Category: Politics & Economics

  • Finding Climate Hope in Alaska

    Finding Climate Hope in Alaska

    I have spent the last several years focusing on climate change as part of my job. I have worked with consultants, contractors, and colleagues on climate vulnerability assessments and adaptation plans, both for Pala and for other Tribes. I have presented, co-presented, and taught at conferences, workshops, and webinars. I have co-authored or edited articles and chapters in journals and reports. I have been interviewed for newspaper articles and podcasts. I have made work on climate change the centerpiece of the Pala Environmental Department’s mission and become very vocal as Pala’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) about the impacts of climate change on Tribal cultural resources, including sacred sites, traditional plants and animals, ceremonies, and cultural practices. But this week in Anchorage, Alaska brought it all crashing home in a way I have never felt before.

    I was asked to be a co-trainer for “Elevating Ancestral Practices: Tribal Wellness in Climate Adaptation Planning” for the Alaska Tribal Resilience Learning Network so I could present and share about how Pala has integrated health and wellness strategies into its climate adaptation plan. I was nervous because I was the only non-Indigenous trainer and because the situation in Alaska is very different from southern California. I expected to learn just as much from the other trainers and the attendees as they might learn from me, but I was wrong: I learned much more.

    Here is what I learned: it is one thing to read about how climate effects are greater in Alaska, and northern parts of the globe in general; it is another to hear directly from those who are experiencing those effects. We started the workshop with an activity in which participants drew pictures of changes they have seen in their communities and then shared their pictures and their stories. My “which one of these things is not like the other” picture was of a mountain in California before and after a wildfire. My eyes were stinging with tears as I drew the picture – much as they are now as I remember it. But then I heard the other stories and saw the pictures. I kept it together as, one by one, participants shared about rivers, lakes, and shorelines that freeze later and later in the year or don’t freeze at all, making it impossible to hunt on the ice or use the frozen expanses for traveling on their snow machines. I shook my head in wonderment as it dawned on me that all the talk about rain in October and November – which we would celebrate in drought-stricken California – was a bad thing, because it was supposed to be snow. I felt grief and dismay deep in my bones as I heard one participant speak with eloquence about the community effort to build fish fences that are meant to be anchored in the ice… and how the ice wasn’t thick enough to hold them. Her picture showed two people bundled against the cold with their empty hands held out, faces grief-stricken, next to an empty tub that should have been full of fish. There were stories of empty fish-drying racks, and racks where the fish had rotted because the weather turned warm when it should have been freezing, and berry patches where the fruit rotted in the heat, and patches that couldn’t be reached because erosion had destroyed the paths. There were stories of fish camps destroyed by storm surges and tidal ice scraping higher and farther over the shore than it ever had before, and stories about fish dying and rotting in the too-warm rivers before they could spawn. There were stories of villages preparing to relocate and cemeteries eroding into the sea. And we heard about federal agencies refusing to deviate from the cages of their rules, which meant they would build a dike around public buildings to protect them but not around people’s homes, or that they wouldn’t sign off to reimburse the cost of a community-built sea wall without a structural engineer’s inspection. We heard about the loss of Native languages, disappearing cultural practices, community conflict, social problems, and disaffected youth. And we heard from a USGS climate scientist that it is going to get worse – a lot worse – and faster than anywhere else in the world.

    I felt outmatched by everything I heard, but I did my best and talked about what we’ve done in Pala to plan for climate effects. One of the things we’ve done for community outreach is develop a robust website and social media presence – something that seems like pretty low-hanging fruit, until a show of hands revealed that most of the communities represented at the workshop have little to no reliable internet access in their villages. My role at the training was meant to show Pala’s work as an example of what could be done, and I did succeed at that, but none of the participants have completed a vulnerability assessment, much less an adaptation plan, so there is a long way to go.

    I was overwhelmed and feeling useless… and yet. And yet. These folks were there for a reason. They were there to do something. They were there for hope. And it’s not hopeless. The other trainers, all Indigenous Alaska women, presented on how to use traditional knowledge and practices for strength and healing and on how to identify and use strategies for maintaining community connection through ceremony, compassion, and curiosity. We talked about how the brain can “flip its lid” as a response to stress and how to manage those reactions. We talked about listening to the elders and remembering traditional stories about meeting change with bravery and strength. We participated in prayer, intentional breathing, and blessings. We talked about resilience, even when resilience means leaving one place so you can survive in another. And I heard that my stories about fire and drought in California, and the possibility that we, too, may have to relocate because there is no water, actually helped because it made people feel like they aren’t the only ones. In the end, we left with new friends, new ideas, and new hope.

    We are in deep, deep trouble. This is a topic for another time, but the idea that we can mitigate and manage climate change while maintaining our colonial capitalist way of life is not just wrong, it is deadly. It’s about so much more than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It’s about what right we have to continue our “grow the economy at any cost” ideology at the expense of the life and dignity of not just people, but what I was taught this week to call the plant nations, the animal nations, the fish nations, the insect nations – all the life on earth. Still, where there is life there is hope, and I hope we are able to acknowledge the magnitude of the changes we must make before it is too late.

  • Forward March

    Forward March

    This is the first time I’ve posted since the election, but the final night of Barack Obama’s presidency seemed like a good time to write. Tomorrow morning, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will take the oath of office and be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. For me and for many others, this will be a dark day. Nothing about Trump’s behavior since election day, or the people he has chosen to surround himself with as Cabinet members and advisors, gives me any comfort about the next four years. That’s why on Saturday morning, I’ll be in San Diego participating in my local Women’s March on Washington. It’s also why I am doing something that many of my friends refuse to do, and watching tomorrow as Trump takes the oath of office.

    The most common reaction I’ve received regarding my intention to watch the inauguration is one of disbelief. Why, people are asking, would you want to watch? I have yet to find another person opposed to Trump who says they will be watching. I understand. But I feel compelled to watch. I wouldn’t put this same burden on others, but for me it feels like a moral obligation. I love my country, and I think Trump is going to do things that will harm many people not just here, but around the world. I’ve always been the kind of person who has hoped for the best but prepared for the worst, and by watching Trump take the oath, I am preparing for the worst. I need to see him make a sacred promise to our nation that I don’t expect him to keep. I need to be clear eyed in the face of the threat I believe he represents. I am prepared to keep watch on him from the very beginning, as hard as it may be, so I can be ready to act when he does harm. Bearing witness to a moment that will be so very difficult will help galvanize me to take action for justice, equality, and truth. I will be standing strong in the face of fear and looking the embodiment of that fear in the eyes. I will not cower or turn away or try to ignore it or pretend it isn’t happening. I will watch.

    I don’t expect others to feel the same way. And I definitely don’t think you have to watch the inauguration to take action against the injustices that I am sure are coming. But for me it will be a moment for steeling myself for what is to come. It will be the first step of my forward march.

  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

    Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

    Well, the worst has happened, and the United States has elected a xenophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, bullying, narcissistic, thin-skinned, ignorant and unqualified demagogue to the highest office in the land and the most powerful position in the world. As the title of this post implies, I feel like the guys at the end of Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, singing about the bright side of life while being crucified. If I weren’t so shocked and frightened about Donald Trump being President (a phrase I am still having a hard time saying), I would appreciate the Python-esque absurdity of it all. I have spent the last few days feeling a whirlwind of emotions, dominated by disbelief, fear, and anger. I have devoured dozens of articles, analyses, and think pieces. I have made multiple social media posts and left countless comments. I have talked and texted and commiserated and comforted with friends and family, all of us dizzy with the implications of Trump’s ascendancy. I have cried – hard. BUT: I have also felt my spine straighten, my eyes open, and my shock and fear harden into strength, action, and resolve. And as I always do, I have begun to apply all my training and studying of human cultural behavior into an analysis of how we got here and what I think we should do about it.

    I struggled with what I wanted to write for my first post in this new reality because my head was spinning with too many thoughts and ideas, all intertwined and fighting for my attention. But tonight, as I found some time to relax and attempt to quiet my thoughts, it came to me that maybe I should try to look on the bright side of life. Don’t get me wrong: I have no illusions about how fraught the next four years are going to be. But I do think that in amongst all the awful, it is smart to look at a few positives, no matter how small they might seem. So here, in no particular order, are a few things that give me some hope.

    1. Hillary won the popular vote by a margin of around two million, or about 1.5%. Of course, she lost the electoral vote, which is why Trump will be President. And sadly, the voter turnout was not very high. But I think the results of this election will galvanize progressives to turn out for the midterms in 2018, and change Democrats’ tendency to not show up at the polls in non-presidential election years. And, although the map showing Millennials alone would have elected Hillary turned out to be not quite true (it actually showed the results of a poll that was taken in October, and as we all know too well now, polls can be wrong!), in general, young folks vote progressive, and there are a lot of them. So, in both two and four years, I think we have reason to be optimistic.
    2. The election has awakened people to the huge political divisions that exist in this country. Now, if you weren’t already aware of this, you weren’t paying attention – but at the same time, the level of shock that many people are registering with Trump’s win tells me that many people have underestimated how deep the divide truly is. No one should have thought a Clinton victory was a sure thing. While I don’t blame anybody who feels shock and dismay, I am heartened by the immediate calls for activism that I see springing up. I’m not talking about protests (although as long as they remain peaceful, I find the protest to be a useful tool), but about people actually taking civic action to protect those things they hold dear that are threatened by Trump’s presidency. I don’t necessarily think that progressives were complacent, but maybe we were a little too confident. So if anything positive has come out of our shock, it’s that we are now awake, and we will fight.
    3. Gun company stocks have tanked. It’s true. Gun merchants were doing huge business during the Obama administration, since many people feared that gun rights were going to be restricted or taken away completely. As a result, people were buying guns like never before. Now, I’m not completely anti-gun (that is, I don’t think gun ownership should be illegal), but I do think we need more regulations on the gun market, and the idea of people stockpiling guns makes me VERY uneasy. With Trump in office, I suspect that fewer people will be buying guns, which is obviously what the stock market thought today. Whether this trend persists remains to be seen, but if it does, I think that’s a good thing.
    4. The alt-right is probably going to fail. The alt-right’s whole raison d’etre is fighting against what they perceive to be a globalist establishment. Well, now their anti-establishment, anti-globalist champion has been elected. Who are the misogynists and bigots and racists of Reddit going to rail against now that they can’t point fingers at the holder of the most powerful office in the world? This is likely to be bad news for Breitbart, Drudge, Infowars, and World Net Daily (I won’t link to them – they don’t need help from me). Sure, they’ll revel in their victory for a while, but if they can’t wax conspiratorial about Barack Hussein Obama, Killary Clinton, FEMA concentration camps, and the United States’ role in the globalist cabal to bring on the New World Order, then what will their purpose be? To be honest, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Steve Bannon, who was executive chairman of Breitbart before he became Trump’s campaign chairman (and potential Chief of Staff – sorry, I know this post is supposed to be about the positives, but shudder) is actually disappointed that Trump won and they won’t be able to launch Trump TV, Trump’s planned media company to compete with Fox News. In any case, without a secret gay Muslim Kenyan terrorist demon-possessed black man in the White House, who will the alt-right have to blame for their grievances?
    5. This one might be a little controversial, but out of all the alarming pledges Trump made in his plan for his first 100 days in office, there are actually a few that I’m okay with. First is his plan for infrastructure spending. He wants Congress to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure spending package. Interestingly, when Obama attempted to pass an infrastructure plan, Congress blocked him, and they’ve signaled that they may not be happy with Trump’s plan either. In general, though, the country needs to repair and boost its vital infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and depending on the specifics of Trump’s plan, I think this is a good thing. Trump may not have political experience, and his construction projects have not always gone as planned, but at least this is something he has experience with. Another thing I like in the 100-day plan is the call for a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service, as well as changes to foreign lobbying rules. Apparently lobbyists themselves think this is unlikely to happen as it would require Congressional action, but many lobbying and political reform groups support the idea. It’s not a perfect plan – or really, a plan at all since he hasn’t fleshed out how his bans would actually get passed – but if it actually happened it would be a good thing.

    So there you have it. I still think there is much, much, much, much more to be worried about than positive about. And trust me, this will not be my last word on the subject. But if this is our new reality, we might as well take a brief moment to give a whistle, and look on the bright side.

  • Poli-critical Thinking

    Poli-critical Thinking

    I’ve been off the blogging radar for a while. It’s not that I haven’t been inspired to write – I have ideas all the time. But I’ve been spending too much time in the noise. There are so many things to read, so many voices clamoring to be heard over the din, and sometimes I got lost and overwhelmed with it all and I despair that there will ever be any understanding. I know I have friends who read my posts, and I appreciate it, but when I started this blog I nurtured secret hopes that others might read it, too. I have no desire to be well-known for what I write; my goal is to simply to share ideas in the hopes that others might find them useful. And in spite of my calling these posts “rants,” I also had (have?) hopes that I can hear other people’s ideas, even if they disagree with me. I feel strongly about many things but I have never expected other people to automatically agree with everything I say, or worse, be afraid that if they challenge me I’ll respond with rudeness or condescension. I have been guilty of arrogance and pretension, but I’ve gotten better at recognizing those traits in myself, partly through writing this blog. I don’t want to be a smug liberal, the type of ideologue who assumes that because of education and experience I’m somehow better qualified than other people to offer my ideas. And I don’t want to make broad generalizations about people I disagree with, either. It is too easy to believe that people who are anti-vaccine, for example, are crazy or stupid or brainwashed rather than sincere people with sincerely held, even if mistaken, beliefs. I am strongly pro-vaccine, and the science is on my side – but has anybody ever won an argument where they started out by saying “You’re a terrible parent because you won’t vaccinate your kids”? This is why I am such a fierce advocate of critical thinking skills. And yes, duh, everybody thinks critical thinking is important, and most people probably consider themselves to be good critical thinkers already. But in reality, it takes constant practice to keep from getting tangled in the thorns of fallacious thinking.

    So why have I decided to write a post now, after being silent since January? Because I want to talk about critical thinking in online commentary about politics. I’ve considered writing posts about specific political topics, but I made a sort of informal decision to just stay away from politics during this election cycle. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind about who to vote for. The few things I’ve posted on Facebook have mostly been my dismayed reactions to Donald Trump, or shared articles that address misconceptions about certain candidates or their ideas. And full disclosure, for the sake of this post: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary, though ideologically I agree with much of what Bernie Sanders represents (and I have no space here to talk about why I decided not to vote for him in spite of that agreement). But as far as I remember I have not posted anything online exhorting friends to vote for Hillary or Bernie. Even the things I’ve posted about Trump have been mostly preaching to the choir, and the few online friends I have who are pro-Trump are certainly not going to change their minds based on anything I have to say. But if you are going to post about politics, the more you avoid logical fallacies, the stronger your argument will be. So here, in no particular order, are some of my observations and suggestions about how to think poli-critically.

    Facts. I’ve ranted about facts before, so I won’t get too detailed here, but people tend to confuse facts and opinions. Here’s the deal: a fact is a verifiable truth. An opinion is a judgement about a fact. So, politically, it is a fact that Hillary Clinton (whether through her campaign or the Clinton Foundation) has taken donations from Monsanto. It is an opinion that this makes her an unfit candidate for president. It is a fact that Monsanto manufactures the herbicide glyphosate; it is an opinion that this makes Monsanto an “evil” corporation. Don’t confuse the two. You can develop your own opinions, but you do not get to make up your own facts. (On a related note, I hope to soon write a post that’s been percolating in my brain for quite some time about Monsanto, glyphosate, the organics industry, and genetically modified crops. I have my issues with Monsanto, but glyphosate and GM technology are not among them).

    Ad hominem. Explained at length in this post, in politics ad hominem manifests itself almost exclusively as name-calling and insults. As I asked above, has anybody ever changed your mind by calling you an idiot? And even if you aren’t strictly trying to change somebody’s mind, have you had any interest in continuing a dialogue that involves name-calling and insults? Differences of opinion can be illuminating and constructive – and sometimes you actually do change your – or somebody else’s! – mind. That won’t happen if you engage in ad hominem.

    Fundamental attribution error. You can read about this fallacy in more detail here. In politics, this tends to manifest itself as a sort of ideological tribalism: me and my group are right because we are more knowledgeable or ethical or clear-headed or realistic. The other side is wrong because they are uninformed or ignorant or brainwashed or bigoted. You make right choices because you are smart and ethical; they make wrong choices because they don’t know any better or because they are morally flawed (this is also ad hominem). To avoid this error, it is wise to bear in mind that people with different political ideas think YOU are the one who is uninformed, etc. Consider that they may actually have a logical, rational, and well-thought-out basis for their beliefs, even if you don’t agree (see fact vs. opinion above). Obviously this isn’t always going to be true of another’s opinion – but it may also not be true of  YOUR opinion.

    Confirmation bias (aka the echo chamber). This is one of the biggies, which is why it has made multiple appearances in my writing. This is the classic human tendency to only remember the things that support our points of view, and to forget or reject everything else. It is what causes people to stop looking as soon as they find what confirms what they already think. People also have a tendency to surround themselves with like-minded people and sources of information, which is why confirmation bias creates an echo chamber of self-fulfilling opinions. It happens to all of us, all the time. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is innocent of anything other than poor decision-making regarding her email server? You can find all the articles you want to support that opinion. Do you believe that the Democratic party’s elite stole the primary from Bernie Sanders? You can find all the articles you want to support that idea, too. And when someone points out an article or a set of ideas that refutes your opinion, you can reject it for any number of reasons to resolve the cognitive dissonance and continue confirming your bias.

    The Genetic Fallacy. One of the most common reasons to reject an alternative point of view is to impugn the source. This is an example of the genetic fallacy, wherein you reject or accept an argument based on its origins rather than on its merits. So in the case of politics, if an article in The New York Times points out Donald Trump’s many lies and inconsistent statements, a Trump supporter can reject it because it comes from a paper that is generally considered to be liberal. I have to say I find it highly amusing that people of all political stripes will use the epithet “lamestream media” to lambaste and reject any article with which they disagree. And the genetic fallacy works the other way when you use it to lend credibility to a source. This has echoes – pun intended! – of the echo chamber, because we tend to seek out the sources we already agree with. So to avoid this thinking error, rather than accept or reject a source because of where or who it comes from, weigh the argument on its actual merits. Sometimes even the sources we trust are wrong, and the ones we usually reject are right! I admit that this is one of the hard ones for me – I want to believe in the credibility of my go-to sources, but I have made it a habit to fact-check against multiple sources before forming a solid opinion.

    I’m going to stop here for now, but I may add to this list in a later post. I have no illusions about this little post making any difference to anybody, but it feels good getting it off my chest. And I make no claim whatsoever to being immune from these same mistakes, but I have made a conscious and continuing effort to be aware of them in my thinking and my writing. It’s why I continue to engage, civilly and respectfully, with the people with whom I disagree (although I generally won’t tolerate name-calling). It’s why I can debate somebody on politics or culture in one post, and post a happy face on a picture of that same person’s kids in another one. It’s why I teach anthropology. And it’s why, after being careful to avoid errors in my thinking as much as possible, I will ultimately reject certain ideas and embrace others, and defend my point of view logically but passionately. If I do come across as smug or condescending at times, well – that’s just something else to work on, and I have no doubt that this political season will give me plenty of opportunities.

  • The Limits of Tolerance

    The Limits of Tolerance

    Dictionary.com defines tolerance as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.” Bigotry, in turn, is defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” Those with progressive or liberal points of view are frequently accused of hypocrisy regarding their use of the word tolerance. When a liberal speaks out against a practice or belief that they oppose or with which they disagree, those on the right will often cry “Whatever happened to tolerance? Your rejection of my beliefs is intolerant!” While this may sometimes be the case, I want to argue that there is a difference between intolerance and disagreement.

    One of the first things I teach in my classes is the concept of cultural relativity. This idea proposes that all cultures should be evaluated on the basis of their internal belief systems, rather than by the belief system of the observer. This means suspending judgement of practices that one may find confusing, frightening, or even abhorrent when viewed through one’s own cultural lens. The reason cultural relativity is so important for anthropologists is that we aren’t seeking to judge cultures; rather, we are seeking to understand them. It is extraordinarily difficult to learn about and analyze a culture if you are unable to set aside your own cultural values. That said, it is impossible for anyone to be truly objective when analyzing the behavior of others. We all see the world through our own unique lenses, and those lenses are ground and polished in the laboratory of very specific cultures and experiences. The challenge for the anthropologist is to try to see through the lens with as little distortion as possible.

    Although we strive for objectivity in our work, I want to make very clear that there is a difference between the anthropological practice of cultural relativity and the concept of moral relativity. Moral relativity proposes that any cultural practice can be seen as moral when judged by that culture’s standards; therefore, even the most seemingly horrible practices can be excused through the application of moral relativity. I cannot stress enough that this is not what anthropologists do. The point of cultural relativity is to try to understand a culture’s practices from the inside. You can find a behavior unacceptable – the practice of female genital cutting comes to mind – and still try to understand it from a culturally relative perspective. What this means is that, rather than rejecting the behavior as immoral and depraved – which are culturally loaded moral judgements – you attempt to understand why such a thing is done in this particular culture. You cannot reach any sort of objective understanding if your default position is to judge the behavior as wrong. And if the practice is indeed harmful, what hope can you possibly have of helping to change it if you don’t understand why, from that culture’s perspective, it is done in the first place? But again, here’s the important thing: understanding something from a culturally relative perspective does not mean you have to find it acceptable.

    What does this have to do with tolerance? I think that tolerance is very similar to cultural relativity. You may not agree with why somebody does something, but you can still accept their right to make their own choices about how to live and, ideally, attempt to see things from their point of view even if you disagree. This applies to all sorts of behaviors, including religion; education; jobs; political ideologies; sexual practices; leisure activities – take your pick. And as long as a person’s choices about how to live don’t have an impact on anybody but that person (and, potentially, those who agree with or consent to the same behaviors), then the choices fall under the umbrella of behaviors that can be tolerated. However, the moment that somebody’s choices begin to negatively impact others, then tolerance no longer applies. Female genital cutting, for example, is not tolerated in the United States or many other parts of the world, even though those who practice it have valid cultural reasons for doing it (and in this case valid simply means that they are culturally applicable reasons, not necessarily that they are reasons that are morally acceptable).

    Liberals are frequently accused of being intolerant of conservative viewpoints. This is certainly sometimes true; in fact, I would hypothesize that no person or ideology has a monopoly on tolerance (or intolerance, for that matter). Sadly, people of all political persuasions can be found ridiculing each other’s belief systems and falling prey to the many logical fallacies I’ve already written about in their attempts to prove the other side wrong. But I have to admit that I bristle when somebody tosses out the “whatever happened to liberal tolerance?” hook. This is lazy rhetoric at best and fails to offer any substantive reasons for why the person tossing the hook may disagree with the allegedly intolerant point of view. Here’s the crux of my argument: being tolerant does not mean agreeing with and/or accepting everything. To me, it means that as long as somebody’s beliefs or choices directly impact only those who believe and live similarly, then I’m happy to tolerate those choices even when I (sometimes vehemently) disagree. I’m a vegetarian, but I tolerate meat eaters. I’m an atheist, but I tolerate the religious as long as nobody attempts to convert me or use their religion as a cudgel (e.g. I do not tolerate violence in the name of religion). I’m a liberal, but I tolerate other political ideologies, even though I may debate with people about them. Hell, I’ll even tolerate intolerance to a degree – for example, if you are a small bookstore owner and decide that under no circumstances will you sell books by Hillary Clinton or Al Gore because you think they are liberal nut jobs, then more power to you. That decision, while arguably intolerant as far as accepting contrary ideologies is concerned, still has no direct impact on anybody but the bookstore owner. What I will not tolerate are beliefs or behaviors that limit the rights of others. So if you lobby for putting prayer back in schools, I will not tolerate that. If you believe that LGBTQ people are not entitled to the same rights as cisgendered people and you attempt to limit those rights, I will not tolerate that. If you attempt to limit the practices of people with whom you disagree (e.g. attempting to block the building of a mosque in your community) I will not tolerate that. If you discriminate against a person because of their race, nationality, religion, sexuality, gender, etc. I will not tolerate that – and I certainly won’t tolerate allowing those practices to be codified into law. In short, if your behavior actively infringes on someone else’s rights, I will not tolerate that. You have the right to believe what you want, but you do not have the right to force those beliefs on others.

    So stop throwing out the easy and lazy label of intolerance, whether you are liberal or conservative. Instead, focus on trying to understand the other person’s point of view even if you disagree with it. Practice cultural, but not moral, relativity. Accept that reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. But don’t expect to be allowed to infringe on another person’s rights. That is true intolerance.

  • The Gift

    The Gift

    I have a very ambivalent relationship with Christmas, for several reasons. Being an atheist is part of it, but not the most important part, since most of the celebrations I attend are not religious (and I think the season has lost most of its overt religious overtones in any case). My ambivalence stems more from the orgy of materialism that happens this time of year. This is not a new story; many people lament the focus on gifting. But lately I have been lamenting it from a broader perspective. As I have done my gift shopping this year I have been more aware than ever before of the economic aspects of the Christmas season. In particular, I have been doing a great deal of thinking about the cheap seasonal items that litter the aisles of department stores from Neiman Marcus to Walmart. Of course the point is to get people to buy buy buy, but at what cost? Literally, that cost can be very low; for example, I saw a display of holiday-themed watches at Macy’s, bedecked with garish holiday motifs, selling for $9.99 and an additional 20% off on top.

    So, these cheap watches are retailing for around $8, which means they may have cost Macy’s $6, which means they were manufactured for perhaps $3… and they will probably last for maybe two holiday seasons before breaking or simply being tossed away. That, to me, is an environmental cost. In addition, there is a social cost in considering the wages paid to the overseas laborers who made the watch. To make and sell a watch that only retails for $8 probably means that the wages being paid the workers are vanishingly low. Is it worth all the associated costs to make it possible for us to buy this essentially disposable, unnecessary item?

    On the flip side of the cheap seasonal gifts is the focus on big-ticket items like gaming consoles, computers, phones, and the like. When did it becoming standard operating procedure for people of average income to buy gifts costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars? The newest iPad, for example, costs a minimum of $499 for the bare-bones version. A new iPhone can cost even more. The latest XBox is priced at around $550 – and that’s the holiday sale price for the unit with the fewest accessories. This level of gifting goes not just for adults but for children. My little cousin, who is not yet 10, asked for an iPod Touch and a Bose speaker to go with it. I don’t blame her for it; it’s what all the kids want, just like I wanted (and got!) the Barbie Dream Camper when I was around the same age. It just seems that the de rigueur toys are becoming more and more expensive, and people are more willing to go into hock to get them.

    Gifting has ancient cultural origins that are rooted in the concept of reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is what happens when people who are very close do things for each other without expecting anything in return – things like household tasks, food procurement, and the like. It’s what people do to manage all that needs to be done in a small, tight-knit group and it has its modern-day equivalent in things like doing laundry, taking out the garbage, etc. Everyone contributes (or should) and no one expects payment. However, move outside the family group and reciprocity becomes more complicated. Balanced reciprocity requires that individuals provide mutual assistance – basically, if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Relationships can go sour quickly if one person doesn’t hold up their end by doing something for the other person in return. This is where things start to move from reciprocity to obligation. A person who has done many things for someone but hasn’t been paid back can gain power over that person, because favors owed are a form of currency. This is essentially the beginning of resource stratification and ultimately income inequality; those who owe are obligated to the person who gives, and those who owe eventually can become slaves (or, to put it in Marxist terms, proletariat). In his book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, Marvin Harris quotes an Inuit proverb that speaks to this idea: “Gifts make slaves just as whips make dogs.” I would argue that in many ways we are now slaves to an unbalanced system of reciprocity wherein we not only feel obligated to each other, but to an economic system that overwhelms us with messages convincing us we need things that in reality, we simply want. We are less in thrall to each other than we are to the entire capitalist ideology and the myriad hegemonic messages of status-seeking and vertical mobility that keep it firmly in place. And it is this system that compels us to spend $9.99 on a cheap watch to give to someone out of a sense of obligation more than a real desire to give them a gift. We’ve all had that feeling: “What am I going to get for great-aunt Martha? I know, here’s a cheap watch!” Is that really what we should be doing?

    All this may sound too complex to explain the simple idea of showing people we care about them by giving them a gift. That idea is still there, but I think the demonstration of it is what has gone awry. I believe just as much appreciation can be conveyed by a small but well-chosen token as by an extravagant gadget or bauble. And I think the joy of the season should be returned to appreciating things that we might not otherwise have. How can a thing be special when it is expected or demanded? When my grandfather was a boy growing up in the far northern reaches of Canada, he said he looked forward every December to the special and exotic gift to his family of a box of oranges delivered by plane. Just imagine being excited by such a thing today. Perhaps the thing to do is to remember the difference between want and need, both when giving and being asked what we would like to receive. I’m not suggesting that we should only ever give people socks and underwear, but simply that we remember what is really important: relationships, experiences, and the occasional meaningful gift instead of the orgy of expectations and obligations that characterize this time of year. We should remember that things do not make us who we are, and giving to or receiving things from people we barely know or see creates a web of reciprocal obligations that can spiral out of control and lead to cheap and pointless gifting and all its associated economic exploitation and environmental waste.

    In my final analysis, I’d like to see the whole idea of Christmas giving turned on its head by being happy with what we already have. As hokey and cliche as it sounds, let’s give of ourselves for the holidays. Let’s spend time together. Let’s enjoy something traditional that is symbolic instead of extravagant – like my grandpa’s box of oranges. Let’s stop giving things and give thanks instead.