Man's Search for Meaning

For my fall reading I read Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl. The book was split into two sections - one where he describes his experience as a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp, and the other where he describes his theory ("Logotherapy") that we find meaning in attempting to find meaning. Yeah. It's kinda meta.

The first half of the book was gripping. He described how prisoners who were put in charge of other prisoners often became more tyrannical than the Nazi guards. He talked about prayer groups that formed and how prisoners coped with their terrible fate. It was great.

The second half was less interesting to me. Frankl often resorted to vague language and misleading interpretations of events to prove his point. He also drifted into the abstract very often. I enjoyed the specific examples in the first half of the book a lot more.

I'm glad I read it, though. It's a pretty famous book and I think it's good to know what people are talking about when they reference it. It also, like every other book, offered a cool new way of looking at the world and how it all works. So I appreciated it for that reason.

I'm not completely sold on fall reading, though. I think for the most part students are busy and reading a whole book, even in the span of a few months, can seem like a pretty daunting task. It's good to encourage us to read, but there has to be another way. I don't know. Maybe dedicate the first 15 minutes of every class to reading. I know it would seriously infringe on time for more traditional class, but it might put everyone in the right frame of mind before we all launch into a discussion or research a new topic. Just that thought.

The Cold War and Civil Rights

So while we were researching the fight for civil rights, my class found that many civil rights leaders were labeled communists and therefore further separated from what was considered "American" at the time. This not only separated them from the mainstream in the eyes of many Americans, but it also gave J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI a wonderful excuse for bugging and wire tapping civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King jr.

When I was reading about the anti-communist streak that often led to the persecution of civil rights leaders (or was it just racism?), I actually kind of laughed. Calling someone a communist has become a bit of a punch line at my school. I think that the transformation of the communist label is one of the most interesting in contemporary America. You can call someone a socialist or a fascist, but calling them a communist is almost comical. Nobody throws around the accusation of communist leanings like they used to.

Well, nobody except for this guy. Someone needs to have a talk with this guy.

So when I saw a picture like this one, I actually thought they were joking. Just look at the guy in the middle, all mad and racist, looking like the owner of the jail in Cool Hand Luke twenty years beforehand. He's a freaking caricature. Race Mixing is Communism? What?


Anyways, my point is that we've made progress. Outside of the Westboro Baptist Church, there aren't any Americans who show up to rallies to prevent race mixing or communism. Maybe there are and I just don't know. There aren't as many Americans willing to rally against race mixing and communism. Heck, we've just elected a black, allegedly communist president. Twice. That would've made everyone in this picture absolutely livid. That's progress.

EdCafe Reflection

Yesterday our class embarked on a voyage into the 21st century with something called an EdCafe. For two classes beforehand we had been researching a World War II-related topic, and during our EdCafe we each led a small group discussion on our topic.

Well, that was the idea at least. In the end, each "discussion" was really just a presentation by the lead student on the topic they led. It was great to hear about some of the lesser-known figures and battles and whatnot, but I think the point was lost a little bit. There was a lot of talking and hearing, but not much speaking and listening.

I think this is kind of inevitable given the circumstances. The only place we really have discussions on anything is English class, and even then there's a topic that was chosen by the teacher and some times the teacher will gently nudge the class in a specific direction. Expecting students to discuss to lead discussions on anything might be a little optimistic.

I think there are two things that are necessary for making EdCafes work. The first is consistency. If we devoted one week in a month to an EdCafe, by November we'd all get the gist of it and I think EdCafes would be wildly successful. I also think if, before we started researching our topics, the fact that EdCafes are built around discussions was stressed a bit more we would've done much better. We were all looking for answers instead of questions.

EdCafes could be really neat. We just need to find a way to make discussions the focus instead of lectures.

American and German Propaganda

After watching the start of both Triumph of the Will and Why We Fight back to back, I was struck by one key difference: Triumph of the Will was a clearly nationalist "documentary" about the government that created it, while Why We Fight was a subtly nationalist "documentary" that promoted its government by placing itself in opposition to the enemy. While the Nazi Party was trying to rile up support for a way by loudly declaring that Germany was in the right, the American government simply pointed out faults in its opposition. 

That's a key difference because, while the Americans were clearly implying that they knew the "real" way to affect change in the world, that "rightness" was supposedly demonstrated by the "wrongness" of other doctrines. This is an important part of American identity. From monarchy to communism, the US has debated and fought against forms of government that it saw unfit for the modern world. You'll hear the names of these systems of government casually thrown around on the political stage. The worst thing you can be called is a fascist, or a Nazi, or a communist. 

So Why We Fight was, as the title suggests, an explanation for the American people. While completely condescending and without acknowledging the damage the Allies did at Versailles, the movie did a pretty goof job of outlining what was wrong with recent developments. I don't think there are many people who would be comfortable saying that 1930's Japan was moving in a good direction. I think that's true for 1930's Germany and 1930's Italy as well. But who knows. Maybe we've all been raised on propaganda. 

The Life Boats

Black Tuesday was the result of a confidence in the market that was suddenly shattered. When the confidence disappeared, banks became unwilling to hand out loans and the economy stagnated. But that only happened because there was nothing to indicate that the market could be headed for a downturn. At the time, the only metric economists used to evaluate the health of the market was the Dow Jones Index. Economist Irving Fisher somehow had the guts to say "stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" shortly before Black Tuesday.

When that confidence was suddenly shattered, the market almost completely collapsed. The signs were there - the 1% owned more wealth that it ever had before and bubbles were formed - but at that point the economic system hadn't developed enough litmus tests to monitor the health of the Stock Market and the American economy.

That probably won't happen again. These days, we have a whole industry based on measuring the relative strength of the financial system instead of just looking at the mean value of 30 stocks. Confidence in the system is essential for a healthy economy. The Great Depression, much like the Titanic, led to the adoption of safety measures across the board that protect investors and the companies they invest in. Companies like FINRA prosecute investors and companies that aren't playing by standards that were set in response to the great depression. The SEC both dominates college football and operates as a public defender of the integrity of the market. Because of the battle in the courts between the SEC and private corporate lawyers, generally the bankers who play by the rules intelligently prosper and those that don't fail.

So yes, there will be recessions. Bubbles will pop and people will default on their loans and the market will crash. But because of the rules set in place after the Great Depression, it is unlikely that this country will see a catastrophe on the same scale again.

Cars 2

It's been a little over a month since my last blog entry on the American Dream, and not much has changed on my end. I still appreciate the idea that you can achieve success simply by working hard and I think it's a good thing that our country has collectively decided to give such an important value so much lip service.

But there are some damaging effects too. When people conclude that working hard equals success and not working hard equals not success, the obvious conclusion is that poor people are poor because they're lazy and rich people are rich because they're driven. And that would be the case in a perfect meritocracy. The unfortunate truth is that we don't live in a perfect meritocracy.

So you end up with a lot of people who work hard and some people "make it" but most don't, and that divides people pretty quickly. Many of the people who "make it" conclude that they have something - brains, discipline, great hair - that the poor people don't. You'll hear politicians talk about it all the time. John Boehner went onto 60 Minutes a few years ago and cried while he talked about how he worked his way up from being a janitor. The theme of the latest RNC was "We Built It". In reference to the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax, Mitt Romney said "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The implication is that these people - almost half the country - don't end up paying income tax because they're inferior, and therefore we shouldn't worry about them. That's an awful way of looking at the world, and it's enabled by the belief that if poor people would just work harder they'd be more successful.

The Cars

The American Dream is alive and well. Its rationality is questionable but the idea that we can, through hard work and maybe a little luck, move our family up the social ladder, is still prevelant. Current political rhetoric is filled with references to the meritocracy that we are supposed to aspire to (We Built It, bootstraps, social safety net/crutch, etc.). The titles of this post and my blog, once again, are ripped from a song about the American Dream.

A lot of people will say that to them the American Dream means white picket fences, a chicken in every pot, and an unhealthy fear of the displaced. Neighborhoods, as Ernest Hemingway put it, "of wide lawns and narrow minds". But to me the American Dream is a little bit more broad and much more personal. To me the American Dream means giving your children a better chance at happiness than you had. That could mean a more stable home, a better financial position, or a bigger rolodex. I've seen the American Dream play out before my eyes as I've watched my father's career and rise to a much higher level of affluence than our family has seen. As a kid I listened to my dad's keyboard tic-tack until past midnight every weekend and we've had to cancel trips to Orioles games or walks to the park because he had to be on an urgent conference call. His American Dream required sacrifices. It usually does.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaanyways. That's what the American Dream is to me. We'll see if this has changed in a few weeks.