Blog Archives

To Ear is Human

8/25/2023

I’ve recently been diagnosed with mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the upper registers; a wholly unsurprising assessment for those of a certain age. It’s minor and treatable, so this is not an exercise in hand-wringing or mordant consideration of the frailties of my “mortal coil.” Rather, it is a reflection on my senses, their social context, and how I relate to them.

Ordinary social commentary holds that the loss of hearing, while hardly unusual, carries a lot of “aging” baggage. Men, in particular, are commonly held to be in denial over this particular component of physical degeneration. Their spouses are often the first to report/allege communications problems. Of course, the degree to which this differential diagnosis is due to a) not being able to hear and b) not being interested in listening or c) issues with the creation of a clear message, is not always clear. This is certainly reflected in my own case.

Minor hearing impairment, at least in my case, presents the curious sensation of being an invisible ailment; i.e., I don’t really have a sense of my shortcoming. In other words, I don’t know what I’m missing: which comes down to a little clarity around words extracted from a buzzing conversation (all too readily filled-in by my brain overlaying history and social and linguistic context). My audiologist tells me that once fully equipped with remedial technology (of which more below), I will appreciate what I apparently can’t hear now.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the diagnosis was the way I reacted: a lack of surprise, a grudging acceptance of the state of my body, a residuum of denial; but, even more, an awareness of how differently I reacted as compared with a comparable diagnosis of my sight. I’ve been wearing glasses since I was seven. With the exception of a few years in my 40s when I shifted to contact lenses (only to return to glasses when bifocals became necessary); they have been a basic part of my self-image for as long as I can remember.

In terms of impairment, myopia and presbycusis (Okay, I had to look that word up!) seem pretty similar. In my case, my sight has been limited for decades. It’s a given, no big deal. Why would I treat my ears differently than my eyes? Indeed, as an avid reader, my eyes have always seemed more important to me than my ears and I have little doubt what I would choose if forced to give one up. So, following the hearing test, my wanting to react more strongly, to protest and deny, was quickly undercut by the realization of my pretense.

My affected rejection comes from a combination of 1) memories of old men and old technologies (i.e., not wanting to look like my grandfather, 2) not wanting to signal my (apparent) age/decline by having visible technical aids (one step better than a walker), and 3) an aversion to having anything in my ears. All of which I ignore in the case of glasses.

I also remember when my dad got hearing aids. My mom had to nudge him for a while, but eventually, they became part of his routine. He used to grumble about them—the fit, the cost, the batteries, the limited effectiveness. I’m pretty sure I was on my mom’s side on this issue, telling him to get over it. (Now, if I would only look in the mirror and say the same thing…)

At the Kaiser Medical Center, there is (naturally) a comprehensive protocol for this diagnosis. I’ve had the test and the preliminary discussion with the audiologist. Next, if (when) I choose, I can get a consultation with a “Hearing Instrument Specialist” who will explain the various devices, including cost (anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per ear), effectiveness, size/weight, tech interfaces, etc. I can then order the devices and come back for a preliminary fitting and a follow-up. Or, I can get a device over-the-counter. A little googling shows that here as in many other areas, the tech has gotten a lot better in the last ten years. I guess with all the Dr Dre’s and iBuds out there, it’s not too surprising. Many hearing aids can Bluetooth connect with my iPhone. And, of course, there are many models that are much smaller than they used to be (If only I can get over my aversion to things in my ear!). I imagine that within a few years, there will be easily implantable aids that will also connect via Bluetooth to a microphone in my phone so I can subvocalize questions and carry on a pretty seamless and invisible conversation. Neural shunts (direct implants connecting to the brain) can’t be that far off; pretty soon we will be somewhere between the Six-Million-Dollar Man (1973) and the Borg on Star Trek (1989).

So much for the tech part of the story.

Bottom line: I don’t think I’m ready to take this step yet. I don’t have the sense that I’m actually missing all that much in the way of comprehensible sound waves. The technology is continuing to come down the cost/effectiveness curve. And, perhaps, I need a little more time to come to terms with all this. But, eventually, I will take this step. As the Borg says: “Resistance is futile.”

4 Comments

War and Ideology

8/18/2023

1 Comment

War and ideology

War is about power. It may be dressed up in a variety of clothing, but at the end of the day, men (it’s almost always men) argue about “Qui es muy macho?,” push comes to shove, and people die.

As the shape of power has shifted over the centuries, the rationalizations and recruitment theories (you always need to get a bunch of guys to fight with you) have shifted as well. Charisma can be important (see the St. Crispin’s Day speech in Shakespeare’s Henry V), sometimes money is the motivator, sometimes revenge (usually just deterrence to promote longer-term security…i.e. power). In feudal structures (applicable globally) hierarchical power and personal connections were activated to preserve social order (which usually meant keeping the elites in charge).

In the modern era (which arrived at different times for different countries), democracy (i.e., “power to the people”) and nationalism have been the critical and interlinked rationales.

The 20C was nominally marked by a nominal focus on fairly coherent ideology/belief systems. Some have argued that the set of three wars (WWI, WWII, Cold War) which dominated that era were really just three acts in a single tripartite drama between Communism, Fascism, and Liberal Democracy. (btw, we won). This ideological focus which characterized the epistemology of the 20C and therefore colored how we (Greatest Generation, Boomers, Gen X) think is emblematic of modernity and the conceit that we are motivated by rational ideals. It all made sense at the time, but from a larger perspective, ideological frameworks for war were superficial and an anomaly.

At the end of the Cold War, President Bush (41) proclaimed a “new world order.” Francis Fukuyama announced the “end of history.” It seemed that the triumph of the West was virtually complete. But we have been trapped in old ways of thinking. I’ve been doing research about the end of the British Empire in the mid-20C and their blindness to the changes in the world is quite remarkable. Sixty to eighty years later, the Brits still haven’t figured it out. Now that it’s our turn, it doesn’t look like we’re any more mentally deft.

We missed two key things: First, there were lots of folks who didn’t like Western liberal modernity and wanted to go backwards, and second, there were lots of folks who didn’t like Western liberal modernity and wanted to go in different directions. In the first group, radical Islam generated what we call terrorism to try to stop the process and many warlords/dictators were more interested in pre-modern luxury than in individual rights and democratic/economic development. In the second group, China got sufficiently modern to be competitive (i.e., to amass enough power to get everyone to pay attention to them) and has announced that they have a different vision of the future. We will see if India can muster either the strength or the vision to do something similar.

However, there’s an interesting argument, backed up by some “on-the-ground” research, that most terrorists (e.g. the IRA, or the German Baader-Meinhof Gang in 20C Europe, nor most flavors of radical Islamic terrorist groups (e.g. ISIS or al-Queda) are actually not about ideology. Instead, they may be more driven by the camaraderie of shared effort, as well as notoriety. Their aims are nominal. Even if there was a substantive kernel of an idea, its lost on most of the members of such organizations. In other words, they’re hard to defeat and prevent, and certainly not “convincible.” Their mode of warfare, being asymmetric as well, doesn’t fit into the normal modes of military assessment.

Nor should we confuse a Chinese future with an ideology. There’s no real indication that they believe in anything other than preserving order (i.e. keeping the current “Communist” oligarchy in power). Nor is there any intellectual coherence behind Putin. And India (and Brazil and Indonesia) will certainly dress-up their geopolitical aspirations in ideological clothing, but there’s not likely much there either). [One could argue, of course, that much the same could be said of Western liberal capitalistic democracy (some of which I have touched on in previous postings). The dominance of markets and the devotion to the form of legal, individual rights can be seen as merely a device to preserve the power of our own elites. So, we shouldn’t get too smug ourselves.]

Much of this analytic framework is old hat for aficionados of the international relations theory called “realism” (or its variants). In this view, ideology is a tool for the preservation/expansion of power; it’s not a goal in itself. Henry Kissinger (who just turned 100) is the current exemplar of this tradition, which also claims, Bismarck and Louis XIV as adherents. Some (many) find this approach distasteful and cruel.

Still, it’s good to at least consider an understanding of the world in which “they” are not out to get “us” because of what we think, but because everyone want the others to be like them and sign up for the system in which they dominate the world. A “new world order” which is stable and settled is also one in which those currently without power stay without power. Putin couldn’t stand it; so he started a war. China can’t stand that Taiwan is trying to escape Beijing’s control by hiding under the skirts of the West. Kim Jong Il threatens war not for any ideology, but because he knows the minute size of the pond in which he is the biggest fish. Iran cozies up to Russia because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” casually disregarding Russia’s Communist/atheistic past. Until WWII, the US didn’t like the way the world worked, consigning us to the fringes. Over time, our growth (and growing power) forced a change. Since then (the last 75 years), we picked up the torch from the European “Great Powers” and the world has been “our oyster.”

Ideology is just window-dressing on the cycles of geopolitics; and this cycle may be over.

1 Comment

The History of Me

8/11/2023

0 Comments

From time to time, I’ve talked about the classes I’m teaching and what I’m trying to accomplish in each. One of the costs/benefits of being a lecturer at the bottom of a (shrinking) pecking order in the History Department at SF State is that I am sort of a “utility infielder,” getting assigned to teach a wide variety of classes, regardless of my areas of interest/expertise. It does keep me on my toes!

Last term, I taught “Genocide and the Holocaust,” covering a class (listed in both Jewish Studies and History) for whom the regular professor was on leave. This term I am handling “International Relations through Cinema” for the IR department. While I get to learn new things, the fact that I’m “pinch-hitting” (sorry for the multiple baseball metaphors) means that I don’t have any expectation of getting to repeat the experience and refine my thinking/approach.

In addition, this fall I am also teaching a History Department course called “The History of Me.” It’s a freshman-oriented course, which we have offered for the past several years as part of a set of courses intended for students who need to meet general education requirements, so we can’t lean too heavily on the “history” part.

I’m fortunate to be able to build on (steal from) several of my colleagues who have designed and taught this class. The have emphasized using the skills of oral history so each student can compile a family history. There is a unit on SF State, focused on the strike in 1968 which made a lot of news in that confrontational (but now seemingly ancient) year; featuring Governor Reagan and University President Sam Hayakawa. This unit provides practice in using primary sources and connecting with the history of the place which is a significant part of our student’s lives. Other professors have stressed issues of identity, drawing on recent autobiographies of activists and diverse backgrounds.

Since I have a more philosophical bent, I was tempted to have them read Augustine and Rousseau as early exemplars of autobiographical writing. But I decided that these guys are pretty heavy lifting for university newbies. I am going to use a few small selections from Montaigne, as I discussed a few weeks ago (“How to Live, 071423), and excerpts from the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Frederick Douglass, which are more accessible. We will also be reading a bunch of contemporary (20/21C) authors, several with a decidedly practical, “how-to” angle; overall a combination of examples and methodology.

Still, as I say in the syllabus: “This is not a hard class in terms of quantity of reading or writing. It is a hard class in terms of the mental work and emotional courage required to gain significant insights into yourself and your history.” Indeed, I’ve put a picture of a mirror on the top of the syllabus. I will push students to look hard at themselves and their context. I will ask them to consider and write about their lives so far (i.e. 18-20 years), their family context, their cultural milieu, their generational cohort (Gen Z), and how they fit into the historical events of their era.

One of the perspectives I want them to gain is to realize that they live in history; not in a vacuum or even an overly solipsistic universe. As Marx said: “[People] make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” [Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)]. In other words, you can’t understand your self without understanding your history.

After the Thanksgiving break, I will ask them (perhaps unfairly) to look into their future. I will ask them to write their own eulogy as of 2083 (their current life expectancy). I have always remembered the scene in the movie version of Huckleberry Finn where the boys are presumed drowned on the river and a funeral is held. They sneak in the back and watch the impact of their (brief) lives on their family and community. It will be a sobering assignment; actually, doubly so. I plan to ask them to write, first, the eulogy for the life they fear that they might have. Then, as a second assignment, I will ask them to write the eulogy for the life to which they aspire…should be interesting.

In order to be grounded in my review of their work, I will be doing my own version of these assignments. (Sauce for the goose and all that.) This way, I will get something out of the class for myself, in addition to whatever I can give them.

I have to confess some trepidation about this course in general. It’s some distance from the kind of History I thought/hoped I would be able to do when I was in grad school. My orientation is macro, philosophical, and political; and this is micro and personal. The “great events” and “great men,” and great trends are all the periphery of these individual stories written by individuals whose lives are but a fraction of what they are likely to be. It’s a bit like looking through the wide end of the telescope towards the eyepiece. In that way, it will help me remember that the grand narratives are also (only?) the aggregates of so many personal tales and experiences. As with the students, for me this course is not a “heavy lift” in terms of the substance of history, but it could be engaging…and fun.

It should be—on several levels—an interesting experiment. Look for a report next year.

0 Comments

Petard

8/4/2023

3 Comments

What, actually, is a petard? And how is one to be “hoist” on it?

The famous phrase comes from Hamlet (III:4) in which the young prince devises a plan to turn Claudius’ (his nemesis/uncle) scheme against him. A petard was a name (from the French) for an early modern bomb or mine. The word “hoist” is adapted (as is much of Shakespeare’s diction), and means, in context, to be lifted up; in other words, that Claudius would be “lifted up” (blown up) by his own explosive plan.

It's a great phrase, along with “just desserts” (which, too, we have to translate a bit from its original context); meaning that someone gets what the justly deserve (nothing to do with cherry pie (alas) or the Sahara).

Either one will do for the situation now facing our late President (aka “He Who Shall Not Be Named”) in which there are four criminal proceedings pending or imminent for a variety of evil deeds. I’m sure librarians across the country are clearing shelf space on multiple bookcases for the ongoing flood of books on these events.

Barring some new surprise, he will run and, if the present state of the Republican field is any indication, he will get the nomination at the Convention a year from now. But our judicial process moves quite slowly, so even if convicted, he will appeal and is unlikely to be sent to Sing Sing or the federal pen (would he need to go to the Supermax (most secure) facility in Colorado so that he doesn’t get a shiv from some other inmate…?) before the election. And, in any case, we have the precedent of Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned by the Wilson Administration for sedition and still ran for President (as a Socialist) in 1920.

With all due caveats about an election more than a year away, and despite the generally favorable facts on the ground for the incumbent, the mood of the country remains sour and febrile. Joe’s no great shakes (except comparatively) and he might well lose.

However, before you start checking immigration visa sites for Canada or Costa Rica, we still have an ace in the hole. It’s obscure and speculative, to be sure; but that’s hardly a criticism in the current political environment (just ask the supporters of RFK Jr. or Doug Burgum).

After FDR was elected for the fourth time, we added the 22d Amendment to the Constitution to prevent further long-term office holders. It provides: “No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice….”

Now, according to most folks, "HWSNBN" was elected once, in 2016. But, he claims he was elected in 2020 as well (and even for most of his supporters, 1 + 1 = 2). So, if he stands by his claim that he won in 2020, then the 22d Amendment would seem to bar him from being elected a third time and taking office again. In the (inevitable) law suit that would arise upon his reelection, in order to avoid this problem, he would have to argue that, in fact, he lost in 2020. Hmmm….

Note that the plain language of the Amendment speaks of election, not getting sworn in or taking office, so the fact that he chose to skedaddle down to Mar-a-Lago doesn’t avoid the Amendment’s prohibition.

Now, just for discussion’s sake, let’s assume that he says that he knew he wasn’t elected and willingly left the White House on January 20, 2021.

The clinching twist comes from the recent federal conspiracy charges that he sought to defraud the United States (and all of us!) by falsely claiming to have won the election, a claim which he knew to be false. Part of his defense will likely be that he did, in fact, believe that he won.

So, which is it, does he think he won, in which case the 22d Amendment presents a high hurdle to moving back to DC, or does he acknowledge that he didn’t win, contradicting hundreds of statements over the past 2+ years and undermining his defense in the conspiracy to defraud case?

It's quite a petard. BOOM!

3 Comments

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.

I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

To Ear is Human

War and Ideology

The History of Me

Petard

Condemned to Repeat It --Musings on history, society, and the world.

Archives

Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

Condemned to Repeat It --
Musings on history, society, and the world.