Letter to a Former Student

Music: Peaches: Fatherfucker Dear [Student's Name],

What a treat to hear from you! I very much appreciate your sharing your recent mental chaos with me. Let me say at the outset I am sincerely flattered that you feel comfortable enough to approach me with some frankly seriously issues. Let me tell you that, in my line of work, the rewards are very few. We're not paid very much; we're asked to do too much for what we are paid; and most students, frankly, are more interested in doing the least amount of work to get a piece of paper so they can "get a job." Every once in an while we learn about how our teachings have contributed positively to someone's life, and these revelations really are what we live for. That is to say, the rewards of research or teaching reduce to having made a positive impact on a student's life or way of thinking. You've made my day telling me about my positive impact on your way of thinking.

Because of the nature of your disclosures, there's no way I can adequately respond to it all. Some of the issues you raise are very deep, moral issues that no email response can do justice to. I will share my thoughts on a number of the topics you raise, but these are personal opinions and certainly nothing more than that.

Incidentally, you should also note that I am responding to you via my private email address; this is because some of the issues you raise, namely the use of drugs, is subject to review by the university and other state officials (technically speaking, email exchange on LSU servers belong to LSU). So on these personal issues, if you have a private account not affiliated with LSU, I'd urge you to do that.

This said, if you will humor me a bit, I'll take this as "teaching moment" opportunity at first, before I discuss my opinions. I very much appreciate your compliments about my learning--and I've studied a lot in the last ten years--but in the grand system of smart people in this universe, I am of a much lower planetary order. Indeed, what I want to suggest is that I don't know all that much, and I try to make sense of the chaos around us just like you do. In my line of thinking, there is no absolute truth, but different ways of getting at it and defining it. And this can be mind-bogglingly frustrating.

There's this dude, Jacques Lacan, who says that in our lives we often seek out very wisdomatic people to give us our bearings. This quest for "leaders" reproduces the function parents had when we were children. Lacan calls this person "the subject who is supposed to know" When someone goes to therapy, the therapist is usually the "subject who is supposed to know," the wisdomatic person who will tell the person on the couch what is really bothering them.

Here's the trick of therapy, though: in reality, the therapist has NO CLUE what is troubling the patient! Most therapists don't! The person who really knows the problem is actually the patient him or herself. So, successful therapy is really achieved when the patient realizes that the therapist REALLY DOESN'T HAVE THE ANSWERS. Successful therapy usually involves the patient USING the therapist to help herself. The therapist becomes, in a sense, a tool.

The analogy I want to draw here is this: teaching involves this dynamic of students presuming the teacher is the "subject supposed to know," that the teacher has all the answers. I use this dynamic in the classroom to help folks learn. You always know the dynamic is in play when students care what you think about them. When a student starts to look for me for "answers," then they are presuming I am the keeper of wisdom, you know. When a student cares about how I personally think about them, real learning can happen.

Every once in a while, though, someone like you comes along as says: I need an answer! And this is the point that I have my teaching moment: dude, I ain't got the answers. Indeed, they don't exist. Each person moves along in life, trying as best as they can to make sense of it, and certainly should be suspicious of those claiming to have the answer.

People claiming to have the answer or "truth" are not to be trusted. They may have, in fact, that answer or truth. But don't accept it on blind "faith." Indeed, blind "faith" is what the more dogmatic religions ask of us. The less dogmatic religions suggest that "faith" is in constant conversation with "doubt," and that this is normal (Kierkegaard is a great read on this problem).

So to switch from teacher mode to me as person with opinions: first, yes, I know exactly what you mean when you say you slowly emerged from your youthful religion with wide eyes. I had the same experience, of course. What is important to think about, though, is whether that experience necessarily means all religious organizations or bad, or all religious teachings are bad, and so on. Spirituality is very important to a large number of folks, including me. One thing you might have learned in the rhetoric of religion class is that, at a very basic level, because of the way language works, we cannot help but be religious. Just watch the ravings of an atheist: they're just as "religious" in the denial of Spirit as the most devout fundamentalist. To wit: keep an open mind, keep searching. Knowledge is in the quest and the search, not in "the answer." Be wary of those with "the answer"

And that leads me to Michael Moore. Many people are saying that the country has never been more divided. But if you look at our history, the United States has always been a "work in progress" of overcoming division. That is to say, the very idea of our Union is premised on overcoming a split or divide; "we" have always been that way. The Civil War is case in point. Without division, there is no union; one requires the other.

Although I am a rabid, liberal, Left sort of guy, I do not trust Michael Moore. Michael Moore is someone who claims to have "the truth," and "the answers." I am suspicious of those kind of people. I love his movies and books--they are hilarious and do capture my politics. But I see Moore (and Al Franken, too) as our liberal response to figures like Rush Limbaugh. Both are polemicists. Both say things that are "out of context" and stretch the truth. Michael Moore is a propagandist--one that I love, mind you, but a propagandist all the same. He uses the conventions of film to create a story that tells it "our way." But these conventions can be manipulated. For example, in his famous *Roger and Me*, it seems like Reagan comes to town right at the point when Gary IN is falling apart. But this is because of the way the film is cut, to give the semblance of chronology. Actually, Reagan came way after the problems Gary experienced (if I recall correctly). The point is Moore, like Limbaugh, is a "media figure." His role is just, though: it gets us talking, doesn't it?

You see, I think that in the field of the mass media, it is virtually impossible to have sustained, political discussions. In a sound-bite world, news is show business. Politicians know this, so they "cut corners" or don't tell the whole truth--precisely because doing so requires time, and time is money. Moore realizes these limitations, and so, like a good media figure, has adopted the tactics necessary. Ultimately, I think Moore is a godsend because he gets people talking--hopefully thinking. But I am personally as suspicious of him as I am the spokespeople of our government.

Okie, so you have some specific questions. You ask:

What I would like to better understand and know: Is there really any proof that these rich white CEOs are conspiring to keep the American people in the dark while they carry on with REALLY shady business practices, which includes raping the American workforce? If so, is it really as bad as it has been said? Do they pay for and rely on these conservative media freaks to make it seem like the word "liberal" is a bad shameful word.

I don't doubt that there are conspiracies; Enron et al. is proof enough that businessMEN conspire to make money. But I think what you mean by conspiracy is different. You seem to be asking about some larger, collective effort. And my answer is that there is no such larger effort. What we need to think about is ideology and structural reasons for why wealthy white men are running this country.

Recall in class we discussed "ideology" as the "collective beliefs, attitudes, and values" of a given community or population. I then said ideology tends to support those already in power, and that it does so by making ideology seem like "common sense." Wealthy white dudes are in power, and stay in power, because we are in a society that ideologically supports it. It's not that wealthy white dudes conspire to make money and keep us in the dark. Rather, its that to get wealthy (the ideal on our country), one has to follow certain rules and do certain things to get ahead; one has to 'play the game." That "game" is a structure that people are situated in. In a sense, then, what I'm saying is that the "game" of making money and keeping power centered in wealthy white men runs US, we do not run IT.

It's complicated, [student's name], and would take me a long while to explain how I think this whole shebang works, but the "bottom line," so to speak, is that the system runs the show (like the Matrix movies), and we depend on the system to keep us alive and going. There is no conspiracy, in other words. Rather, it is simply "common sense" that things are done the way they are done. That common sense, us socialists would argue, is "warped" and inhumane. But it takes a very long time to change common sense (recall, for example, that it was only recently was it 'common sense' to sit next to an African American in a restaurant or on a bus).

Now, there is the issue of the Bush administration, which I have written about a lot of places. To say there is no "rich white dude" conspiracy does not mean there is not an agenda, particularly on the part of the religious right. The current administration is certainly one funded by the religious right, and its rhetoric is often that of spiritual warfare. Bush's key speech writer, for instance, is a graduate of Wheaton College (the Midwestern double of Baylor in Texas), and all of Bush's early speech craft was of the "born again" variety. These kinds of values (born again) are guiding state policy. I find that scary.

Why is that scary? Well, you mentioned the student who dropped my religion class because of my pentagram "cloak" (it's actually a computer dust cover). You mentioned he said that I am going to "hell." Well, lets think about this statement. If someone is saying to me that I am going to hell, then what are they really saying? They are saying I am not a full fledged human being, that I'm some "creature" or foreign thing that has his just doom coming. That kind of talk is "dehumanization." Dehumanizing others who do not believe or think like you do is a common thing in more fundamentalist circles. What this student said is no different than when Bush II called the citizenry of North Korea, etc, as "evil." When you call someone evil, you turn them into non-people. When people are understood as non-people, it's easier to destroy them.

See, that's what the Nazi's did with the Jews. Call them "rodents," "inhuman," or monsters, characterized them as "evil" or destined to go to hell, and then its so much easier to destroy them. Hitler say he had the "answer," the truth. He called it "the final solution." More than 6 million people were murdered as a part of that answer.

There are the Iraqi's that were abused at Abu-Grabe prison. How can you abuse someone like that? Well, only by thinking they are not real human beings, only by seeing them as "Other."

This is what I mean by the return of "political demonology": the way in which politicians, since the Bush II regime, have been using the rhetoric of Othering, or of dehumanization, to justify aggression and violence. It's the oldest rhetorical move in the book. Nothing new. And I think it is that which Franken and Moore are so concerned about, the way in which fundamentalist, so-called "Christian" values of a VERY CERTAIN kind are fueling blind violence.

I am personally suspicious, then, of folks who not only claim to have the "truth" and all the right "answers," but especially of folks whose answers distinguish between those who are real human beings, and those who are monsters and should be destroyed, or those who will "go to hell." In my book, saying so and so is going to hell is a horrible, dehumanizing thing to say.

Indeed, I am always amazed at the preachers on "Free Speech Alley," who seem less there to save souls than to comfort themselves by insulting people and dehumanizing them.

You say:

I'm very curious as to how Fahrenheit 9/11 is going to affect this country, if it does at all. I'm afraid that the people against it will succeed at making other potential viewers think MM is a crazy liberal lunatic and that this new movie is nothing but lies and not worth seeing.

It's like "preaching to the choir," really. The film may rally the Left to the polls, but that's it. MM is a demagogue and a populist; he cannot escape that (and he knew that when he got into the business). I doubt it will be on the radar come October, and I seriously doubt it will really have that much of an influence on the election.

I do think, however, Ralph Nader poses a problem, but that's another story.

I even have friends who believe Bush is the best choice for protecting us from the terrorists, which I think is a bunch of bullshit. That's what Bushie wants, everyone to be afraid.

I honesty think that Bush is not that bad of a guy. I think his heart is in the right place, and that he has faith in his God and believes he is doing the right thing. You'll note Clinton said as much recently in interviews about his book; he only differed with Bush in terms of the timing.

But the key here is to note that Bush is not running this show. He is, as it were, a puppet for folks behind the scenes. When you and I or anyone attacks Bush, we need to recognize Bush the human being is actually very different from Bush II: The Movie. I think the folks behind that follow-up blockbuster are the ones who are using the tactics of righteousness to secure "national interests."

You say:

Of course they want to keep us safe because that makes them look good, but what exactly are those people in the White House up to? Do you know anything about this? Any suggestions of what I should read?

Read everything! I tire of it all so easily; trying to figure out what is true and what is not is hard in our media-saturated environment. It seems to me the better route toward understanding what is REALLY going on is to read foreign newspapers. You can do that online (e.g., the London Times). It won't give you the "answer" either, but with an outside view it helps to get a better sense of what is going on from the world's perspective.

When I was in Berlin in April, it was a real eye opener. Because media in the states in part must cooperate with the US govt. to get information, it limits their ability to be totally objective (and we must keep in mind the media are owned by large corporations who depend on the US govt. to protect their international interests, and so forth). By and large, the world HATES the US govt. (not Americans per se) because of their tactics of righteousness. Invading a largely contained country and deposing a dictator despite the protests of the UN was a really bad blow to US credibility. It's hard to argue that you are ultimately interested in humanitarian efforts and protecting human rights when you defy all the institutions that were set-up to enable that cause.

You say:

Anything you'd care to share that'd enlighten me, or give me a clearer, overall picture of what's going on with the divisiveness of this country?

Like I said: I don't have the answer. You simply got to think about it on your own, read, and come to some conclusions yourself. Beware of someone who says they have it all figured out--because this is so complex. The mass media try to reduce that complexity to sound bites, which is why things lead so easily to unverifiable platitudes. Watch what the pundits do on Sunday morning political shows (of which I am a junkie). After every assertion, what does an official say: "well, it's more complicated than that." The reason they say that is because it usually is, even if I don't agree with their values or politics.

It's always more complicated than we wish it were. This is why very strict, black-and-white belief systems are so comforting. It reduces the complexity of human life to manageable answers and guidelines. A great example of this is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand (bascially, conservativism made easy). Compare it to fundamentalist religion and you'll see the same appeals.

You ask:

Which reminds me; I often wondered what you TRULY think about the South, Louisiana, and Baton Rouge? Is it as terrible as many northerners believe it is?

No, Baton Rouge and Louisiana is just different. When I make fun of people on I-10, it is hypocritical in the sense that I am dehumanizing, too (although that examples does connect with people for some reason!). People are no smarter or dumber than folks I experienced in DC, Minnesota, and Georgia. They are very different, and on the whole, *poorer* and less educated. But this does not translated into slowness. I've met many a wicked smart local, my friend. Take you, for instance ;-)

Another question I wanted to ask you a while back but never got around to it: I remember you mentioning that you used to do acid at the original Mellow Mushroom, yet you've never tried ecstasy. That struck me as sort of odd since we talked a lot about the rave culture and the Temporary Autonomous Zones (I really enjoyed that reading). Before you said that, I would have certainly figured you'd have done it at least once to personally see what it was all about. Just out of curiosity, why haven't you tried it? I believe it's definitely something everyone should experience at least once!

That's a fair question [student's name]. When I was 23, I finally decided drug-exploration was not for me anymore for a number of reasons. First, I got bored. After talking to god numerous times, I just decided the dripping walls had said all I needed to hear. I believe drugs do open the "doors of perception," as Huxley says. But continuously opening those doors gets tiresome.

Second, there is a LOT of scientific evidence to show psychotropic drugs mess with your serotonin transmitters and sensors. I don't know anything about how brain chemistry works, but I do know that if you do too much mind-altering stuff that chemistry changes. I know of folks whose "depressions" were worsened by taking too many psychotropics. "Rollin'" especially can give you some real problems. So, dude, I'm not going to be a parent and say "don't do it," but I would encourage you to read more about this stuff before you ingest it.

Third, when I was in high school we knew the source of our drugs (a buddy's brother, who was a chemist and pot grower). You hear horror stories about the drug supply today. It's possible to ingest driano!

Finally, drug use really can lead to worse addictions. My best friends in high school smoked a lot of dope. I never did care for the stuff (makes me paranoid). Toward the end they smoked a ton, and eventually, that's all they did. Of my group of friends, I was the only one to FINISH college. To this day, I believe they are "pot heads." Like everything, absent moderation drugs change the way your brain works.

So, in answer to your question why I have never done ecstasy: because I think it is better for me not to take drugs. I have depressive tendencies and don't want to make them worse. I am an addictive personality, and don't need to encourage it. And in my line of work, not destroying my mind is important. Just don't want to risk it, you know?

Anyhoo, read more about ecstasy and pot. There's lost of literature out there. Moderation is always the key, of course, but there are dangers to consider . . ..

I hope this answers your questions [student's name], and gives you some food for thought. I guess what I'm saying is: I don't have the answers; it is all chaos and you just have to make the best sense of it that you can; yes, drugs can help you perceive the world differently, but be careful; and finally, religion is a complicated thing. Don't let those who abuse spirituality to hurt people get in the way of your seeking a spiritual life.

And all this from a guy who keeps saying he does not have the answers. See, I contradict myself. And that is, in part, my point.

Love from Spanish Town,

[King Rhomby]