Sanuk is not a four-letter word....

I've been wanting to address this particular topic for a while but wasn't quite sure how to do it. Most people who read here are fairly tolerant of my being an open cultural dissident but I haven't previously gored too many sacred cows.

The supposed "work ethic" is one I've wanted to gore for a long time. Each time I've started to do so, the post gets far too long because these things develop historically. Then they are shaped socially. They don't come out of a vacuum. The posts ended up reading like a sociology white paper and that isn't what I want to do here. At the same time, it is worthy to examine this because it is hurting families and communities.

So.. briefly, here's the history:

Most societies prior to The Reformation didn't have a work ethic - which isn't to say they didn't work. They worked to get the food and goods they needed to live. Sometimes they worked three days in a week, sometimes four days, sometimes seven. Once their basic needs were satisfied, they spent their time doing other things that mattered to them. They spent time with their families or engaged in community activities.

In order for capitalism to thrive, that way of life needed to end. Protestant religious leaders such as Calvin and Luther made work a calling. It was considered a way of serving God. The more you did, the more God would favor you. So creating profit became a virtue.

The more money someone made, the more he or she would be considered as receiving favor from God. In other words, God likes rich folks better than poor folks. (This is where prosperity theology which I mentioned yesterday originated.)

Since societies are generally more secular now, there isn't quite the same emphasis on working for God. Instead, it is considered a sign of "good character" and "success" is defined by the amount of money one has and the power he or she exerts over other people. This idea is consistently pushed by business people, religious leaders, corporations, politicians and teachers.

The social values that follow are that those who work hard must have good character. Those who are poor must have bad character because they are unable to work hard and take advantage of opportunities.

So that is the core of the legitimization of a whole status system as being based on individual effort rather than class or social structure.

The truth is that it is a complete myth.

For one thing, it assumes there is a "level playing field" and that everyone has the same access to education and opportunities. The truth is that most poor people don't "make it". Real wages are going down because of all the unnecessary work that is being done and most people are treadmilling their way through life without anything necessarily satisfying to show for it at the end. Fairness is also a myth. People can work hard all their lives and still be poor at the end.

Still the ideology, the values and the culture of the work ethic continues on. It doesn't continue by accident or through momentum. It is actively promoted.

Schools are, of course, the first place the indoctrination begins. Classes are fashioned after work places where children are taught to work hard, to show up on time and to do what their teachers tell them. They are a place where there are bosses (teachers) and workers, where time is structured and activities disciplined. There's been quite a bit of talk about the amount of homework children are required to do, getting them to work even when they are away from school and at home is part of pushing the work ethic. Creativity and talent are often sacrificed for this regimentation.

The most destructive means of promoting the work ethic is through the negative attitude toward people on welfare or disability. And this is something that goes on in all cultural media. The media love to denigrate the unemployed. Newspapers and television programs include stories about 'people on the dole' who don't want to work and who are just enjoying themselves at the taxpayers' expense. This is all part of the strategy of blaming unemployed people for their own situation, by saying 'Well it's because they don't want to work', rather than acknowledging that there isn't enough work for everyone.

That is not to mention unemployment income and disability income, both of which are notoriously low. Interestingly (or not), disability income is just a bit higher because it is perceived that those who are disabled are not at "fault" for their inability to work. On a personal note, I can tell you that I am now living on one quarter of what I earned when I was working. I worked in the Information Technology field making in the $40-50K a year range. I now live on less than $15K a year.

Honestly, it benefits employers to have the unemployed. It allows employers to set up a horrid system of competition where small groups of people must dogpile each other for one job opportunity. This system allows employers to keep wages low. Just in case people might find alternative lifestyles, manage to live on less income, not be desperate for work, and not provide an army of reserve labor competing for the jobs, the propaganda system plods on. Once welfare was introduced after the Second World War there has been a policy of making welfare as unattractive as possible: by not paying people very much, by always searching for those who might exploit the system, by having work tests, by stigmatizing the unemployed through the media, so that they don't have any self respect and feel worthless because the work ethic says that your worth is totally based on the work you do and your income.

There's not enough room left on my template to even bother talking about how consumerism perpetuates this whole cycle.

This is the point: With people living lives that are so dominated by their work, they don't have time to do the things that make people happy; spending time on relationships, with friends and family or pursuing their talents. Many people don't even have time to sleep well and their health suffers. Levels of stress are increasing, suicide is increasing as well as escalating levels of depression, and meanwhile it goes on, producing more and more in order to keep people in jobs, when all the extra production is only creating more and more unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

But very few get off the treadmill. No one wants to be unemployed because the unemployed are denigrated and the income so low. So, while at one point in history the work ethic may have been useful in raising living standards, it has run its course. We need to look for other, more humane, organizing principles for our societies.

We humans have lots of qualities other than the ones needed to work and make products. And those qualities have been far too long neglected.

~*

Stranger in a strange land....

You say I am mysterious
Let me explain myself
In a land of oranges
I am faithful to apples.

~ Elsa Gidlow

Things are becoming more stable around here.

V. has been sober for four months now, holds a full time job. He's not causing the kinds of crises that were a staple of this environment just four or five short months ago. D. seems to be reasonably healthy and content with her situation.

When I leave here, it needs to be during one of these "calm" periods. Trying to leave in the middle of a mess would be very difficult for me ~ and probably very difficult for D.

So I've been thinking...

What I need is people around me who think and live the way I do. I need to wake up each day and not feel "other".

During my remaining time here, before leaving for Thailand, I really need that. Badly. While I have some very good contacts on the Internet, other people who have chosen the same way of life I've chosen, it would be better to be surrounded by like-minded others in a community. People I can see and talk with over a table. People I can share a meal with. People who will share some of the same milestones. People I can share things with on an everyday basis, not only through typed words.

That's not to say I don't value Internet contacts. I do. The Thaiphile community is very small and there are several of us who have contact only with each other ~ and only this way.

One person though did take it a bit further. She moved from suburban Dallas to a location closer to a Thai wat. Since she made that choice, she is surrounded by others who share her values, who believe as she believes and people who "get" her without explanation. She is finding her place in a community that makes sense to her. She is in the flow of life instead of separate from it. They share customs and habits, holidays, values and standards. Without realizing it fully, I've been very hungry for that. Really hungry.

I am going to be following her path. Through the Thai Embassy, I have gotten a list of every wat in this country. All I have to do is choose one.

I'd love to go to Berkeley but it's out of my price range. I might choose Texas. There are actually several possibilities so the only thing I need to do is investigate the cost of living in each area and choose one.

Loneliness isn't the problem. Not entirely. I'm such a loner that it rarely enters into my life at all. Just the same, I would like to have the option of choosing aloneness when I want it. It feels imposed on me now. What's missing, what feels so isolating, is the fact that I do live a different type of life, think differently, dress differently, value different things and often have to explain to others. Defending my way of life is tiring. I explain to those who care enough to ask. By that, I mean there are some who respect other cultures enough to bother asking. Those people, luckily, I count among my friends.

Most of the time though, I wander through each day feeling foreign and odd, not able to really connect with others around me because we simply don't think alike. At all. The greatest downside is that most people I meet just automatically assume that I believe as they do, that I value the same things. That increases my sense of isolation as I either go along with it or remain alone.

I am not certain what the time frame is on my getting to Thailand. An unqualified projection would put me there by next summer. Still, that's a year away and until that time, moving to a small community of those like me would probably be rather refreshing and comforting. It will be reinforcement of my way of life instead of isolation.

~*

Mommy wars..... It really does take a village...

Okay. Logical question: Why is a woman who has never had children sticking her nose into a question like this?

Well, I'm sticking my nose in because I live on the same planet, I am interested in the lives of women and I'm interested in culture. And I care about children.

That established.... :)

I read an exchange this morning, directed by a few different blogs I've read so far, and was startled by the anger, the judgment and the snarkiness. It was a cat fight. It's not the first cat fight I've read on this particular topic. A few things came to mind as I read it. While the exchange addressed one of the symptoms of a greater disease, I wanted to take a look at what I see as the larger, more global, issue.

My understanding of feminism is that it is supposed to allow women choices we didn't have in the past. Somewhere along the line, there are those who took that to mean that we have the right to make choices, but only choices that are approved by other women.

So it was a switch from one set of no choices to another set of no choices.

I have my own opinions about child raising, even though I chose to not raise children myself. From a strictly social point of view, I prefer the idea of women staying home with their children. I'm a rather typical social conservative in that regard.

At the same time, I've lived long enough to know that life is often complex and messy. Not all women have the choice to stay home, even though they might prefer it.

And there are some who don't prefer to stay home and make decisions accordingly.

In a culture where the group dynamic is primarily individualistic, women who make the latter choice are at a disadvantage. Rather than being able to depend on their community, they are often alone, having to balance choices that satisfy both their own desires and the best interests of their children.

Others don't have a choice at all. They can't stay home. Economics being the usual reason. Welfare doesn't pay enough to make that a viable option for those women and it often won't award based simply because a woman wants to raise her children herself.

Yesterday during a quick trip to Target, I saw this for myself. A young woman, probably no older than 20, sat in the food court next to her child, police present. She was wearing the Target uniform. She didn't have anyone to take care of her child and she had to work. She left the little girl in the food court with a cheeseburger and a coloring book.

I overheard enough of the conversation with the police to know that her unpardonable crime of being poor will cause her problems in the future, perhaps even the loss of her child. There were comments made about Child Protective Services and Target's obligation to call the police, having seen the child alone.

These are the realities, the day-to-day life of many mothers. It's not about "choice". It's about necessity.

The mountain of this entire argument is much larger than the molehills so many have discussed over the past 30 years. The truth is that there is often no village. There are individuals. There are individuals with children. And a culture that doesn't support them or value them. Personal desires are the pinnacle of the meaning of life. Personal fulfillment comes before family obligations. Extended families, the possibility of leaving children with Grandma, are nearly a thing of the past. Once living in small communities, extended families and friends are now spread across miles. Neighborhoods are no longer small communities. They are made up of strangers who happen to live near each other.

When it comes to having the interests of children as a priority, it seems to me that this needs to change. Sometimes choices are hard. Sometimes we don't always get to have everything we want. Sometimes we might have to stay put when we don't want to stay put. Sometimes we have to consider the well-being of the community before our personal dreams.

"It takes a village" has become a nice catchphrase, something to be said to express a warm fuzzy feeling, but I wonder how many actually examine the implications of that and the changes that would be necessary to create it. More importantly, how many would be willing to actualize those changes?

~*

You are not alone!

I read a blog post this morning that disturbed me... a lot! I'm not linking the person's post here because I don't have permission.

What disturbed me is that so many people still have the notion that they are alone ~ when it really doesn't need to be that way. That's something we have the power to change. Not as individuals but as a community, we can change having anyone feel so completely alone and overwhelmed.

We find plenty of excuses. We're too busy ourselves. We have our own business to tend, our own concerns...

... but is that really why we're here?

Are we human beings all on this planet together for nothing more than personal empire-building? There are literally billions of us on this planet. For anyone to be "alone" is beyond comprehension.

And in the spirit of full disclosure, yes, I am very aware that I felt alone for many years. That is because I didn't hold my current beliefs at that time ~ and I didn't realize or understand my own complicity in that aloneness.

I believe we can all do more than offer emotional support to someone whose life is unraveling, who is feeling overly stressed and overwhelmed.

Sometimes even small things can mean a lot. The simple question "what can I do" can make all the difference in the world. Can I watch someone's child for evening? Can I do some footwork? Can I make some phone calls? Can I cook a meal?

I wish there is something I could offer to someone known only through blog-reading.

That post really hurt my heart this morning. It will be sticking with me all day.


Peace,


~Chani

Transpersonal Psychology and the Blue-Eyed Thai Girl

One of my favorite things about blogging is the pool of knowledge available to all of us with just a few key words in a search engine.

The next best thing is the way we are able to engage each other in a form of conversation. One post read on another site will generate one on mine. Maybe one on mine will generate a post on another site. I can't imagine a better way to take advantage of our collective education and points of view.

Jen who writes One Plus Two and I have been engaged in an email conversation about ego and its place in our lives. We haven't gotten academic or pedantic. It's a casual sharing of views between us. It's just one mind to another, one thought to another. Her post this morning is abut her concept of ego and its place in our lives. This post is a response to hers.

She presents the trifecta of Freud's ego, id and superego. I don't remember too much about Freud with the exception of the basic concepts taught in a college course too many years ago to admit. What I remember most is that his basic premise is that human beings are evil and that when given the choice will always choose anti-social behavior. This creates conflict between three elements of personality. I believe he built the theory based on the cultural premise of the time which was Calvinism. (We need a big bad White Dude In The Sky to keep us on the straight and narrow and we get to heaven [reach enlightenment] by repression of our base human instincts. Morality must be enforced with an iron fist.) There is an interplay between culture and psychology and one developes in support of the other. The psychology becomes part of the worldview of the members of a common community. The model is perpetuated through a socialization process of propaganda.

That's true for any society, east or west. All cultures will develope a collective psychology that will support itself. The social reality produced is considered "normal" if it coincides with culturally accepted behavior.

I think at some level we become attuned to these things and they may or may not resonate with us. Sometimes they won't resonate to a point where we can become alienated from everyone around us.

To a certain degree, that is what happened with me over the years. That caused me to explore many different types of thought, hoping I would find one to use in my own life, to provide me with guidance and context. It took literal years to sort through all the "stuff" that's out there.

So, although I feel somewhat out of my league when responding to someone like Jen who has an intellect I can only dream about, I will do my best to summarize how I view ego and its place in my (the) world. This exchange is particularly interesting, given our different educational backgrounds.

Ego is the part of me that demands separateness, including the separation of body and mind. It is the source of unhealthy attachments, anger and insecurity. It is the part that is satisfied by power over others and a higher privilege than others. It is in constant competition with other human beings by necessity. If we can't overcome others in one way or another, we will find ourselves at the bottom of the heap or worse yet, extinction. That is the shadow level of ego. Our perception of self determines our perception of social reality.

My ultimate belief is that ego is what hinders our ability to escape the cycle of suffering. That doesn't mean complete self-abnegation but it does mean that I remain conscious of the potential dangers inherent in perceiving myself as separate from other human beings. By "dangers", I don't mean to imply that we should be without boundaries or identity. I do mean that it is necessary to see ourselves as an integral part of a larger community. It is necessary that we understand that when an Other suffers, we all suffer. When the community is out of balance, we are likewise out of balance. It is important that we choose to use power for something higher than self-interest.

In that respect, ego creates conflict. On the other hand, it is also what prevents us from stepping in front of buses or allowing ourselves to be abused or oppressed. That is the positive aspect of ego.

So within that context, there's still the question of how to manage it, how to make it work for us instead of against us.

I will be interested to hear other thoughts on this topic. :)


Peace,


~Chani

Recognizing the Wisewomen....

Last night, I got to thinking about how we recognize our elders. First, I had to define "elder".

The primary characteristic is wisdom. The secondary characteristic would be a balanced view and understanding of the life cycle. The third would be compassion and kindness. It would be very hard for me to consider someone my "elder" who doesn't consistently exhibit these characteristics.

Most of the cultures I've studied view an elder as being one who has lived the longest. That doesn't seem right somehow. Age doesn't guarantee wisdom, balance, compassion or kindness. I am older physically but am a rather young soul in many ways.

My two elders are years apart in age. One is 67 and the other is 39. I consider both of these women to be my elders, my mentors, because of the way they live, the way they think and the way they believe.

The 39 year old woman, Dalaja, came into my life three years ago. We met in the oddest way. I was working at a wretchedly horrible job, the one that led to my ultimate choice to pursue disability. Dalaja was a big part of that decision.

She is an amazing woman. She is intelligent, beautiful and one of the most balanced people I've ever met. She radiates depth and wisdom. Somehow, she manages to get along in the world with fluidity. She is an old soul who has been here many times before. Nothing much ruffles her. She is from India and has studied with masters there on several occasions during her travels. Her parents moved here. She was not a part of that decision. She acknowledged that she would have been happy to stay in India.

I remember one day sitting in the cafeteria of this workplace with her and she began reading my palm. She said, "you have a big choice to make. You can die very soon or you can change your life." She provided details sufficient to convince me she knew what she was talking about. She wasn't playing parlor games. She used that framework to give me some important information that she was getting psychically. And Dalaja is psychic. Not the Psychic Friends Network variety or the New Age fluff bunny kind. She's the real thing. She uses palms the way I use numerology. It's just a prop.

At some point, we had a conversation about elders and age. She was telling me that in India, I would be her "auntie" since I am a generation older than she is. I told her that I didn't feel much like her "auntie" because in my estimation she has more life experience, more wisdom and more knowledge. "You are my elder," I told her, "no matter how old I am physically." She looked at me for a few minutes, thought hard and finally agreed. She is. She is an older soul. So, we decided that in Indian terms, we were sisters.

All of this to say that I believe elders present themselves in many ways, in all shapes and forms. Most of the world's cultures put too much emphasis on age alone. I believe they come to us on some level we can't articulate and we recognize them.

Who do you recognize as your elders?

Peace,

~Chani

Three Deaths... (on social activism)

Most people have memory of a few significant news events that changed their view of the world forever. In my own case, it was the death of John Kennedy, the death of Bobby Sands and a seemingly insignificant newscast in Los Angeles 26 years ago.

A woman by the name of Wanda (mentioned here previously) was dying from cancer. She had to get on television and beg for money to buy medication. Without the medication, she would die in excruciating pain. I can, to this day, remember her words. I can remember her clothing. I can remember the desperation in her voice. It has never left me. I still think about Wanda. She should never be forgotten. The day I forget her will be the day I've lost my humanity.

My determination to fight for freedom and human rights began with those three events. John Kennedy's death taught me about the senselessness of murder for political reasons. On a larger scale, his death taught me about the senselessness of war.

Bobby Sands is the man who, along with several other IRA members, starved himself to death in Britain's Maze Prison. He taught me about the seeming senselessness of zeal. he also taught me about courage and the courage of one's convictions. He taught me that one can die for a cause and sometimes that makes sense. His death led me to think about those causes I would die for ~ and those I would not.

Wanda is dead by now. She taught me something with the process of death rather than her death itself. She showed me first hand the cruelty at the bowels of this society. I began to see the hypocrisy at the roots of a society that claims to have the cornerstone on human rights yet would allow an old woman to die because she committed the unpardonable sin of being poor. She had to beg and plead on television for the right to die with dignity. She had to depend on the good will of others to allow her that honor.

Wanda's situation made me angry to my very instinctual core. That anger has transformed me as I've come to understand that anger only begets more anger, just as violence begets more violence. Given that understanding, my anger has taken a different form. I am still sickened at the thought of living in a society that values the Money God above all else. I am disgusted by a society that would find the invasion of other countries for financial benefit to be acceptable. I am appalled that we continue to allow an erosion of our freedoms in the name of "homeland security". It is horribly sad that we are so immune to information analysis that cultural hegemony is considered a good thing. Importing consumerist values to Asia, Southeast Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe and an assortment of countries that had based their culture on other values is euphemistically called "promoting freedom" when it is easily understood that it is a buzz-phrase for "exploitation".

I am horribly shamed by the fact that in countless ways, my small life may have contributed to this larger picture, perhaps by action or inaction, ignorance or inertia.. perhaps a combination of all.

When this country declared its freedom from the British Empire, it was supposed to free us from political and religious tyranny. Yet what have we chosen to do with that freedom and independence? Are we satisfied? Can we look at our creation, this fledgling ideology of participatory republicanism, and say it has grown into a compassionate and wise maturity? Is it truly a model for the world? These were the lofty goals of the founders.

We failed.

May we find and restore the soul of this nation ~

~Chani