Love, unrequited, robs me of my rest:
Love, hopeless love, my ardent soul encumbers:
Love, nightmare-like, lies heavy on my chest,
And weaves itself into my midnight slumbers! ~ William S. Gilbert

Milton Vs. Pope

John Milton and Alexander Pope share the same premise regarding evil and the destruction of mankind. However, when we read Pope’s interpretation, we find a much more versatile and pervasive sense of evil. In Paradise Lost, Milton views pride and ambition as the source of evil--as does Pope. However, Milton understands this evil as an abomination against God and focuses on the biblical history of its origins. In Milton’s poem we have an ability to hear God speak, asserting: “whose fault? / Whose but his own? Ingrate, he had me/ All he could have; I made him just and right, / Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall” (Paradise Lost; book 3, L. 96-99). Evil, in Milton’s mind, sprung from Satan’s head “…self tempted, self-depraved”  and the only way to repair his mistake is through the “one grater Man” ; our mission being salvation. When we read Paradise Lost, the ultimate conclusion is; because we sinned against God, due to our ambition and pride, we now must repent and realize our mistake in order to be redeemed by our liberator, Jesus Christ, and once again live in eternal paradise.

            Pope alternatively, gave us a more practical explanation of evil and that of the ramifications. He insists that the hierarchy, “from Infinite to thee” (An Essay on Man; S.8, L.240), relies on mans ability to see the negative effect lofty desires have on the “Eternal Cause” (L.130). This image of an eternal cause ignites a feeling of unity with the cause rather than a stark separation. Although the title elicits an omnipotent reaction, it is, by definition, extremely positivistic. The word “cause” allows us the ability to produce an effect, meaning; although the cause is eternal our sin only comes from our inversion of the laws of order (L.129-130). If we choose to submit to our place, we as a society can live in peace and harmony (L.285); this is a huge progression from Milton’s perspective. With Milton, we didn’t have a choice; our salvation was dependant upon a savior. Pope gives us an attainable goal and the ability to choose to keep things in their perfect order, ultimately securing our happiness.

Why?

How will thee subject me to this charge?

Is it not you that boasts of knowledge,

You that the world deems superior? My protector?

Why then do you lay this burden

On one so undiscerning and ignorant?

Could I have known and if to know,

how so ignorant then?

For only love and freedom I wished for

And to understand you more fully.

Is this my crime and all our sexes’ ambition?

Who from your side I sprang,

And your side being faultless, how may I be anything less?

Set free my sisters and my daughters!

Renounce your claim on these poor souls

For they are your mothers, sisters and daughters as well.

By: Dr. Cornel West

A Love Supreme

Dr. Cornel West 18 November, 2011

We the people of the global Occupy movement embody and enact a deep democratic awakening with genuine joy and fierce determination. Our movement — leaderless and leaderful — is a soulful expression of a moral outrage at the ugly corporate greed that pushes our society and world to the brink of catastrophe. We are aware that our actions have inaugurated a radical enlightenment in a moment of undeniable distrust and disgust with oligarchic economies, corrupt politicians, arbitrary rule of law and corporate media weapons of mass distraction. And we intend to sustain our momentum by nurturing our bonds of trust, fortifying our bodies, hearts and minds and sticking together through hell or high water in order to create a better world through a deep democratic revolution.

We refuse to be mere echoes of the vicious lies that support an illegitimate status quo. Our deep democratic awakening takes the form of we everyday people raising our individual and collective voices to tell the painful truths about unjust systems and unfair structures that yield unnecessary social misery. The past thirty years of a top-down, one-sided class war on precious poor and working people — with the greatest transfer of wealth from bottom to top in human history — have taught us that we either fight together in the name of truth and justice or we lose our livelihoods and sacred honor. In this sense, the movement is already victorious: our organizing and mobilizing have shifted public discourses toward truth and justice — towards a focus on corporate greed, wealth inequality, escalating poverty, obscene levels of unemployment, the role of big money in politics, and abusive military and police power. But we have work ahead of us yet.

The full-scale bankruptcy of the neoliberal order — of deregulated markets, unaccountable oligarchs, bribed politicians — is now an established fact of life and history. Its age is coming to an end. Our deep democratic enlightenment must break us out of our narrow intellectual frameworks and our parochial cultural habitus. Like the inventors of jazz, we must be open-minded, flexible, fluid, inclusive, transparent, courageous, self-critical, compassionate and visionary. We must recast old notions of empire, class, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation and nature into new ways of thinking and being. Our movement is a precious, sublime, messy and funky form of incubation. Again like jazz, we must embody and enact a loving embrace of the art of our collaborative creations. We must embody a universal embrace of all those in the human family, and sentient beings, and consolidate an unstoppable fortitude in the face of systems of oppression and structures of domination. We will suffer, shudder and struggle together with smiles on our faces and a love supreme in our souls. Just as justice is what love looks like in public and tenderness is what love feels like in private, deep democratic revolution is what justice looks like in practice.

Revolution may scare some people because of its connotation of violence. And this is understandable in light of many past revolutions, such as the American revolutions against monarchy in 1776 or against slavery in 1861. But the revolution in our time — against oligarchy and plutocracy — need not be an ugly and violent one. The rich legacies of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, and recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, have taught us that we can deal with our social catastrophes with social compassion and that we can transform unjust societies with courageous visions and nonviolent strategies. If we equip ourselves with truthful systemic analyses of power in our minds, moral commitments of steel in our backs and a genuine joy in serving others in our hearts, then our dream of a nascent justice spread across the globe may be no mere illusion.

We are prisoners of a blood-stained, tear-soaked hope. This means we are free to imagine and create a more deeply democratic world than we have yet witnessed in history.

This article was published in our fifth print issue on November 18, 2011.

Modern Women

             In a social soil--where men dominate and women succumb-- it is a wonder how women such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Jane Austen were cultivated. These treasures, undoubtedly fertilized by the Lanyers’ and the Astell’s before them, sprung triumphantly from below and questioned the current culture regarding women in society and how it affects marriage. They stood in stark contrast to their surroundings-- showing their readers a mirror, and easing them out of their comfort zone. They ask us why we insist on creating and maintaining women who suffer in the current society, and they “sighed when obliged to confess” that  “Weak, artificial beings, raised above the common wants and affections of their race, in a premature unnatural manner, undermine the very foundation of virtue, and spread corruption through the whole mass of society”. It is our society that breeds and builds the current model--ultimately leaving everyone dissatisfied.

           Austen assures, through the voice of her heroine, “when the romantic refinements of a young mind are obliged to give way, how frequently are they succeeded by such opinions as are but too common and too dangerous” (Austen 47; Chpt. 6). The romantic refinements Austen mentioned is the key to having a fulfilling life, yet,--the majority of the time-- this virtue is manipulated and taken advantage of, leaving  woman with only two options: to be sensible or to be cunning; the latter being the most popular option.

Together, Wollstonecraft and Austen beg us to see marriage as they see it; an artificial institution that rarely produces a happy union, and more commonly produces the perpetuation of inequality. At best, they see society breeding “ridiculous and useless” women who are ill prepared to “govern a family with judgment, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into the world” (Wollstonecraft, 169). However, far worse than this, they see women trained to ignore the “natural emotions of the heart” and become cunning and manipulative, stifling their virtues and leading “them to play off those contemptible infantine airs that undermine esteem” (Wollstonecraft, 170).  Women are taught to play a game in order to win in the marriage pool, not only to become married but also to have a feigned and fragile power within the marriage itself.

            Mary Wollstonecraft is forthright in her opinion and without asking for forgiveness exclaims: “The conduct and manners of women… prove that their minds are not in a healthy state; for, like the flowers which are planted in too rich a soil, strength and usefulness are sacrificed to beauty” (Wollstonecraft, 166-167).  Nearly a century earlier, Mary Astell asked the question, “If marriage be such a blessed state, how comes it, may you say, that there are so few happy marriages?” (Astell, 2285). Wollstonecraft replies: “I attribute to a false system of education… [men] are more anxious to make [women] alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers”. She feels that the misconception of the female sex is so ingrained and nurtured that women, “with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect” (Wollstonecraft, 167). Thus, the majority of marriages result in a union between disenchanted men and disrespected women.

            Women, who engage in frivolous occupations and collect vacant achievements, have the tendency to lack substance; a way of connecting intelligently to another human being. These women, instead of investing their time in creating a well cultivated mind and an appropriate sense, engage in the learned helplessness of their time and read from the books of male authors who view them more as an angel of the hearth than a mortal human being; their “unfolding mind is not strengthened by the practices of those duties which dignify the human character”. Since these women “only live to amuse themselves, [and thus, can] only afford barren amusement”, they offer little to a fulfilling marriage and “will soon become objects of contempt” (Wollstonecraft, 168). These women, who were designed to ignite passion and allure, fail to realize that they are neglecting the important issue of relationships in general and find themselves married to men who, though once  enamored, are now dissatisfied and disrespectful husbands. Both, men and women, while creating their own demise, will become disillusioned and live in unhappy unions.         

            When Wollstonecraft speaks of an “artificial weakness” in women, she insists that, had the weakness been genuine, a graduation from ridiculousness into cunning would certainly not happen, which it so often does. And becoming cunning will contribute to the overall degradation of women, to be sure. Now, instead of being mindless children, they are untrustworthy and evil manipulators; both equally unappealing and useless in society. However, she asks men to take their share of the responsibility and “become more chaste and modest” , and also,  realize that although they are the exception, “some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern”. Society needs to make allowances for those who choose to take another path. Instead of passing their days in idleness they gain useful knowledge and question their world with a philosophic eye. Men and women together must understand, the reason for their unhappy union is the foundation in which they were grown; the culture itself.

            No one knew the truth of Marry Wollstonecraft’s words as well as Jane Austen. In fact if we use A Vindication of the Rights of Women, as a guide to Austen’s work, we will be more readily prepared to uncover her judgment on social issues-- particularly issues regarding women and marriage. While Wollstonecraft wishes “rather to persuade by the force of [her] arguments, than dazzle by the elegance of [her] language”, Austen would rather take you into a small country house and let you peek in-- seeing for yourself the issues that arise. Virginia Woolf notes that, “Jane Austen kept to her compact; she never trespassed beyond her boundaries”, and yet, “she evades nothing, and nothing is slurred over” (Woolf, 263). Austen shares many of the ideologies of her predecessor, yet weaves them into the personalities and interactions of her characters--though so subtle they may go unnoticed.

            Austen illustrates the words of Wollstonecraft beautifully in Sense and Sensibility. Through characters in this novel, we are able to see first hand the issues Wollstonecraft highlights. Elinor, being the strong and sensible older sister, (well informed and able to keep her emotions in check), makes her very close to the type of ideal woman as was wished for by Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Austen, gives Elinor the “duties that dignify the human character” when she assigns her the role of caretaker. Elinor “possessed a strength of understanding, and coolness of judgment, which qualified her, though only nineteen, to be the counselor of her mother” (Austen, 6; chpt 1). Elinor worries about money, stability, and the reputation of her family, all while silently falling in love with a man she feels inaccessible-- she is sensible without being modishly cunning. Elinor is not, however, as outspoken as Wollstonecraft may have liked her to be, but she bridges the gap between the typical women of her time and one of Austen’s more blunt characters: Elizabeth Bennet.

            Marianne, in contrast, exemplifies the virtue of having “the natural emotions of the heart” paired with an unyielding conviction. She is mindful of her surrounding yet, is bold enough to ignore them and act upon her emotions without hesitation. She has a good heart and an accomplished mind--with only a slight air of arrogance; a perfect host for a lesson in humility. Austen shows us that to maintain the gift of sensibility, you must learn to sensor yourself in order to make sound judgments, nurturing it enough to ward off the tendency to fall into shrewd and calculating behaviors. “Marianne Dashwood was born to an extraordinary fate. She was born to discover the falsehood of her own opinions, and to counteract, by her conduct, her most favorite maxims” (Austen, 311; Vol, 3; ch. 14).

            Growing and learning from our experiences is truly an extraordinary fate--more likely is the demise of our appealing qualities and the birth of maladaptive behaviors. Fortunately, and likely very decisively, Austen formed Marianne and Elinor with just the right amount of sense and sensibility to triumph in the end. We can infer that she shares Wollstonecraft’s views as we watch the sisters move throughout the novel, desperately trying to hold on to the innate virtues they possess while their society and culture relentlessly tries to make them succumb.

            We may only need to look as far as Lucy Steele to understand that Austen was fully aware, and in agreement, with Wollstonecraft’s idea of the idiot girl turned cold and calculating. Wollstonecraft noted, with “energetic emotions”, that women are forced into these roles; society leaves no room for other--more honorable--options. In this same fashion, Lucy is poor and does what her world tells her to do in the best way she is able to do it. She is truly a product of her generation and Austen “wishes neither to reform nor to annihilate” (Woolf, 264).

         Austen simply wants to paint a picture, using the colors she sees fit, and allows us to interpret it for ourselves. However, if she does her job well, as we may all believe she has, we will see an accurate account of  middle class society; the same society that was noted by Mary Wollstonecraft almost twenty years earlier.   

             Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are indeed very different novels. However, they share at least two commonalities: a significant deviation from the familiar use of nature imagery, as was used by the Romantic writers of the time, and the bold decision to delve into the human psyche and question human behaviors.

            Shelley’s imagery is hunting, vast, and unattainable. When the romantic poets of her time imagined nature, they assigned it an omnipotent influence, able to assist in the transcendence of human abilities through the imagination. Shelly shared this view, yet when she lay down to sleep, she couldn’t help but wonder at the mysteries and danger that lurk in the dark corners of our imagination. When Victor starts to become interested in the darker side of science, he witnesses a “most violent and terrible thunderstorm” (36). Victor watched this storm, with interest, come from the mountains of Jura sending a lightning bolt down to a beautiful oak tree and “nothing remained but a blasted stump… entirely reduced to thin ribands of wood”. This storm may have been a warning for Victor and a symbol for the risk he will take. He never “beheld anything so utterly destroyed”; consequently this is the perfect imagery for Victor during his last days. These types of illustrations follow Victor throughout the novel. Sometimes “the sound of the river raging among the rocks, and the dashing of the waterfalls around, spoke of a power mighty as Omnipotence” and made Victor feel at ease, unfortunately, he could not ignore the “mighty Alps [that] towered above” (84). Shelley was clear in her imagery; nature and the human imagination held a great deal of danger. She asked if we were prepared for the responsibility.

            In the Preface, Shelley admits she chose to create a world of impossibilities and terror because it “affords a point of view to the imagination for the delineating of human passions more comprehensive and commanding than any which the ordinary relations of existing events can yield” (11). Truly, when we read Frankenstein, we are led on an adventure through human behaviors and internal conflict; the plot and setting makes it prime for evaluating human behaviors on a grand scale. When Victor insists that “we are unfashioned creatures, but half made up”, he is talking about the ability to be driven by passion, yet lack the capability to harness and evaluate it (24). Indeed we find this to be Shelley’s polarized idea of the human imagination; what was typically seen as spiritual transcendence, in her mind was a terrifying journey into the unknown.

            Jane Austen, alternatively, evokes nothing from nature or the imagination. Her goal is not to illuminate the possibilities of the imagination or insist on the powers of nature, quite opposite, her goal is to paint an accurate picture of society and human interactions. Susanna Clarke’s essay, Why We Read Jane Austen: Young Persons in Interesting Situations, identifies Austen’s psychological use of nature. She says, “Her landscapes are emotional and mortal—What we would call psychological; they are not physical” (Clarke,7). The multiple settings of Sense and Sensibility are only briefly described. We get a slight idea of Norland Park but only as it relates to the inhabitants and the opinions of others; “Their estate was large… where for many generations they had lived in so respectable a manner as to engage the general good opinion of their surrounding acquaintances” (3).  Clarke goes on to say that “The liveliest, most revealing description of property in Austen generally comes at the point at which some young woman is thinking of marring the owner, because then it ceases to be part of the physical landscape and takes on an emotional significance” (Clarke,7). Indeed, Austen’s focus is the interactions between the characters; their relationships. Marianne describes Allenham in a most affectionate way, but the description is only needed to allude to her becoming the mistress of this estate and the implied relationship that she has with Willoughby. Moreover, it isn’t until Willoughby breaths life into the cottage that we get a full spectrum feeling for its humble beauty. We see the landscape and the settings through the emotions of Austen’s characters.

            For all their differences it is easy to know Mary Shelley and Jane Austen as Women that see some major flaws with their current ideals and willing to push the envelope to get their point across; both adding significantly to the future of literature. Bravo my ladies. I love you so!  

Drink nothing Blue...

"Oh the holiness of being the injured party" -M.A.

Sometimes life begins too early and we find this life unwelcoming... The choices we make and guilt we carry can become impenetrable, only leaving us with what was, instead of what could have been...

Who are we to judge? These choices that we must make… are we not responsible for them? And if two find themselves in the same position, making different choices, who’s to say who’s right?

I made a choice to keep my daughter. She will grow up with her mother. The mother that gave her a rough start, the mother who was just a child herself… Was *this* the right choice? I can think of a hundred times that I’ve judged others who chose differently, and yet, who am I to do so?

My step-daughter told my husband that her mother gave up her brother because her grandmother wouldn’t help her… I had help. My mother helped me--however; the greatest gift my mother gave me was telling me that I was an adult--informing me of this fact because I hardly knew... She let me know I could make decisions on my own, and that I needed to start doing so; *I* was this child’s mother and I needed to act like it. I was 19 at the time, ill prepared to take on the life of another. But, at that moment and right before I started to argue back, I relived an moment between my me and my mother-- the moment I was laying Kaylee down for the first time:

After 4 weeks of being hospitalized, Kaylee was allowed to come home. I was 17 and had never been so afraid. In shame I knocked on my mother’s bedroom door. I asked her to keep Kaylee, just this first night, in her room. My mother looked up at me and in a sleepy haze said, “I’ll keep her here. But you’re going to have to do this at some point.”

I was drenched with tears--so afraid of this new reality-- but I knew she was right… This was my choice. The life that *I* chose. I turned around, headed for my bedroom, and Kaylee and I went to bed; together. I was her mother and I looked after her all through the night, my hand on her chest. I should have known I could do it then...

So many times I have used my “injustices” to hold myself down. For too long, everything was *done* to me, I was never prepared to admit that I played an active role. “Oh the holiness of being the injured party”, Maya Angelou whispers … She’s right you know? So righteous… and yet where does that get us really, and at what expense?