, however, Tom goes into action, ruthlessly and gracefully killing both drifters and saving the employees and customers. The publicity that follows, presenting him as a hero, brings into the diner another group of scary men, this time mobsters from Philly who insist they know Tom as “Joey Cusack.” Although Tom's skill as a killer raises questions about his identity and threats to his family, it seems to empower his teenage son Jack, who finally stands up to a couple of high school bullies, and who seems to have inherited his father's ninja fighting skills. This comes in handy for another carefully choreographed scene of violent defense of self and family, in which the women are safely in the house, and father and son defend their turf.

What is the film saying about male violence, the american dream, redemption and forgiveness? Little enough about history. The stylized schematic quality of the film means there’s not much cultural or social context. And there’s not much personal history: we hear about Tom's transformation in becoming the family man we see at the beginning of the movie, but we don't see that transformation or know what motivated it.

The male protagonists (Tom and Jack) are both presented as soft, effeminate, gentle new-man types. But underneath, there’s violence. Tom’s wife Edie is a lawyer; Jack’s girlfriend tries to defuse a confrontation with the bully: the women try to avoid violence but the men know how to use it. She gets a restrining order and the the gangsters show up in the yard. And it turns her on even if she's also disgusted by it. Edie assures the sheriff that she trusts her husband is who he says, but then when they're alone, she rejects him. Tom begins to rape his wife, until Edie gets into it herself. We might suppose this shows that violence is a turn on for women as well as men, that everyone has that shadowy side underneath, or, more cynically, that it reflects a male fantasy about women being turned on by rape.

This film has been praised for the performances, which are generally good except for the stilted little blonde girl, and for the twists of the plot, which I found predictable, as well as for a critique of violence and its representations. The fighting and killing scenes are the most rapidly edited and kinetic parts of the movie, but some reviewers see the film as forcing us to interrogate our pleasure in these representations by holding the camera on the blasted, bleeding corpses of the dead, holding our attention to the consequences of violence, and placing the action hero in a version of the American dream—middle american heartland small town where neighbors greet each other on the streets, and the protagonist has a small business, a beautiful wife, two attractive children and a house in the country. Both Tom and Edie wear silver crosses, and one neighbor bids farewell by saying, “See you in church.” After killing his brother (who's been trying to kill him his whole life), Tom throws the gun in lake & bathes, baptism, rebirth, yadda yadda, yadda. Redemption is possible, but is apparently achieved by cleansing violence. The scenes of Tom's violence are all morally justified –he's acting in defense of self and family, the men he kills are not themselves redeemable.

But the notion that the wholesome heartland conceals a violent shadow is hardly new. (American Beauty, Blue Velvet) Nor is the gunslinger who tries to hang up his guns and gets pulled back to violence (Shane, Unforgiven).

The heterosexual nuclear family remains intact. Men defend it through righteous violence. Nothing new here.

religious discrimination legalized

Head Start Can Make Hiring Decisions Based on Religion, Says U.S. House
by Niko Kyriakou (from One world net and commondreams).

It's exhausting trying to keep up with how awful everything is.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

lessons in darkness

Werner Herzog's 1992 film Lektionen in Finsternis is eerie, surreal, with science-fiction voice-over narration about a planet somewhere in our solar system, over footage of the Kuwaiti oil fires six months after the Gulf War in 1992. Swooping aerial shots of oil fires, oil fields, lakes of oil disguising itself as water, reflecting, bubbling, coating plant life, now dead. Strangely beautiful, always horrifying. A sweeping score of Verdi, Schubert, Wagner and Mahler. An hourlong tone poem, transporting, hypnotic.

on thin ice

it's melting, melting....

Friday, October 07, 2005

we've known rivers

Bill Moyers to the Society of Environmental Journalists,

They say denial is not a river in Egypt. It is, however, the governing philosophy in Washington. The President's contempt for science - for evidence that mounts everyday - is mind boggling. Here is a man who was quick to launch a 'preventative war' against Iraq on faulty intelligence and premature judgment but who refuses to take preventive action against a truly global menace about which the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

In a way, this is denial of respect for other humans, for the knowledge they produce, for the time and labor and attention they give to studying the material world. Also, of course, this is contempt for the material world. A religious point of view, perhaps.