Monday, February 13, 2012

Me? "Radical"?

Here we were, my very counter-cultural 30-something friend Sarah and I strolling near work when she asks, “How do you stay radical as you get older?”

I’m 56 and I was bemused by the question because I can’t possibly be “older” yet, but of course I am. More to the point, though, I can’t be “radical” as I understand it. Bougee? Oh, yes. But “radical”? No, I flirted with and then backed away from that route, it seems to me, about 30 years ago or more.

She pressed the point. A bit flummoxed, I babbled something about . . . . Actually, I don’t remember what I said because I was either lamely trying to live up to the compliment or more modestly insisting that I’m sort of in the world, but not fully of it, like so many of us in the Bay Area. No biggee.

A few days later, I ran into Sarah and asked, “What do you mean by ‘radical’ and what is it in me that suggests ‘radical’ to you?” She just said she knows it when she sees it; that it’s a “way of encountering the world.”

So I asked my wife. “You’re not a radical,” she said. “Look it up.” Radically, I avoid dictionaries, preferring a pretty good ear for how words are used idiomatically.

So how do we understand this word? To progressives of my generation, a “radical” was someone who plotted the overthrow of the “capitalist-pig police-state” by nearly any means necessary, only barely acknowledging that a pacifist could be within their ranks. Now, progressives don’t seem to use the term much. Where are the radicals today? Even the Occupy movement doesn’t seem to be “radical” . . . yet.

In fact, we progressives have let conservative US Americans commandeer “radical” so that now their ilk bandy it about with vigor as a pejorative, as hyperbole to discredit even the most moderate liberals. President Obama, for example, is called a “radical” by the foam-at-the-mouth crowd on the right wing. If President Obama is a radical . . . then the term has lost its meaning. Like "awesome."

Still, I have a young friend, SB, whose lovely little voice vocalizes lots of terms of endearment and some radical ideas, particularly about capitalism, war, equity, gender and pronouns. My wife and I call SB our “sweet and gentle” radical. This, of course, presumes that our impression of radicals does not generally include sweetness and light. And that would be true. I think of radicals as lean, angry types with perpetually clenched teeth, bandana’d faces protected from tear gas, necks straining as one arm flings a rock.

To borrow an insight from Russell Baker, calling  myself a radical would seem . . . immodest certainly. Like looking in the mirror and insisting I’m handsome or clever, kind to children and the elderly, or good in the sack. It’s for others to say, not me.

And sometimes those others are mistaken. Sarah sees something in me that I just can’t imagine could be called “radical.” But I appreciate her regard.


Look, I’m married -- heterosexually and even within the same ethnicity; we own a home; we are gourmands, aka, “foodies” following the trends; we read the New Yorker and watch foreign films; when we travel, it’s to Europe; I teach the children of the “1%” in a private high school with a tuition of $34k. Radical? How could it be?

The equivalent, by the way, for conservatives is “patriot,” a term they distribute willy-nilly to even the most weak-kneed privileged draft-dodgers as long as they kowtow to the rants of Lumbaugh et al. They’ve debased and stolen the term so thoroughly that I cannot imagine how it could apply to me or to, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., whose work sprung from a deep love of and abiding faith in this country, and from a real radicalism.

How about “counter-cultural” or even “Bohemian”? Well, sure. We lived together for 21 years before marrying and then didn’t tell anyone for 2 years; we didn’t marry until my wife’s gay brother and his partner could do so; the home we own was, we’re told, “built by hippies” high in the Oakland hills; we don’t eat in chain restaurants and we buy organic; we drive Priuses; I teach “Nature Writing” among other subjects and my Econ class begins with a poem about work each day; we both believe we’ve escaped the South and can’t imagine living anywhere other than the SF Bay Area; a great outing is a hike in Pt. Reyes. Yeah, I’m a stereotype, but not a radical.

We have young friends who may be radical. We love them. Wouldn’t turn ‘em over to the police. Would bail them out if it comes to that. But me? Radical? Me? Only if the term is neutered. Or commodified.

I find it amusing that Sarah and I enjoyed our conversation while strolling on Haight St. -- the Coney Island, the Fisherman’s Wharf, the tawdry Disneyland of commodified radicalism. Had I looked around me I might have said, “Sure, compared to this commodified radicalism banking on 60’s wannabe fetishism, I am surely more radical.” Had I thought of it, I would have thrust my bag of Haight Market purchased Blue Bottle coffee beans into the air, thus letting my 2012 freak flag fly.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Chill vs. Frenetic Doctors

A former student of mine is now a first-year medical student trying hard to maintain a balanced life.  How?  By not giving into a "study frenzy."    This is a good idea!

Study frenzy makes people frenetic which is not a good temperament for a doctor.  I like my doc to be chill. 


Doc: "Greg, dude, gotta bust out the running shoes now and then.  Ya feel me?" 

Me: "Yeah, Doc." 

Doc: "You know, like, dia-freakin'-betes, du'.  Not cool.  Die early and shit." 

Me: "Yeah, thanks for the heads-up . . .  for like the gazillionth time, Doc." 

Doc: "Yo, chill.  I'm just sayin'."

Me:  "S'cool.  I know you got my back." 

Doc:  "Speakin' of getting your back.  Time for the old man checkup."


Instead, it might have gone like this:

Doctor:  Mr. Monfils, you're risking diabetes if you don't exercise strenuously 45 minutes, at least!, each day.

Me:  Yes, I know, Doctor.  I recall your warning last year.

Doctor:  And the warning still applies . . . except, of course, I offer it with greater urgency as you continue to age.

Me:  Thanks, Doctor.

Doctor:  No need to thank me.  Now, drop your trousers and turn around so I can check for prostrate cancer.   Still eating red meat?


You see, that's a doctor who was frenzied in med school.  Fortunately, I'm not easily frightened.  Perhaps I should be.   But a chill doc would be more successful getting me to exercise.  Mos def. 

So to my former student I say, "Chill" and be a humane, sensitive doctor not a harbinger of doom.

(My actual doctor . . . is great!)  


Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Rock n' Roll in the Dough

The essays of the great rock critic Ellen Willis are available in a new collection entitled Out of the Vinyl Deeps. Here's a particularly insightful assessment, written from the fabled Woodstock concert, of rock as a commodity and not a revolution:
"What cultural revolutionaries do not seem to grasp is that, far from being a grass-roots art form that has been taken over by businessmen, rock itself comes from a commercial exploitation of the blues. It is bourgeois at its core, a mass-produced commodity, dependent on advanced technology and therefore on the money controlled by those in power. Its rebelliousness does not imply specific political content; it can be—and has been—criminal, fascistic, and coolly individualistic as well as revolutionary. Nor is the hip lifestyle inherently radical. It can simply be a more pleasurable way of surviving within the system, which is what the pop sensibility has always been about. Certainly that was what Woodstock was about: ignore the bad, groove on the good, hang loose, and let things happen. The truth is that there can’t be a revolutionary culture until there is a revolution. In the meantime, we should at least insist that the capitalists who produce rock concerts charge reasonable prices for reasonable service."

Saturday, February 4, 2012

A Magazine is an iPad That Doesn't Work

Here is a video of a one-year-old who can't get a magazine to react to her touch the way an iPad does. 


What does this portend?  It's obvious to me.  And I don't mind it.  Books will become ornaments, but too limited to actually "read" . . . because the reading, as the term is already understood, will be limited and physically clumsy.



I'm going to fly to Europe this summer and while I've always so looked forward to taking those two or three books with me -- not only because of my choice of authors, but also because of the physicality, the tactile sensation of "settling in" with a book --  I will, nonethless, on this trip take an iPad with a those two or three books, and the New Yorker, and a film or two, in it.  


And just in case there are tech glitches, I'll take a book, real book, with me.  And I'll find out where in Paris I can buy English language books.  Just in case mind you. 


Interested in more musings of a 56-year-old teacher confronting and welcoming technology?  See here.