Monthly Archives: March 2010

fa·ble

fa·ble (fa´b’l), ), n. [ME; OFr. <  L.  fibula, a story < fari, to speak; see FAME],  1. a fictitious story meant to teach a moral lesson: the characters are usually animals.  2. a myth or legend.  3. a story that is not true; false-hood.  4. [Archaic], the plot of a literary work.  v.i. & v.t. [FABLED   (-b’ld),  FABLING], to write or tell (fables, fiction, falsehoods).

When I was small, my dad used to read to me every night before bed. One of my favorite books for a time was an illustrated paperback collection of Aesop’s Fable. Although I’m sure I would remember more if I thought about it, the one that stands out most vividly to me is the story of “The Fox and the Grapes.” Maybe it was because I liked the way that the fox was drawn (or at least how I remember him begin drawn) with a bright orange in a suit and bowtie or because I liked grapes. For whatever reason, I remember requesting that story more than the others.

The Fox and the Grapes

The Fox and the Grapes (although not the same image from the book I grew up with)

I thought the story was much longer (maybe because the story was interspersed with drawings) but the fable itself is short:

One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch.

“Just the thing to quench my thirst,” quoth he.

Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch.

Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”

It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

Perhaps one of the reasons I loved Aesop’s fables is because I was a very serious child. I was a very serious child who was good at following rules. I liked rules and structure. For some reason, from a very young age, even though I was in a home that was stable with two parents who loved and supported me, I had a sense that the world was an instable, chaotic place. Rules and boundaries brought order. They made me feel safer.

When I was in fourth grade, I decided to run for student council representative. My parents and I spent hours coming up with a campaign and writing “For a good deal, vote Lisa O’Neill” on the edges of playing cards covered in red hearts and diamonds, black spades and clubs. But when the day came to make speeches, I was terrified. I cried. I made myself sick with worry and my parents let me stay home from school. Problem solved, I remember thinking. I was relieved that it was all over and even though I still wished to be on student council, I felt better. But when I returned to school, I found that they had postponed the election for me. Mrs. King, my fourth grade teacher, asked me to come to the front and give a speech. I was stunned and completely unprepared. I said something I don’t remember for about ten seconds and then sat down. Liz Heard won (her campaign had involved something with lizards). I remember being caught off guard by having a chance to give the speech even though I wasn’t there the day the election was scheduled. Mrs. King was not following the rules, and I found it disconcerting.

I also sought out clear moral lines as a child. In my endless effort to be good, I needed more and more examples of how to be good and what to avoid so as to not be bad. Aesop’s Fables were appealing to me because there was a clear moral answer to each story:

“It is easy to despise what you cannot get.” (The Fox and the Grapes)

“It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.” (The Ant and the Grasshopper)

“Better no rule than cruel rule.” (The Frogs Desiring a King)

“We would often be sorry if our wishes were gratified.” (The Old Man and Death)

I took solace in the clarity of each story, the simple answers, the ease with which I could understand how Aesop arrived at each moral.

The problem is that these morals are without context. There are no tips or explanations of  how to apply them to our lives. “Better no rule than cruel rule” is a nice enough saying, but what do you do if you have no control over who the ruler is? How do we “prepare for days of necessity”? What does “days of necessity” even mean?

When I was ten years old, my parents and I traveled to the Southwest to explore the Grand Canyon. We flew from our home in New Orleans to El Paso, Texas. Because we had arrived early in the day, my dad decided it would be fun to take an impromptu trip to Mexico. This was before you needed a passport to make the passage. Neither one of my parents had been to Mexico and neither knew what to expect when we crossed over into Juarez.

Crossing the border only took a few minutes and then we were there. I had been lying down resting in the back seat. I remember sitting up and immediately being greeted with the faces of children my age, but skinnier and with brown skin, who reached their arms out, cupped hands towards our car and the cars in front of us. I don’t remember if we gave any of them change, but I think we kept driving. Ten feet later, there were more children, and then more. Their clothes were torn. Their eyes were vacant. Watching them, I began to cry. I asked my parents where their parents were. I asked them why they had to beg on the street for money. I don’t remember exactly what my parents offered up as an explanation, but I do remember that for the first time ever, my parents did not have a real answer. They couldn’t give me a good reason why these children were poor instead of me or why they didn’t have any food. They couldn’t explain my grief away.

I wish that life was as easy as “We would often be sorry if our wishes were gratified” but the truth is that we often would be satisfied or healthy or happy if our wishes were gratified and we struggle when they are not. Fables are helpful only to explain values to young children who don’t yet have the level of understanding to understand that morality is complicated.

"A Portrait of Aesop"; a marble figure in the Villa Albani, Rome

Although biographies of Aesop’s life hold contradictory information, most concur that he was a slave and many reference that he was not attractive or even that suffered from physical deformity. Some mention that he had a speech impediment from early youth. Given this information, I see his fables differently. It seems possible that, for him, these moral lessons were a coping mechanism. “It is easy to despise what you cannot get” seems fitting for someone born into slavery, someone who cannot be handsome, someone who cannot speak clearly. Were the stories he created ways for him to reconcile with his own challenges and impediments? Did they serve as a way to make him feel better regardless of his limitations? Did he create moral lessons that made his individual problems feel more tolerable?

There can be beauty in simplicity, but sometimes there is real limitation. I think of people who quote a Bible verse with no regard for the verses before or after to make their argument. Sometimes, we just have to be okay with the fact that the choices that we make in this life and the way that our lives are intertwined with others are infinitely complicated.

This somewhat relates to the third definition of the word: “a falsehood.”  We have all heard of lying by omission. Although fables tell us a moral through story, they assume that our lives will play out the same as in the stories. But the truth is that there are no easy solutions for how to make decisions or how to be a good person. We do the best we can. We make mistakes. We discern given our situation what the best steps to take are. And sometimes, the fables may apply. And other times, we have to tap into our own mind and heart and write the parting lesson ourselves.

The Old Man and Death

The Old Man and Death

The Ant and the Grasshopper

The Frogs Desiring a King

The Frogs Desiring a King

Aesop's Fables

Leave a Comment

Filed under weekly words

de·pop·u·la·tor

de·pop·u·la·tor n. a person or thing, as war or famine, that depopulates.

This word feels appropriate given recent disasters and the current state of the world. Massive earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The tsunami in Indonesia and hurricanes of growing strength in the Gulf of Mexico. Two wars being led by the United States—one against Iraq, one against Afghanistan. When you add perpetual famine and civil wars in Africa, we are already up to a sizable amount of depopulation.

What seems to be shocking is not that depopulators happen, but that we seem to encourage them and to act in ways that only add to the problems when depopulators occur. Indebted countries that don’t have the resources for building infrastructure or planning for natural disasters become further indebted just to meet the basic needs of their citizens, while lending countries thrive. Citizens of wealthier countries, we who can afford it, give money after the fact, but this money is not enough to rebuild, just to provide in the moment so that people do not starve or die from lack of medical attention or access to prescription drugs. Even our act of population, of producing children, in the United States means more depopulation elsewhere. For it is our children who utilize so many resources. It is we who leave the largest footprints. Our needs and desires mean that people in other countries get less.

Today is the vote for healthcare in Congress. One search of “depopulator” leads me to “Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed” on a website called “infowars” run by a man named Alex Jones. The video’s caption explains that panelists “warn of the revival of eugenics under Obama’s modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions who would be judged ‘not fit to live’, just as in Nazi Germany.” Besides the obvious offensive idea that a man who is half African and who has faced racism all his life would institute policies similar to a race genocide in Europe, I wonder if the spread of misinformation and the encouraging of talking points over a real conversation are not other forms of depopulators. Because the truth is that if healthcare is not more accessible in this country, more citizens will die. And the right is doing everything possible to encourage Americans that healthcare options for all will make us all suffer, financially and physically. This is just not an accurate representation of the bills proposed by Congress nor of the ideals of those in power.

I worked for three years at a San Francisco nonprofit that served the city’s poor and homeless. One of our programs was a free medical clinic. Many of the people we served were skilled workers or people with multiple degrees but they were unable to afford health insurance (http://www.soundpartners.org/node/1606). Because of this, so many poor and homeless people do not receive preventative care. This means that when they actually get to a clinic or hospital, their conditions are critical. And they can’t pay. We are paying for people who can’t afford insurance now, but we are paying more than if we would provide preventative care for everyone in this country.

Yesterday, I was taking a walk with a Canadian friend, who has not paid much attention to the debate here. I told her the vote was today. “What’s the big deal? I can’t understand why people don’t want to have universal healthcare,” she said.

“Well, this isn’t even for universal healthcare,” I told her. “It is just to give people who don’t have insurance an option besides through private companies.”

She looked at me, stunned. “That just seems ridiculous to me.”

I am a writer and an educator. I teach adjunct at a local university and community college. I make meager pay, but I do it because I love teaching writing. I am encouraged when students can tap into their own voice and I appreciate being a person who conveys to them that their voice matters. As a writer, I create work that seeks connectivity. In answering questions for myself, I hope to invite others into my journey and have a pseudo conversation with them. However, I do not receive benefits for my work. I currently pay forty-seven dollars a month for a plan that does little more than cover catastrophic or emergency care. I don’t want to be uninsured and my parents don’t want that. So I pay the money, even though I can’t really afford it. But I don’t know how much longer I will be able to. And I don’t know when or if I’ll have a job that offers benefits. I don’t believe that I, or anyone else, should have to do work we are dispassionate about to be healthy. I don’t think we should abandon the work that is important to us so that we are protected in case of accidents or chronic disease.

I think there is an undercurrent of the health care debate that is seldom identified. I wonder how many people who are adamant about opposing health care reform are uninsured. My guess is not many. If people who have continued to obtain jobs and stay in jobs not because they are following their passions or using their gifts but because they are steady jobs with good health insurance, I can imagine that offering healthcare to everyone could engender a bit of bitterness. What if artists, musicians, writers, freelance educators, woodworkers, pottery makers can have insurance that allows them to be well in their body and still produce art? When then did many people stay in their jobs for? What if people who don’t have “real jobs” get the same benefits as them? What if these freeloading lazy artists get to produce their crappy art on the public’s dime? My sense is that people who have not allowed themselves to create may not want to be a part of a program that takes care of artists, who often sacrifice stability and security because they have to produce their work.

Physical depopulation is a dangerous thing. But so is depopulation of the mind and soul. We need to be mindful of starting wars or of turning away from those in our world that are hungry. We also need to be mindful of spreading untruths or of discouraging people from pursuing what is important to them. Through aid, through dialogue, through healthcare for all, and through a genuine attempt at understanding, we can work against depopulators of our community and of the wellness of our community members. We cannot blame the environment or the government for these casualties for they are our responsibility as well.

2 Comments

Filed under weekly words

pa·ter·nal·is·tic

pa·ter·nal·is·tic (pe-tur´n´l-is´ti-k), adj. of or characterized by paternalism.

pa·ter·nal·ism (pe-tur´n´l-iz´m),  n. [paternal  +  -ism],  the principle of system of governing or controlling a country, group of employees, etc. in a manner suggesting a father’s relationship with children.

It should be noted (since I haven’t made note of it in awhile) that the dictionary I have been picking from is the Webster’s “New World” of 1955. It’s a lovely dictionary with more character and history than my new paperback edition. However, its age also creates some issues when presented with certain words. The definition of paternalism seemed particularly interesting to me because it seemed to reflect that world and not to carry any of the negative associations that I have come to associate with paternal, paternalistic, patronizing, and so on.

Although paternalistic is not in my 2004 Merriam-Webster, paternalism is:

n:  a system under which an authority treats those under its control paternally (as by regulating their conduct and supplying their needs)

That still doesn’t seem to implicate the nuances of the word that I have come to know. According to these definitions, my father acted paternally when he gave me chores around the house and gave my mom money for groceries. But there is an inherent value judgment, a gendering of roles that is not considered with these definitions of the word. The definitions imply that there is a certain way that a father must act. As in the first definition “in a matter suggesting a father’s relationship with children,” we are left to our own judgments based on stereotypes and socializing messages that have been given to us over the years.

I suppose this works if we give ourselves a very narrow definition of who fathers are. Fathers are providers. They are the disciplinarians. They are the heads of the households. Fathers set expectations for their children. They are loving but stoic. The problem here is that this description no longer suits many fathers. It certainly doesn’t suit mine.

My dad is one of the most sensitive people I know. I mean this as a compliment. I get my sensitivity—my compassion for others and my ability to be easily moved—from him. It was my dad who read me stories every night before bed, who I talked through my issues and problems with as a child and teenager. My dad was the one who was a softie when it came to punishments. I would’ve quicker been fearful of upsetting or angering my mother than my dad. She was stricter and she would stand her ground. With Dad, I knew I could get off easy.

Furthermore, my dad is a therapist. His job is to be a sensitive and compassionate listener so that people can work through their issues. He is part of a circle of men who gather to support one another—to appreciate their masculinity while recognizing the importance of building strong and intimate male friendships, something our culture does not often value and more often discourages outright.

A college English professor of mine, Steve Wright, said this of the word paternalistic: “It should mean being a good father, but it doesn’t. To me, it means the opposite. My job as a father is to empower my son so that he can be a strong individual, completely independent of me in terms of the choices he makes as he decides the best way to live his life and cherish his own values.” Thus in his perception, the definition of “being a good father” as defined by our culture is to impose authority on a child versus his decision to empower his child to be the authority on his own life. But isn’t that also being a good father? Doesn’t it depend what we define as good, what we define as paternal?

I tell my college composition students that all meaning is situated. That a given text or a given string of words inherently does not have meaning without considering the author of the text, the context for it and its audience. I can read the definition of the word paternalistic, that it is “characterized by paternalism.” And “paternalism”: “governing or controlling a system or country…as the relationship of a father to his child.” But I never felt governed or controlled by my dad. I felt loved. I felt cared for. I felt both encouraged and challenged by him.

I think oftentimes when we consider masculine qualities as a culture, we do so without considering the healthy range of these qualities. There is a desire for power but there is also a desire to be an authority/to be in a position of leadership. There is a difference between exerting control and being controlling. There is a healthy sense of confidence and there is a huge ego that makes you ignore others viewpoints and ideas. One can support or one can demand. I think part of our problem in our patriarchal, often paternalistic, culture is when we privilege the more drastic end of the scale. We don’t value the more moderate versions of masculine qualities.

Perhaps we need a new definition for paternalistic, based on a new understanding of fathers—of the range of who they are and qualities they possess. Fathers as sensitive and strong, as loving and demanding, as supportive and challenging. Fathers who teach their daughters how to believe in themselves so they can become the best person they can, so they can become experts at whatever they want to do. Fathers who teach their sons to be gentle on themselves, to value color and arts and to honor their own feelings. Fathers who show their sons how to be good fathers.

Leave a Comment

Filed under weekly words