Features

 

Missing the mango

How cultures mix, or don’t, in Malaysia.

 

From the back of a small white van, a man named Muhammad sold rojak in takeaway containers. The shopping mall on the other side of the parking lot boasted a KFC, Pizza Hut, and Starbucks. A big McDonald’s did a lively business one block away. But Muhammad usually had at least three or four customers lined up at his truck, waiting for him to scoop their orders from his assortment of plastic tubs.

The mixture of cucumber and pineapple chunks included various pieces of jicama, mango, apples, bits of puffy fried tofu, and bean sprouts. The sauce tasted strongly of shrimp paste cut with sugar, hot chilies, and lime juice. A generous sprinkling of chopped peanuts completed the dish.

Like most Malaysians, Muhammad thought a white person like me would not like rojak. “Spicy,” he warned me politely. It’s not for everyone.

Few people in the United States know anything about Malaysia. Why should they? The peaceful Southeast Asian country is half a world away from either one of our shores, its history obscure to us.

“They’re Buddhists there, aren’t they?” a university colleague asked me as I rushed around the office, making last-minute preparations near the end of 2004 to leave for an eight-month stay. No, he must have been thinking of Thailand.

Scuba divers, however, know Malaysia — its clean, white sand and clear, tropical waters. Europeans fly down for beach holidays. Saudis come during the hottest part of the year, Western-looking men in jeans and polo shirts, with multiple black-robed wives in tow — they find both the Muslim culture and high humidity welcoming.

Islam came to the lands occupied by Malays certainly before the 14th century, and maybe as early as the ninth century, 200 years after the death of the prophet Mohammed. One sees evidence of Islam everywhere, from the halal Chinese restaurants that serve no pork, to the sarong-clad boys on motorbikes converging on mosques each Friday afternoon. The official state religion is Islam, and the country has an official doctrine of tolerance and religious freedom.

I met Maria and her family in Kuching, a city in East Malaysia, on the island of Borneo. They enthusiastically introduced me to paper dosa, a gigantic crispy pancake imported from southern India. Maria’s daughter was waiting to hear whether she had won a place in the university, a process based on academic testing, controlled by the national government. Why should she worry? I asked, assuming that because the family is Iban, one of the native tribes of Borneo, the girl would be assured a place.

“You’ll get a place. You are bumiputera,” I said, using the word assigned to all Malay ethnic groups, regardless of religion.

“We are second-class bumiputera,” Maria said dryly. “We are not Muslim.”

The winds of the southwest monsoon brought Arab and Indian traders to the Strait of Malacca hundreds of years ago. The Chinese merchants came in on the winds of the northeast monsoon. During the inter-monsoon season, the traders waited in port for the wind to turn to blow them home again, their ships laden with pepper, cloth, gold, tin, products of the wet forests, and sinuous inland rivers. In the meantime, they mingled — with each other and with the Malays, Javanese, and Sumatrans who lived there year-round.

Great Hindu civilizations flourished there — Srivijaya and Majapahit — empires never mentioned in my American schoolbooks. Much later came the Portuguese sailors, then the Dutch, and finally, the British.

I went on a trekking excursion in Borneo, and there was one Englishwoman in our group, a nurse in her early 30s. As we sprawled on a beach by the Sulu Sea, shaded by leaning palm trees, she said, “I’ve always wanted to visit Borneo. It’s been my dream since I was a little girl.” I mulled over the idea that a child in England, born almost 30 years after the end of World War II, had grown up on stories of the exotic lands once controlled by the British Empire.

My friend Kiranjit was born and grew up in Kuala Lumpur, the national capital. She lives there still. Of her 12 brothers and sisters, all but two have moved abroad, either to Australia or to England. Their parents were Sikh, immigrants from India.

“Why should they raise their children in a place that doesn’t want them?” she said, explaining the exodus. Even more so than Maria’s daughter, their chances of winning places at a public university are low.

 

On another day, I visited Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and met with a group of lecturers. “You know, people have their loyalty to their home country,” a UKM professor told me as we drank coffee and munched on curry puffs. “People like your friend Kiranjit — of course, her real home is in India.” When I explained that I had a different impression, the professor was quite surprised.

I felt exasperated by his assumption that my friend was allied with a country she has never lived in. “She’s Malaysian,” I said. “She speaks Malay and English. She doesn’t know any Indian languages.” He seemed pleased by the idea that my friend identifies herself as a Malaysian — but also a bit perplexed. I was reminded of the expression on the face of Muhammad, the rojak vendor, as he watched me smile after I had chewed and swallowed the spicy fruit salad.

Chatting with that group of Malay professors, I wondered whether the fabulous rojak culture of Malaysia had yet to be digested by their generation, the generation born in the years just before and after independence. They ate it, drank it, served it at their own dinner tables, but they seemingly did not realize that it is the variety of flavors and textures that makes their country great. When the rojak does not include mango, I really miss it.

 

Before 1957, there was no “Malaysia.” On the Malay Peninsula and on the island that foreigners call Borneo lived various groups of people with strong ethnic or tribal identities. Sultans controlled, more or less, certain geographic territories, but borders are hard to draw inside jungles, and even harder to enforce. Chinese immigrants worked in tin mines. Indian immigrants tapped the rubber trees on plantations. Malays, under the British policy of “divide and rule,” took jobs in the civil service. As in many parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, the recipe for Malaysia followed a European logic.

My friend Siti closed the door to her office, unclasped an ornamental pin near her throat, and removed her hijab, the Muslim head covering which the Malays call tudung. She pushed at her hair with her fingertips. “It gets so hot, Prof,” she said. She told me that she did not wear the scarf until she was married, and she did not ask her daughters to wear the scarf, but rather left the decision to them.

“All this scarf-no scarf business — we didn’t have that when I was young,” Siti said. “Then we were all in school together, Chinese and Malay, some Indian girls too. And we went to each other’s houses, lah. We didn’t think anything about eating in the Chinese girl’s kitchen. Her mom made us some mee, lah, and we just ate it.”

This August, Malaysia will celebrate the 50th anniversary of merdeka, their independence. They have been inventing a new nation for 50 years. They started with a diverse collection of cultures, beliefs, customs, and languages, but that’s hardly new. Their country is the product of several hundred years of collaboration and trade, extending from the western edge of Arabia to the southern tip of India (and Sri Lanka) and onward to the eastern edge of China.

The great beauty of Malaysian culture comes out of this mixing of people, in which they maintain the pure flavor of their ancestors’ religions, languages, clothing, and customs — like the separate fruits in rojak — but at the same time, they are transformed by the sauce, the spicy-tart flavor that brings all of them together. If they try to separate, to reinvent a purity that vanished centuries ago, I worry that they will lose the unique strength they have gained from being mixed.

 

 

Is pregnant fat?

imagethumbnail.jpg Why eating for two can make a woman think twice about her body image.

morgan_s_birth_finished1.jpg

It’s not uncommon to speak of the way a pregnant woman glows or of the beauty of a work of art depicting a pregnant body. But those are the takes of outsiders. For pregnant women themselves, carrying a child in the womb can make one feel fat, ugly even. In this visual essay, Karen Walasek uses poetry and paintings to debate these two takes on pregnancy. The conclusion, of course, is in the eye of the viewer.

[Click here to enter the visual essay.]

 

The invisible enemy

200706_identify1.jpgWhen battling obesity means fighting the body you’re born with.

At age 12, Stacey Eddy weighed over 300 pounds. Her fellow sixth graders’ daily ridicule began on her journey to school. “People wouldn’t let me sit down on the bus because they were afraid I might squash them,” she recalls. In eighth grade, the bus driver assigned her a seat at the front of the bus so that she would at least have a place to sit, but that only made the teasing and taunting worse.

For the last seven months, Eddy, now 33, has made the 10th floor of Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City’s upper Manhattan her home and losing weight her full-time job. She has come from Long Island, New York to participate in a study on why people have to struggle to keep weight off. At 5 feet 4 inches tall, Eddy currently weighs 308 pounds, a monumental improvement from the 420 pounds she weighed two years ago.

Her hospital room is filled with dozens of Poland Spring water bottles, seltzers, diet sodas, and a small refrigerator containing a carefully portioned liquid diet that, according to Stacey, is “as appetizing as baby food.” With her easy smile and chatty disposition, Stacey speaks candidly about her lifelong obesity. Over 20 years after sixth grade, her bus rides aren’t much different, except that her schoolmates have been replaced by strangers who volunteer such unsolicited advice as, “You should look into gastric bypass surgery.” These daily slights are status quo for the obese. Dealing with them requires a strong mind and a will to persevere in spite of other people’s ignorance — qualities that stand out in Eddy. She, and others like her, are engaged in a war on two fronts. The first is a battle against their own bodies; the second is against those who don’t believe the first battle exists.

The stigma against the overweight and obese looms large in our society; fat people are seen as lazier, less intelligent, and weaker-willed than the average person. The obesity stigma is so severe that it can even spread to others who are not overweight. A recent study at Rice University showed that sitting next to or associating with an obese person decreases your own attractiveness and leaves a negative impression in the eyes of others. The study showed that prospective employers gave lower ratings to a male applicant whose photograph showed him seated next to a heavy woman. When the same applicant — with exactly the same resume and qualifications — was seen seated next to an average-weight woman, he received higher ratings.

This hiring prejudice is just one of many inequities that the obese face; they must also deal with a decreased likelihood of promotion, higher insurance premiums, and with earning about 12 percent less than the non-obese. These persistent biases arise from the assumption that obesity reflects personal choice or a lack of self-discipline. They suggest that the world’s latest health epidemic is a man-made predicament, and that those to blame are the fast food industry and the people who lack the moral resolve to refuse a second serving. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the prevalence of obesity among adults in the United States has reached an astounding 33 percent, affecting 65 million Americans. If obesity is really the result of poor choices and moral failing, then the United States has much more than a health problem on its hands. With so much extra fat on America’s waistlines, scientists are reexamining a central question: Is obesity simply a lifestyle choice, or is it preordained in one’s genes?

It’s all in the family

Lamont Daye is a gregarious 44-year-old with dark sunglasses and an infectious smile; he’s about 5 foot 6 inches tall and weighs 270 pounds. His wife Traci is 34 and weighs about 280 pounds. Sipping coffee at a Manhattan cafe, they relate their lifelong struggles with weight. Both of them have been on diets and 12-step programs like Overeaters Anonymous with limited success. Exasperated at the apparent unfairness of nature, Lamont describes his cousin Tony, who just can’t seem to gain weight because of his fast metabolism. “Tony will eat all the stuff in sight and won’t gain an ounce. If I eat one slice, it’s like — boom!” Lamont motions to his stomach. Traci, who has been more reserved, perks up, “I have friends that complain that they can’t gain weight, and I just want to choke them!” She says this without maliciousness, but with a tinge of frustration. Lamont and Traci’s struggles mirror those of Stacey Eddy; all three of them are trying to lose weight, but their bodies are fighting back. And they all recognize that their bodies are fundamentally different from others who can indulge in food without a second thought.

Science has confirmed this perception. Despite the societal conviction that weight is a choice, whether or not someone becomes fat is largely in the genes. The heritability of obesity is comparable to that of stature. While it’s commonly accepted that one can’t do anything to become taller or shorter, the variability in weight poses more of a conundrum. A 1986 study of adopted children and a 1990 study of twins, both performed by Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania, indicated that 70 to 80 percent of our weight can be accounted for by our genes. This means that the environment in which adopted children and separated twins are raised counts for much less than most people think.

Quite simply, obesity runs in families. Traci’s parents are both obese, as are Lamont’s. In addition, high blood pressure and diabetes are common in both of their families. That family history doesn’t bode well for their four young children despite Traci’s hopes that they don’t also become heavy. “I wouldn’t wish this on anyone,” she says.

Back in Eddy’s hospital room, she talks about her overweight mother who chose to have gastric bypass surgery 20 years ago — something that Eddy would never consider doing herself because her mother is often sick and frequently vomits. Eddy wants to lose the weight naturally, by using her mind to battle the genes she was born with.

 

Cutting down to size

Me and my big, fat head.

It’s swimsuit season, which means it’s time to start obsessing over weight and body image. Of course, weight and body image are as American as deep-fried Twinkies and apple pie a la mode. Obsessed over by both the government and the news media, weight is not solely about obesity, but a continuum:

Dangerously Thin |———————| Normal Body Type |———————| Morbidly Obese

Nobody wants to be dangerously thin or morbidly obese. Most of us content ourselves with falling somewhere in between, and take comfort in being “normal body types.” But there are folks who are not “dangerously thin” or “morbidly obese” or anywhere near “normal.”

They’re larger than life.

The first time I recall meeting someone larger than life was at a social gathering, one of those things where friends of friends finally meet one another. My friend was the party’s host, and she sang at my very large church. I recognized at the party several of her singing friends. I knew these folks only from the JumboTron; I’d never encountered them up close and personal. A few of them brought my celluloid imaginations of them down to proper size, but one commanded the room with her presence as she did from the screen. I wasn’t attracted to her, but I was struck by her. She filled the room, yet remained unapproachable — to me at least.

She was larger than life.

I met another such person recently. I’ll call him Thor, the Lutheran pastor. Thor, of course, is the Norse god of thunder and a founding member of Earth’s mightiest heroes, the Avengers. And it was on a Thursday — “Thor’s Day” — that Thor the Lutheran pastor was in a church telling me how to take care of people. Funny, engaging, and nice, he held the attention of everyone in the room, whether he was saying something silly, offensive, or absurd.

He wasn’t dangerously thin or morbidly obese. He was large and in charge.

And to say I “met” him would be an overstatement. I didn’t introduce myself, because there was no point. He wouldn’t remember me and shouldn’t be bothered by me.

Do you know anyone like that? I can count one or two such larger-than-life types as close friends, but they’re always referred to by both their given names and their surnames, as though one name isn’t enough. They’re good people, doing their best in the world, not going out of their way to draw attention to themselves. But they don’t have to. They were made for the stage and the big screen. There’s a kind of unbridgeable gulf between them — and us.

We find ourselves in awe of such people, especially when they do merely human things. Us magazine has a regular section called “Stars: They’re Just Like Us!” with photographs of celebrities tapping melons and buying gum and scooping their dogs’ poop.

We are awestruck. There they are, living their larger-than-lives. Just like us.

I’ll admit there are days when I wish I were larger than life. I got my chance when I stopped attending a very large church in favor of a very small church. I was 25 years younger than the average congregant. I was well-skilled in the art of very large churching: I was gregarious and magnanimous. I was a handshaker and a backslapper. I was as large-as-life as I can get.

I joined the church’s drama troupe and got to wow the congregation with my grand theatrics. I joined committees and wrote for the church newsletter, which showcased my wit and vocabulary. I released my first book, made a community-outreach video, and became an elder, impressing everyone with my commitment and accomplishments.
And then the day came for the dress rehearsal for our large-scale Easter production. I was the star in two scenes, where I sang a solo and entertained the hoi polloi with my backstage antics. At one point, the pit musicians dropped a cue. Being the consummate acting professional, I waited briefly and then, with great irritation, began my solo. After the rehearsal, I boomed in my larger-than-life voice, in front of the whole cast and crew, “Am I going to get accompaniment for that song or what?”

The next day I magnanimously approached the piano player to make sure we were on the same page after the previous night’s fiasco. She had prepared a statement:

“You know the Bible a lot better than I do.” True, I affirmed, thinking, you hardly know the Holy Scriptures at all, while I know them backward and forward, thank you very much.

“But I’m pretty sure it says something in there about settling disputes privately — not in front of everybody.”

Okay, sure, it does say something like that.

There are times when I like to think that I’m larger than life, but I’m not. It’s all in my big, fat head. In reality, my frame can’t support such an oversized cranium, so sooner or later I’m going to collapse under the weight of my self-regard.

I'm reminded of King Saul, the unwilling first king of Israel, who stood taller than his peers and drew attention to himself without effort. Even when he hid during his coronation, the people sought him out. In making him king, the Israelites were sending a message to the surrounding communities: This is our king. He’s important, powerful, awe-inspiring, and larger than life — just like us.

Soon enough, Saul started playing the part and got himself in over his big, fat head. Meanwhile, his actions got smaller, pettier, and hurtful. Eventually, a larger-than-life Goliath would take his place, and an easily overlooked shepherd boy, David, would bring that giant down. David’s legacy in the Bible is not as a larger-than-life being, but as a down-to-earth, flawed human being — just like the rest of us.

So this summer, while I’m fretting over my figure and watching my weight, I’m going to keep one eye on my big, fat head. It’s the least I can do.

Of course, I’ll keep an eye on all the little people as well. I don’t want to step on their toes as I make my way.

 

The weight of the world

200706_lamb.jpgWally Lamb’s She’s Come Undone explores the dark corners of obesity.

 

To write what you know, as the old maxim says, is good. But to write successfully about something you cannot possibly know is brilliant. And that’s exactly what Wally Lamb has done in his first novel, the New York Times bestseller, She’s Come Undone.

Lamb’s stunning 1992 entry into the literary spotlight deals with a broad range of issues with depth and without judgment, exposing the corners of the human soul as it deals with abandonment, rape, guilt, rites of passage, obesity, death, forgiveness, and finally, hope through the delicate perspective of a female character.

She’s Come Undone, which also made it to Oprah’s Book Club list, follows the life of Dolores Price, from her early childhood memories of her family’s first television to her mid-30s’ desperation for children, weaving you down, up, over, around, and through the tragedies and triumphs of her life. Dolores’ life contains one trial after another, sometimes leaving the reader struggling to see a way out for the imperfect heroine. It is only as we journey deeper into the novel that we begin to realize the full weight of Dolores’ initial warning, “Mine is a story of craving: an unreliable account of lusts and troubles that began, somehow, in 1956 on the day our free television was delivered.”

Beginning with her parents’ separation and being raped at 13, Dolores embarks on a downward spiral through her teenage years, eating away her guilt and entering adulthood at 257 pounds. At the end of high school, horrifically overweight and already withdrawn from society, Dolores is then confronted with her mother’s death in a freak accident.

This is just the beginning of Dolores’ troubles, their effects unraveling throughout the remainder of the story. Indeed, this novel is not for the faint-hearted or weak-minded. At times, it’s difficult not to flick forward pages in search of a glimmer of hope for the main character. Nevertheless, Lamb manages to weave some semblance of strength into Dolores’ character, saving us from feeling completely distraught over the poor girl’s fate.

Lamb’s close connection with his characters is evident in the voice he gives each one. In an interview with The Book Report’s Judy Handschuh, Lamb admitted that he doesn’t control his characters — in fact, quite the opposite. “People always say, ‘But you’re in control of what happens.’ That’s not true,” he explained. “I start with a character’s voice, and that voice leads me into the story. I never know where I’m going, and getting into the character leads me into realizing the story. Sometimes I try to put them on safer paths or have them make better choices. But whenever I do that, my writing becomes hollow. So I’ve learned to let them go their own way, and just wait to see what happens.”

Lamb has an uncanny knack for accurately depicting the tumultuous experience of obesity, which lends a genuine depth to his novel. Dolores’ early depression and attempts to eat her way out of sorrow result in a vicious cycle of gluttony and despair lasting well into her 20s. The ridicule she suffers, particularly once she enters a university, serves as sharp criticism of people’s insensitivity to overweight people. Dolores endures constant taunts and blatant mockery from her peers, and even her so-called “friends.”

Even though Lamb’s novel is 15 years old, the issue of the social ridicule and alienation of the overweight still resonates strongly today. According to a 2003-2004 survey by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, 32.9 percent of North Americans were classified as suffering from obesity — more than double the 1980 record of 15 percent. She’s Come Undone deals with the extreme nature of obesity from a personal perspective, allowing the reader a glimpse at the often forgotten and overlooked psychological difficulties involved.

 

Lights, camera, action

For youth involved in Global Action Project, filmmaking is just the beginning.

“Okay, here are the rules:
Number 1 — No cell phones.
Number 2 — ENERGY!
Number 3 — There is one mic, so only one person speaks at a time.
Number 4 — Step up, step back. After you made your point, step back to give other people a chance to say something.”

This was how a community workshop — part of New York City’s Immigrant History Week — began. What made this meeting different from dozens of other events that week was who was running it: High school students were leading the gathering for other high school and college students. The meeting coordinators were part of the Immigrant and Refugee Media Project, one of several programs run by Global Action Project, or G.A.P. — a youth media and leadership organization for New York City high school students. Over the next hour and a half, they discussed how national policies on immigration affect people’s lives, the power of the media, and how to effectively work with other organizations to pool resources and use technology to spread their messages to a wider audience.

G.A.P. started in 1991 as a video-letters project with the goal of initiating exchanges between young people in different countries to help them learn about each other and discover similar issues each group faced in its communities. Susan Siegel, who had a background in art and youth education, came up with the original idea for what would become G.A.P. She met cofounder Diana Coryat in 1989. Their experiences in community media and youth-focused arts, education, and filmmaking led them to believe that media could be a transformative education and communication tool for students.

Susan facilitated the first video-letter project in Kopeyia, a rural village in Ghana. The youth chose to create a fictional film based on a schoolmate who had recently died of malaria. When the video was screened in New York City public schools, students were so moved that they made and sent a manual of home remedies from their cultures and a video-letter back to the youth. The film also sparked dialogue among the New York students about health issues they faced in their own communities. A second international video-letter was produced in 1993 in Livingston, Guatemala. Shortly afterwards, Susan and Diana began establishing New York City–based programs.

The seeds of change

The first activity at the workshop on immigration was the Mambo Mixer, an ice-breaking activity set to hip hop that introduced the students to each other and let them know that this would be a participatory event. They then screened “twisted truth,” a 12-minute film G.A.P. youth made in 2006 to address the U.S. government’s proposal to criminalize undocumented immigrants, and to highlight the role of globalization in the issue. The opening scene shows President Bush speaking from the Oval Office on the need for immigration reform. A clip from a pro-immigration rally then appears, with dialogue in English and Spanish, before the words “twisted truth” appear in white on a black screen. Students sit at a table discussing the impact of the developed world’s economic policies on so-called Third World countries. We are asked to consider what conditions would make people leave their own countries to come to America, and random New Yorkers are asked for their views on immigration. The film is rich with political cartoons, text to highlight key points, shots of misspelled graffiti, and dramatized scenes of people cleaning toilets to show the menial jobs that immigrants often have to take. The credits roll to “Dead Prez Beat” by M.I.A.

Next on the agenda: “Aliens vs. Predators,” a three-minute mock trailer that portrays the difficulties faced by undocumented immigrants trying to afford college, and the way that the U.S. military is targeting this group as potential recruits. They dangle citizenship, free college tuition, and employment opportunities to try to get these immigrants to enlist. The haunting chorus from Orff’s “Carmina Burana” plays in the background.

The students then engaged in a discussion about the videos they had just watched. One student asked, “Why do people have to kill in order to become a citizen?” while another related the story of his cousin’s experience and warned, “It’s easy to enroll, but hard to get out.” Asmaou, a 16-year-old, added, “Mainstream media only narrows your mind, since they want you to think like them.”

Next, Dan and Pilar, two G.A.P. staff members serving as facilitators for the meeting, divided the students into smaller groups in order to get them to think about ways they can collaborate in the future. The students suggested various alternative media outlets to use, offered to share equipment, and planned events. I got the feeling that I had witnessed the beginning of the slow process of change.

No sugarcoating here

G.A.P. turns the prevailing notion that youth have nothing to contribute and no opinions to share on its head by teaching students that their voices count. Dare Dukes, G.A.P.’s development director, explains that one of the organization’s core philosophies is that “people should share in their own knowledge-building as opposed to sitting and listening to an expert.”

Each project produces two films during the school year. Students come after school and on weekends to G.A.P.’s office in midtown New York. Working with the facilitators who have backgrounds in film and education, the participants decide what issue they want to take on, how they want to portray it on film, and how to write the script and storyboard the shots. They are then taught how to use the equipment and will shoot, act in, and edit the film.

The youth select issues that they deal with on a daily basis. At a script meeting I attended, the students were creating the dialogue and shots for a film on street harassment. They had come up with the idea of using a split screen to be able to show the same scene from the male and female perspectives. Shreya, a G.A.P. facilitator, asked Jessica, who would be playing the girl who gets harassed in the film, if the language was too strong. Seventeen-year-old Jessica reassured her, “I don’t want to sugarcoat any of this. I take the blows every day of my life, I can take it.”

While each project is centered on learning how to produce media, the students also acquire media literacy skills that help them deal with such issues as how minorities are represented in the media, the concentration of media ownership, and what images mean and how to use them to express their points of view. Additionally, the film is not the end result. Part of G.A.P.’s mission is to be a catalyst for change. With guidance from G.A.P.’s Community Outreach Director Binh Ly, the youths who make each film devise an outreach plan by researching organizations that might be interested in a screening, figuring out answers to potential audience questions, and developing workshops on the issues that the video addressed.

Cofounder Diana Coryat describes the impact of the work on the youth: “They were excited about having the opportunity to direct their own learning process, to get their voices heard, and take positive action in ways they hadn’t believed to be possible for young people. When the work was shown, reflected back at them were images and stories that accurately represented their lives, but were rarely articulated in other media. Their audiences, too, were affected because it gave them a fresh way to see these young people as smart, articulate, and vital members of the community.”

G.A.P.’s programs have produced videos on issues as varied and complex as teenage prostitution, workfare, the lives of refugee youth in New York City, teen pregnancy, human rights, the truths and lies of gangs, and how the educational system can push students to drop out of school. Over 1,100 students have participated in the program. And every year, more than 100,000 people see the videos at conferences and festivals, and on YouTube and cable broadcasts.

Over the years, G.A.P. students have continued to exchange video-letters with youth in other regions. After the events of Sept. 11, they engaged students in Dubai in a video project that explored misconceptions about Muslims and Americans. They have also exchanged video-letters with students in the Dominican Republic, Northern Ireland, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, and refugee youth living in camps in West Africa and Croatia.

G.A.P. will be holding its free end-of-year screening in New York City this June 14 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at HBO (1100 Avenue of the Americas, 15th floor). The students will be presenting at the Allied Media Conference in Detroit from June 22-24, and leading three workshops at the U.S. Social Forum in Atlanta from June 27-July 1.

“Our job as media makers is to reveal the truth,” Asmaou declares. “People should know it.”

 

My house is fat

200706_house.jpgAttack of the junk bulge.

 

My house is fat. I still love it as I did when my husband and I bought it with dreams of a future in which the house was to be slender and beautiful.

But I have to say, the physical attraction is waning.

Once upon a time we lived in a tiny 1930s house, the kind where you could grab the toothbrush off the sink and get your shower running while sitting on the toilet. Not that I’ve done that. Back then, Dave and I vowed not to let our house turn into the cluttered mess we knew most American houses become. No exploding closets, no cars in the driveway because the garage is filled with Christmas decorations, no favorite clothes kept around just in case they come back into style.

Use it or lose it was the motto. And for a while, it worked.

Then we moved into a bigger house. Not a McMansion by any stretch of the imagination — we live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where a cardboard box costs $400,000 — but a decent, three-bedroom home with closets, cupboards, and a two-car garage. We needed to buy a few things to fill it out. And then, in replacing some of the old drab stuff, we bought new items and put the old ones — an old couch, chair, and tables — in the garage. Temporarily, of course.

And then we had a baby. Suddenly, there was no time to sift through our belongings and take trips to Goodwill. As baby products consumed every room, we shoved mattresses, cookbooks, and our daughter’s impressive wardrobe into every nook and cranny. And that old couch in the garage? You never know if a sibling or friend might need furniture. At least that’s what we tell ourselves.
 
As the house’s waistline grows, I know we should watch our intake, but I can’t seem to help myself.

I like stuff. I want stuff. Stuff makes me feel good.

I rarely walk into a baby store without buying an outfit for Sarah, even though her grandparents do a marvelous job of keeping her in high style. She has 18,000 toys, all of which she eats. We, the adults, have a mammoth television, Christmas plates, and half a closet dedicated to gift wrap. Recently, while reorganizing, I came upon a forgotten heart-shaped casserole dish. And still, as I perused Crate and Barrel for a media stand to hold our new TV, I wanted more. It got me thinking: Could I ever expect to have one of the thin, beautiful homes we see in the catalogs that rain down on us every week? Or is that dream as unrealistic as waking up to find I look like a supermodel?

Pottery Barn is one of these beauty magazine offenders. About every four hours we get a new catalog from them, and each one shows myriad, perfect rooms with a throw blanket and a pair of slippers at the foot of the couch. There’s no pile of bills, no overflowing laundry basket, and you certainly don’t find last season’s Pottery Barn décor shoved under the stairs. It’s perfectly sparse. It’s the skinny model I always wanted my house to be.

Instead, I open my kitchen cabinets and Tupperware tumbles out like rolls of fat over too-tight jeans.

Rather than purge belongings, a lot of people become manic about organization. Places like The Container Store have been established to satisfy this need. There are nearly 40 across the United States, and like gyms we go to for a week each January, they pretty much exist to make us feel like we’re getting our acts together.

I am guilty of this. I buy color-coded boxes, plastic bins, and shelf dividers, and bring them home to clear out the garage with the aim of driving my car into it. Ultimately, I just have too much stuff in nice bins.

You’d think Americans would catch on. We buy things in an attempt to improve our lives. Next, we believe that if we could just get our stuff organized, everything would be okay. Unfortunately, The Container Store can’t match the army of Pottery Barn locations in the United States, so our consumption is likely to far outweigh our efforts to get in shape.

Our society definitely makes it hard to live a lean lifestyle, but outlets exist to get our homes in fighting condition. On Earth Day, we dumped a TV and yards of extra cords at an e-waste recycling center. There are numerous places to donate clothing, furniture, and appliances to the less fortunate. And if we are really determined, we could just say “no” to buying things.

For our house, that’s not going to happen — at least not for a while. I’m resigned to it being on the chubby side, junk and all.

 

Knocking the weight

200706_interact.jpgSudden weight loss doesn’t make life as a woman any less heavy.

Halfway through my senior year in college, I came down with the flu twice along with pneumonia. For several weeks, I swallowed only Thai chicken soup and soy smoothies that were brought to me while I lay on my dorm room bed, coughing my lungs out. When the illness left, it had done what no amount of dieting or exercising had ever accomplished. I had lost every pound I’d gained since high school — not just the fabled “freshman 15” (okay, more like seven), but also the “sophomore four,” the “study abroad six,” and the “new boyfriend three.”

My lack of waif-like features had been an anomaly at my perfectionist Ivy school, but I coped. A proud feminist, I made a point of carrying my extra weight confidently. I felt as though my dress size separated me from the girls who played into sexist ideals and mournfully poured vinegar over their dinner carrots. Of course, negative body image drove me to distraction in private, but I could never wholeheartedly tackle the gargantuan — and in my mind, hypocritical — task of getting more than a few pounds skinnier.
 
And now I was sure I’d never have to. Back home for the holidays, I tried on my old clothes. My red dress from “sweet 16” parties fit perfectly. My embroidered cowgirl jeans fit, with room to spare. It didn’t matter that I would never have occasion to wear these ridiculous things again.
   
I was infinitely relieved. A chapter of my life spent feeling fat — and then feeling guilty for caring about my jean size when there was so much else to worry about — had melted away.

But it was naïve to think that all the emotional weight had left with the pounds. In our society, particularly in hypercompetitive niches like my college, size is crucial to our identities, reaching nearly as important a status as race and gender.

You can’t just sneak from fat to thin, or thin to fat.

The first comment I got after my recovery was from a friend whom I bumped into at a late-night campus joint. I was wearing a bulky ski parka, but this girl, who was particularly diet-conscious, saw right through my winter layers. “Oh my god,” she said accusingly from across the restaurant. “You got so ridiculously skinny. You must have lost 10 pounds in a week. Or was it 15?”

I was shocked. When I had been on the chubbier side, people didn’t comment on my body in front of others like that. An unspoken rule says that small bodies of various degrees are okay to moan over (“I’m so fat!”) and compliment (“You’re so not!”). But people who aren’t diminutive face a damning public silence. I was flummoxed. To revel in my friend’s scrutiny would have been impossible: “Thanks, girlfriend. That mucus in my chest really helped create a new me!” But I had been psyched to fit back into that red dress. I felt unusually speechless.

The attention came in a steady parade — some positive, some envious, some suspicious. “You look emaciated,” a close friend told me at a party that spring with a disapproving tone that was sounding like a familiar refrain. Again, my body — not my improving health — was being parsed in a critical way.

While once I was concerned about girth, I was now paranoid about girlfriends. I feared that my new size had thrown some secret pecking order off balance — that my friends had counted on my fuller figure and my feigned comfort with it to make them feel better.  Despite my idealistic aspiration toward a “we are all sisters” kind of feminism, my inner voice warned that I might have to get more stupid now that I was thin, or at least act more self-deprecating. I felt like a walking, talking threat to all the women I knew.

Back when other women had championed the South Beach Diet last year, I had scorned their agonizingly achieved slimness. Now their pissy attitudes about my change in size were forcing me to see that our bodies are always battlegrounds.

So I celebrated the “new me” by joining in a chorus of self-effacing comments. I would never have called attention to myself by stuffing a doughnut in my mouth and saying, “I suck,” when I was 15 pounds heavier. Now I could do exactly that, and I felt like I was joining a heretofore members-only club. And yes, I felt guilty about it.

But whether my self-criticism was silent or tellingly open, it was still there. Unlike the success stories trumped by women’s magazines, we women on all parts of the body-size spectrum still don’t think we’re good enough. And instead of turning against the society that makes us feel this way, we often turn against the woman who eats an extra slice of pizza or refuses dessert, shops one size up, or is a slave to the treadmill.

Engaging in this perverse group exercise of wailing about our waist sizes doesn’t do us any favors. Until we women stop being complicit in our obsession with weight, our relationships will be strained by the relentless need to measure ourselves, literally, against each other.

 

Haunted remains

10.jpgImages inside abandoned Catskills resorts.

13.jpg

I became interested in these old hotels and resorts last summer, when I visited the Catskills for the first time to attend the Catskills Institute conference on the history of the area. The institute’s co-founder and conference organizer, Brown University Sociology professor Phil Brown (who is also the author of Catskill Culture), took participants on a bus tour of the abandoned resorts, and we stopped for a time at the Bethel Sunshine Camp. Brown had secured permission for us all to look around (all of these spaces are “No Trespassing” zones). I was amazed by how much of the interior is intact. The kitchen pantry shelves still have neat stacks of plates, cups and saucers as if meals are still served there regularly. The camp’s theater looks ready to host a new production: its stage is bare and clean, and rows of empty seats await an audience. Yet in the girls’ bedrooms, peeling paint dangles from the ceiling in giant sheaves of cream or white or light blue and the rusted bed frames stand like skeletons on rotted, fragile wooden floors. In some of the rooms, objects remain, discarded or forgotten: a bouquet of now-shriveled roses, a red and white teddy bear, a track trophy. Here, as in all of the spaces, the few remaining objects make these spaces so eerie and so discomfiting — they disturb not because they are empty, but because so much was left behind.

When I went back to the Catskills this spring (which was actually more like winter — there were snow flurries in the air, and the temperatures hovered in the thirties), I returned alone to the Bethel Sunshine Camp and explored the Pines, La Minette and other abandoned resorts in the area. Near La Minette, a drive-in movie theatre stands empty, its parking lots covered with weeds, its blank screens clean, sheer white. In a La Minette bungalow, children’s number and letter magnets lie scattered on a rusted refrigerator, and on front lawn of the Pines, a pillow covered with shards of hay rests on a sea of dried, overgrown grass. Telephones, many with their receivers off the hook and upturned, sit on the floor of every room of the Pines as well as in the lobby, and in the office, overgrown with mold and moss. In these silent spaces, these remains disturbed me the most. It was as if each telephone was yearning to communicate with something and someone who was long gone and could never return. And in this way they stood like stark metaphors for lost communication and time’s rapid, constant fleeting. Here and elsewhere, the spaces haunt: stinging reminders of what we lose, what objects and experiences we choose to keep and which we leave behind.

 

[Click here to enter the visual essay.]

 

A society under constant stress

200705_Interact.jpgA conversation with Raphael Cohen-Almagor on the prospects for Israeli peace.

Raphael Cohen-Almagor is a is a world-renowned political scientist (D. Phil., Oxford) who published dozens of books and articles on education, free expression, media ethics, medical ethics, multiculturalism, Israeli democracy and political extremism. An organizer of the international “Gaza First” campaign, a campaign for the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from Palestinian territories beginning with the Gaza Strip, he was the founder and director of the Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. At a peace education conference in Turkey, Cohen-Almagor discussed with ITF contributor Aditi Bhaduri his disenchantment with Israeli politics, the Middle East peace process, and what motivated him to establish the Center for Democratic Studies.

The interviewer: Aditi Bhaduri
The interviewee: Raphael Cohen–Almagor

You founded the Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. What inspired you to do that?

[T]he idea for the institute came up on November 5, 1995, the day after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. I was one of those who saw the writing on the wall — and I warned against political assasination. I was teaching then at the University of Haifa, at the Faculty of Law and Department of Communication. When Rabin was murdered, this was not a shock to the mind, but a shock to the heart. I started thinking, what could I do to help the decision-making process — as a scholar? Realizing that there is a large gap between Israel as a democracy and the public that does not understand what democracy is all about, I decided to establish a center designed for the study of democracy and its underlying values:liberty, tolerance, equality and justice. These values are clear to students in United States or in England. I ask students what … liberal democracy is, and they will give me a detailed answer in ten minutes. In Israel, however, the discussion may last an hour until a full answer is provided. The center serves as a meeting point for people from all walks of life: Christians, Muslims, Jews — those who are religious and those who are not. It is a platform for discussion; of pluralism, of tolerance, of mutual recognition. For the past four years since the founding of the center in , what I tried to do is promote awareness, in Israel and outside the country, of democratic virtues, to promote justice, pluralism, multiculturalism, freedom, peace. People at the center do this through seminars, conferences, education. My dream is that the Israel Ministry of Education will [embrace] democratic studies … and introduce these studies into the curriculum both at the primary schools as well as at high schools. Presently, there are no studies on democracy in Israel — and there should be.

What are the challenges to Israeli democracy?

Israel, being the only Jewish democracy in the world, suffers from intricate symbiosis: we would like to be Jewish and we would like to be democratic. But when you look at the values that underline these two concepts — Judaism and liberal democracy — they are difficult to be reconciled with each other because the first premise of liberalism is to put the individual at the center of attention:, everything stems from the individual and returns to him or her … you allow the individual maximum rights … to develop to his or her fullest potential so long as [he or she] does not harm others. [C]onsequently, the individual will contribute to the development of society. But in Judaism, the belief is that you owe your freedom to God, and you owe an explanation about your life to God. There is no autonomous freedom. Freedom is given to you to serve God and His aims. Now, the zealots within Judaism (this is just a fraction of Judaism) believe that we are all sailing in the same boat, and if there are secular people like me in that boat, who follow the maxim “live and let live,” we will make holes in the boat, and we all sink down to [the bottom of] the ocean. So, they cannot let me live by that maxim. Therefore, coercion is going to be used to make me toe that line.

Israel is a secular country. The religious people make [up] 20 to 25 percent of the population. Still, Israel is following Jewish law, Jewish values and norms are infiltrating every aspect of one’s life as an individual. In the most private issues of your life, religion interferes even though Israel is a secular state, and this creates a tension between Judaism, on one hand, and liberal democracy, on the other. That's a major problem that we have to address.

The other major problem is our relations with the Arabs — the Palestinians living inside Israel — which constitute about 20 percent of the population, about one million people. They don't believe in the raison d'etre of a Zionist state. They are in Israel because their forefathers were born there, they were born there, and for them Israel is actually Palestine. And this, of course, creates tension and problems.

And then we have Palestinians outside of Israel — some of them Hamas who don't recognize Israel, don't recognize Israel's right to exist, and believe that I should return to Bulgaria (that's where my family came from) or preferably I should drown in the sea. They don't recognize me, [which makes it nearly impossible for us to have a discussion.] … So as long as there is terrorism and as long as there is war between us and Palestinians, then this … creates a major challenge for Israeli democracy.

Israel is a society under stress, where security plays a considerable role in its daily life. In a liberal democracy, you have to invest in the people, in the individual worker, health, education, etc., and that's difficult to do so when security consumes 30 percent of your budget … there's not much left for other purposes.

Given the current international scenario, where religion is playing an increasingly larger role, do you think it will be easy for Israel to sever completely religion from state?

Israel is a secular country. There is a lack of separation of religion from state, but but I don’t think that is because of the rise of religion in world politics. Separation between state and religion is an Israeli decision in Israel’s interest, but you need a courageous leader to take that decision. Right now, because of narrow political interests, and the fact that all governments in Israel were coalition governments, most of them included a religious component, those in power were afraid to take a drastic step and and separate religion from state. This was the only consideration.

I believe that it’s better to separate religion from politics, but unfortunately the religious parties believe otherwise. … Anyway, we live in separate communities — we don’t eat together, we don’t live together, we don’t study together. So [why] does it bother them if I want to have a civil marriage? [B]y making this an issue, … I think it weakens them because all it does is create alienation. People don’t like to be coerced. True, the majority of Israelis don’t care so much about these issues, but a significant part of us does. The state is there to cater for the interest of 100 percent of the population, not just the 70 or 80 percent. There should be more freedom for people to lead their lives the way they want to.

So what do you think the solution is [for] the conflict over Israel and Palestine?

Unfortunately, peace is not something that you can do alone. It’s like dancing the tango alone — you need two to tango. From 1993 onwards, the Rabin government, the Barak government, and the Sharon government were willing to take significant steps to build an independent Palestinian state. What we got in return was terrorism. We did not get any reciprocal recognition of Israel, of our needs or interest[s], and a willingness to create a two-state solution from the Palestinians.

When this is the [situation], there is not much we can do. My hope is that the Palestinians realize that Israel is here to stay, that the two-state solution is the only way out of the impasse. Not one state called Palestine at the expense of Israel, but a two-state solution, meaning deserting what Hamas is upholding now, and instead going through reconciliation steps and accommodation of [each] other [so] we will have a partner to talk to. And then I am sure that the Israeli government will be willing to take the necessary steps to build upon trust between the two nations and build a Palestinian state. But we cannot do it alone, and we cannot subject ourselves to Qassem rockets. Would India allow daily rockets and missiles to fly from Pakistan and hit Kolkata, New Delhi, and other Indian cities daily? No, there will immediately be war.

You began a “Gaza First” campaign. Tell me about how it started and what it is.

In 2000, I began an international campaign for “Gaza First.” I nagged the government, wrote letters to all parties, to the prime minister, and also campaigned outside of Israel in every place I could.

The plan was adopted by Sharon in 2003 and implemented in 2005. I campaigned for Gaza first, meaning this was the first step towards reconciliation between the two sides, and then [we were supposed to give up] the West Bank, when, in return, we got Hamas and the Qassams, we [cannot] proceed further. Israel is a very small country … it’s only 40 kilometers between East and West and all the major cities, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, will be easily covered by Qassams from the West Bank. Therefore, no sane prime minister can do that because this is suicidal. Great opportunity is lost. The Palestinians have one of the most dovish government[s] in the country's history. Minister of Defense Amir Peretz has been working for peace all his life.

What do you think of Israel's recent war with Lebanon? How will that affect politics in Israel?

Again, almost from the beginning I said this was insane. Prime Minister Olmert made a mistake — the government went into war without realizing that it was opening war. I call it the “Hezbollah War.” This unnecessary war was a big blunder and Olmert is going to pay a big price for that. The Israeli public will not forgive him [for] this misconduct. Observing how the events unfolded, the Hezbollah did a nasty thing: they kidnapped two soldiers and killed eight. Now what’s the way to retaliate? First of all I think, take your time and ponder. [That] doesn’t mean you won’t have to do anything. But the retaliation came within 24 hours [with] the bombing of Southern Lebanon and … the capital city of an Arab state, Southern Beirut. Now, if Olmert knew that the Hezbollah [was] going to answer by non-stop rockets on the North of Israel, then he made a tragic mistake. And if he didn't know, then again he made a tragic mistake. If you are going to such a war, then you have to prepare the North for the barrage of rockets that might come in and out on a daily basis.

There is a growing movement in Israel calling for elections and calling for Olmert, Amir Peretz and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz to resign because of this costly mistake. Some 160 people were killed and hundreds were wounded. I believe that this public voice will gain momentum, and that ultimately Olmert will be forced to resign or to call upon elections.
[Chief of Staff Halutz had resigned since the time of the interview. A.B.]

And what is your prognosis?

Well, I am not a prophet, but we may envisage the following scenario: there will be three leading contenders fighting for elections. One is Olmert, head of Kadima, [the political party] founded by Sharon. Next is Bibi Netanyahu of Likud, and third is Labour. Within [the] Labour [party], I presume Peretz is going to face severe challenges. One of the leading contenders is Ami Ayalon, who was the admiral in charge of the navy. He is calculating his deeds in a sensitive and political way, and might be able to challenge Amir Peretz and to take over. So at the end of the day, we may have Ayalon, Olmert, and Netanyahu. At this stage, Bibi Netanyahu is leading in the polls, but the polls are not real elections. Anyway, we do not know yet when elections will take place. According to [the] official timetable, it should be within three-and-a-half years. I can't believe that this government will survive more than a year. It may collapse any day.

 

The labeling of a genocide

Who “wins”?

The definition of genocide — “the systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary — little informs us how to distinguish between a violent conflict and one that crosses into genocide.

Recognizing genocide is as much a political contest as it is a moral imperative. And in the court of international opinion, victims — and perpetrators — fiercely contest the labeling of a conflict as genocidal.

What was the first genocide of the 20th century?

If you said the Nazi Holocaust, you would be only semantically correct. The word “genocide” was not coined until 1943 when Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish legal scholar, combined the Greek prefix for family, tribe or race (genos) and the Latin suffix for massacre (cideo) to describe what was happening in Germany at the time. If you answered the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of the waning Ottoman Empire, from which Lemkin first developed his ideas on the genocide, you would be closer, but still not correct.

The first genocide of the 20th century took place in Africa. But unlike the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, where the victims and perpetrators are Africans, it was a German colonial occupying force that exterminated the Herero people in South West Africa (present day Namibia) between 1904 and 1907. The Germans laid siege to the Herero community, massacring close to 80 percent of the population and forcibly moving the rest to concentration camps.

Germany came late to the scramble for Africa and intended on making huge strides to transform their territories by relying on their significant industrial prowess to subdue both man and nature. Initially, Germany tried to legitimate their presence in the Herero homeland through legal means, but when a group of Herero rose up against what they perceived as an unfair German occupation, the response was swift and dramatic. After a crushing defeat in the Battle of Waterberg, the Herero were forced to leave their land and tens of thousands were slaughtered by the German army. “I believe that the nation as such should be annihilated, or, if this was not possible by tactical measures, have to be expelled from the country,” said General Lars Von Trotha, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s choice to lead the campaign.

It was in Africa that the Germans first began their use of concentration camps, a harbinger of what was to come within Germany 40 years later against undesirables like Jews, Gypsies (Roma) and homosexuals. Herero inmates were used as slave labor and experimented upon by German imperial scientists. In fact, Eugene Fischer, a young German geneticist who began his work on race-mixing in the Herero concentration camps, was a seminal influence on Adolf Hitler. Hitler eventually elevated Fischer to the top position at the University of Berlin where his star pupil was Josef Mengele, a leading architect of the German Holocaust.

In terms of the percentage of the population killed, the Herero genocide was more successful than the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the killings in Darfur. Less than 20 percent of the Herero population — or fewer than 20,000 — survived. There are a little more than100,000 Herero living primarily in Namibia today and in smaller communities in Angola and Botswana. That a vibrant and diverse Herero community exists at all represents a tremendous recovery.

Given the historical significance, why don’t people know about the Herero? The answer is related to several factors that tell us much about the politicized nature of labeling a conflict as genocidal. Lacking a significant diaspora in the West, the Herero have never been able to demand recognition from the international community in the way Armenians and Jews have attempted to ensure their history is never forgotten. In 2001, a private foundation representing the Hereros did sue the German government and corporations in American courts. However, the German government successfully argued that the1948 Genocide Convention could not be applied retroactively. A century after the genocide took place, Herero groups did receive an apology from the German government in 2004, but no direct compensation was ever provided to the community.

Somewhat perversely, the term genocide has become so politically loaded that it has little meaning as a descriptor of contemporary ethnic and racial conflicts. Instead, it more accurately reflects the political standing of the targeted group in the West. As such, the application of the term has become more akin to a linguistic sweepstakes whereby persecuted minorities are awarded with recognition if and only if they can “win” the term’s application to their situation.  The downside of all this is the term inhibits us from recognizing the relative frequency with which minority groups are persecuted. We have become primed to care only when a conflict emerges in the international consciousness as genocidal — rendering others just forgettable.

 

Something borrowed, something new

200705_lethem.jpgA close reading of Jonathan Lethem’s novel You Don’t Love Me Yet.

200705_lethem.jpgA few years ago, author Jonathan Lethem found himself well on his way to becoming the Philip Roth of Brooklyn with his two most well-acclaimed novels, Motherless Brooklyn (1999) and The Fortress of Solitude (2003) — both colorful and incisive accounts of his hometown borough — quickly propelling him into the somewhat reluctant role of a Brooklynite mouthpiece.

It was for this very reason that Lethem felt compelled to set his new novel, You Don’t Love Me Yet, in the complex maelstrom that is Los Angeles. It’s a bold move, not only because of the notorious competition between New York and Los Angeles, but because Los Angeles is a difficult place to penetrate — even for those who live there.

“There’s that famous Joyce quote about ‘artists need silence, exile, and cunning,’” Lethem told me over the phone in late March, “and I guess I’d just been looking for that ‘exile’ part of things; working from the margins, doing preposterous things, disavowing one’s credentials.”

The novel — Lethem’s seventh — stars Lucinda Hoekke, a bass player stumbling into her thirties while living in Echo Park, an up-and-coming, yuppie-hipster Los Angeles neighborhood. Like many of the city’s residents, Lucinda works odd jobs as she tries to make it with her wannabe rock band. Her latest career move is answering phones at the Complaint Line, an anonymous help line conceived by her conceptual artist friend. Eight hours a day she fields complaints from callers responding to randomly placed stickers that read, “Complaints? Call 213-291-7778.” (The number really works: Try it.)

It’s there that Lucinda falls for a regular caller named Carlton Vogelsong — affectionately nicknamed “the Complainer” — who confides to Lucinda at length about his sexual escapades, but also about his feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction with life. The Complainer also happens to be a professional slogan writer and, indeed, his utterances beguile the wayward Lucinda, who makes note of them and passes them on to her band’s lead singer and songwriter. The Complainer’s words soon become the lyrics for some of the band’s best songs, calling the material’s ownership into question as the band starts to grow more popular. As the songs take on a life of their own, no one is quite sure just where they originated.

The plotline recalls Lethem’s essay “The Ecstasy of Influence,” which was published in the February 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine. The essay explores the phenomenon of cultural borrowing and appropriation, and the effects of intellectual property rights. “The demarcation between various possible uses is beautifully graded and hard to define,” wrote Lethem in that essay, “the more so as artifacts distill into and repercuss through the realm of culture into which they’ve been entered, the more so as they engage the receptive minds for whom they were presumably intended.”

Appropriation is essential to creative vitality, Lethem reminds his readers, and strict copyright laws are consequently detrimental to artistic innovation. The essay urges consideration of the world of art and culture as a sort of public commons, impervious to possession by a singular person. “Copyright is a ‘right’ in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results,” writes Lethem. “Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist's heirs or some corporation’s shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.”

In that spirit, Lethem has initiated a project through his website called Promiscuous Materials that offers up his stories and lyrics at no cost for other artists to use, rework, and reinterpret at will. Already, artists such as One Ring Zero and John Linnell from They Might Be Giants have recorded songs to Lethem’s lyrics, and some short films are in the works.

Lethem has also recently announced that he will option out the film rights to You Don’t Love Me Yet to a filmmaker of his choice in exchange for just 2 percent of the profits once that film is made. In addition, both he and the filmmaker will give up ancillary rights to their respective creations five years after the film’s debut. By offering this nontraditional option, Lethem hopes to spark a reexamination of the typical ways in which art is commodified. “I also realized that sometimes giving things away — things that are usually seen to have an important and intrinsic ‘value,’ like a film option æ already felt like a meaningful part of what I do,” he writes on his website. “I wanted to do more of it.”

Lethem is not the originator of the battle against the increasingly tight grip of copyright laws; he points to Open Source theory and the Free Culture Movement as influences, as well as longtime collage artists like the American experimental band Negativland. But as a successful mainstream author, Lethem is a uniquely compelling advocate. “Almost everyone you find clamoring for strengthening the public domain or for reexamining the regime of intellectual property control that’s so typical right now is not so much like me,” Lethem told me. “I think there’s a really kind of sad abdication of this conversation by more established artists. That’s why I felt that I had a role to play in this talk.”

Projects such as Promiscuous Materials and the You Don’t Love Me Yet film rights option are potent responses to the rampant propagation of intellectual property rights — more effective, probably, than the latent messages encoded in the plot of Lethem’s new novel. It would be easy to create parallels. For instance, in the book, when the Complainer learns that the band’s hit songs contain his lyrics, he burrows his way into becoming a member — “Do you want to destroy the band?” the drummer asks the Complainer when he claims credit for the songs. “How could I want to do that?” he responds. “I basically am the band.” But this unpopular addition results in the band’s demise. Thus, the Complainer’s aggressive move to assert creative ownership ultimately destroys the artistic product.

Yet Lethem is quick to downplay the connection. “Of course, it comes out of a similar instinct, but it’s not like the book was written as a heavy way of bearing down on any idea. It sort of glances off those thoughts. But the book is, I hope, a little too frisky to seem like it’s got a big and ponderous agenda like that.”

As advised, it’s best to read You Don’t Love Me Yet as a light and playful “sex and rock ‘n’ roll” novel rather than overestimate its relation to Lethem’s crusade against what he calls “usemonopoly.” Though some reviewers are dismayed by the novel’s slightness as compared to the wondrous complexities of Lethem’s more major works such as Motherless Brooklyn and The Fortress of Solitude, it is not definitively disastrous for an author to maintain some equilibrium of tone and substance. As the Complainer says in the novel, “You can’t be deep without a surface.” Jonathan Lethem has sufficiently proved his depth as a writer; let us allow him his surface.