Salon Topics- May 11, 2012
- The future of social media
- Is education for the benefit of the student or society?
- What can rekindle America’s romance with the car?
Salon Topics- April 13, 2012
- Under what conditions is peace possible?
- How long can an “age of innovation” last?
- The future of social media
Salon Topics–March 9, 2012
- How is celebrity conferred?
- Nostalgia
- Under what conditions is peace possible?
Salon Topics–February 10, 2012
- How is celebrity conferred?
- What is an education for?
- Can a paradigm shift be known as it is happening?
Salon Topics–December 9, 2011
- “Consumption, entitlement, and accountability. Tis the season, ha!”
- What is myth, and how does it work in our society?
- Why do we fear death?
Salon Topics–November 4, 2011
- What is a “good” job?
- Does beauty reveal or conceal truth?
- Why do we fear death?
Salon Topics–October 14, 2011
- “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Would Yeats’ words from 1919 apply to our time?
- Are austerity and “the good life” mutually exclusive?
- The importance of being earnest.
Salon Topics–September 9, 2011
1. How did 9/11 change us?
2. Of what value is solitude?
3. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.” Would Yeats’ words from 1919 apply to our time?
Salon Topics–October 8, 2010
1. Would we recognize the leader we need?
2. What’s the relationship between imagination and liberty?
3. Is America getting the art it deserves?
Salon Topics–September 10, 2010
1. Is diversity a strength or a weakness of Democracy?
2. Is national heroism obsolete?
3. What does Progress mean for our age?
Salon Topics–May 14, 2010
1. Is learning a competitive activity? Should it be?
2. Sparta vs. Athens: can a “high” civilization return to austerity?
3. Diversity in nature and culture.
Salon Topics—March 12, 2010
- What does the Performing Arts Center mean to Dallas? What should it mean?
- Is the unexamined life really not worth living?
- Are there “unalienable entitlements”?
Salon Topics—November 13, 2009
- Should convictions become more or less settled with increasing age?
- Orwell’s Big Brother—still watching 25 years later: how’s He doing?
- Is business a “calling”?
Blogging the October Salon
I’m enjoying the comments on gender-blindness and want to refresh my own part of the page. Thanks, by the way, for the several suggestions made about possible alterations in our Salon structure. More on that later.
Bob Meyer’s post on the negative aspects of striving for gender-blindness hit home with me. Isn’t blindness indeed a disability by nature, rather than one socially constructed? Maybe the whole matter of blindness is not as simple as I think it is, but Bob pushes me to consider even race-blindness in this way. Is it indeed desirable that we strive to render invisible any of the differences that distinguish us as individuals? The NY Times article that IM links us to is an example of this, it seems to me.
To bring Amy’s excellently satirical post into it, Aristophanes makes a scathing point in Lysistrata about women’s power, but his main goal there is a clever blast at the Athenian men for desiring war and refusing to seek peace with Sparta (he was right; the war destroyed Athens). Amy raises in my mind this question: must some aspects of social injustice arising from difference be necessarily legislated away, whereas other aspects would be better left to the more gradual processes of cultural codes?
I’m thinking specifically of a leitmotif of our Salon conversation that regarding each other first as distinct individuals–being courteous, empathetic, deferential, and so on–would in the ideal mitigate or even eliminate inequalities based on difference. However, would that be sufficient to alter the “master narrative,” ie, the cultural edifice crafted over time by those at the top of the hierarchy? Isn’t this the fundamental cultural blindness that we have to deal with in our pursuit of justice?
William Faulkner’s “letter to the North” in 1956 comes to mind, in which he stated his fierce opposition to Federal intervention to eradicate the Jim Crow laws of the South. Faulkner was strongly against segregation but insisted that the South would take care of its racial problems on its own in due time. Indeed he may well have been right and most likely was, but as Martin Luther King, Jr., stated in his 1963 “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in matters of social justice, the word “‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’” My question, then, is this: can we as a democratic people exercise wisdom enough to distinguish between the need for legislated “blindness” in some areas and the desirability of trusting the slower processes of cultural codes in others?
I’d also like to hear from people about our October topic #2: What do we need to know?
Any idea what the April 9th Friday Night Salon topic will be?
Larry will probably post them in a few days.
Two months into the spring Salon and nary a word of “conversation” on this so-called blog. At least last season we had the occasional hormonal rant, ill-tempered diatribe, and acidic pearl drop. OTOH, I suppose such posts violate the factitious standards of “prudence,” “thoughtfulness,” and the oh-so-precious “civility” that we are told are requirements for participation, to say nothing of the desire on the part of…you know who you are… to be safe, smiling, and comfortable.
But if that is the case, then why not shut down these moribund forums, lest someone upset someone?
Beau,
All of us salonistas are–snooze–truly surprised by your uncharacteristic grumpiness. What ever happened to your inner Emily Post?
Blessings!
Thankyou, George. As salonista Voltaire once said, “Conversation is a dish best served warm.” (At least, he should have said it.)
It may just be I, but I cannot find the list of topics for the 2010 Friday Night Salon.
I’m a tad chagrined that I didn’t offer a proper sum-up last salon to the arresting question, “What do we Need to know?”
What we need to know is that we are loved…..
unconditionally, changelessly, cosmically loved.
All responses to the question “What do we need to know?” in five tweats at
http://twitter.com/Dr_M_219
Dr. Larry-
One way to mitigate the potential problem with the random topic selection would be to draw 3 topics randomly and let the group vote on the one they would like to discuss. There is surely some opportunity for tyranny of the majority there, but probably less opportunity for someone’s feelings to be hurt; not having their topic chosen would be more a vote for the topic that does get chosen and less a vote against an undesirable topic.
Just a thought.
Larry, I need some clarification about your “master narrative” paragraph. You seem to be referring to something like institutional racism, or sexism, a bogus concept designed more to give employment to an ever growing swarm of “diversity consultants” rather than to solve real problems. At any rate, some concrete examples would be appreciated.
**************************************************
“Can we as a democratic people exercise wisdom enough to distinguish between the need for legislated ‘blindness’ in some areas and the desirability of trusting the slower processes of cultural codes in others?”
This is a question worthy of discussion despite my inclination to declare it moot. After all, the biggest decisions in the areas some people like to call “social justice,” such as the Brown ruling in 1954, have been made by the federal courts, the least democratic branch of government. And, considering the brouhaha over every nomination to the Supreme Court, we seem to have accepted the right of the courts to make the most fundamental decisions about our lives, apparently not trusting the states, Congress, or the “processes of cultural codes,” slow or not.
And what do you mean, “legislated blindness?” Haven’t court decisions, civil rights legislation, and what I like to call America’s Worst Idea: Affirmative Action, made everyone and every institution more race conscious? How does that square with the goal of blindness?
**************************************************
Topic #2. I pass. Please, someone else get in here and go for it!
Beau, by “master narrative” I mean not anything as explicitly and specifically known by us as political correctness, although such things as political correctness come to be recognized as part of it once they emerge as issues from the collective consciousness of a people. By “master narrative” I mean the whole edifice of beliefs, practices, and customs that form over time and define a people’s values and mores. How do we come to valorize certain attitudes over others? Who does the valorizing? The historical episode of the Alamo is a case in point; it became a part of the master narrative in a certain way based on its account by Anglo-Americans. As I understand it, the episode is now taught differently in our schools than in previous times. What is the “accurate” account? Will a revised understanding of it come to supplant the original version? I don’t know. But if it does become accepted into the collective consciousness, truly accepted, the revision will take its place as part of the master narrative. My point is that the master narrative is continually coming under scrutiny and is, to use Heidegger’s phrase, always “up for decision.”
I like your response to my question about the wisdom available to a democratic people. I have to sign off for now but will come back to it.
Uhh…OK, Larry…I think I get it now. I hope. I’m reminded of the huge changes in the “master narrative” of the history of the American west over the past 40 years, as historians like Patricia Nelson Limerick and Richard White have attacked the Frontier Thesis of Frederick Jackson Turner as (to be blunt) the racist, triumphalist interpretation of a dead white guy, which must be replaced with a more “sensitive”, “inclusive” narrative, portraying whites as aggressors, destroyers and (of course) the true illegal immigrants.
Nothing like progress.
About the Alamo…as a native born Texan and former wannabe history teacher, I have a strong interest in changes in how it’s taught. Could you give us some details, or tell me where to go to find out?
Beau – I’ll take a shot at topic #2…
We need to recognize and understand the extremes so that we might find the proper mean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/asia/16ladies.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The recent article in the New York Times, “Indian Women Find New Peace in Rail Commute,” discusses gender separation on public transportation in India. Comments by readers are worth looking at, as they take the discussion beyond the cozy boundaries of the Friday Salon.
I had a thought regarding the “gender blindness” on the way home yesterday. It seems to me that the idea of being blind carries with it an inability – in this case, a purposeful inability to recognize gender as a differentiating element between people. In other words, “blindness” wants to take gender off the table, so to speak. And whereas “blindness” is absolutely a good thing when it comes to race – a color blind society would be a great thing – I would not want to live in a society which refused to recognize differences in people due to gender.
Therefore, in place of “blindness”, perhaps a better phrase might be “proper focus”.
I have been pondering the declaration made last night that women wield the ultimate power, which is the ability to withhold sex. Fascinating! Does this ring true to me?
First, if I were a woman in Afghanistan, this clearly would not be the case, since a legalized threat of physical retaliation or rape would trump my so called ‘power’. Luckily, in the United States, these things never happen, its purportedly illegal, and socially frowned upon. Whew!
Thankfully, for those men who aren’t getting their needs met, we have the booming industries of prostitution and pornography. Wow, there’s clearly a demand here, and we got the goods. So yes, this declaration must be true! Hey wait a minute, I never realized until now that these industries are sapping my power!
Why are my sisters and myself not uniting more often to further our causes of injustice?! Clearly, we must stop the infighting. Ladies, stop the catfights! We’ve got work to do!
Our power is so limited when we withhold from only one man at a time. What are we thinking? We must find a way to exert this gift over multiple men at once. Within days, we will assume the power!
Your challenge: go out this week and find all the men you deem worthy of spreading your love. Of course, make sure they are charming, sensitive, respectful, attractive, intelligent, responsible, good communicators, witty, and endearing. Let me know how you fare and report back.
Godspeed.
The problem with random topic generation is that you have no mechanic for ignoring a truly awful suggestion without deadly insult to the member who submitted it. Does the Salon really wish to discuss whether the president is a disgrace, or whether Yorkshire terriers are the cutest dog breed, or whether we should bomb the moon?
Gosh..I am a 1967 University of Dallas graduate who lives in New Orleans…a lifelong Jeffersonian Democrat…who wishes I could be there..for I certainly would vote without a moment’s hesistation that one must surely discuss why not whether the president is a disgrace and certainly as soon as possible!
I love the Institute ….
Greetings, Puma. You should get in your executive jet and fly in for the next session.
Although I’m no fan of Obama, I think it’s too early to consider the question of whether or not he’s a disgrace, which seems to me – at the moment – to be more the province of those sagacious fellows like Rush Limbaugh, who informs us he’s already made his mind up on the subject. There are aspects of Obama’s presidency, relating to race, and specific policies he has implemented or proposed, that I would like to discuss, but for now I’m being patient. In fact, I have hopes for the man in foreign policy, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
What exactly IS a Jeffersonian Democrat, these days, anyway? I used to think I knew, but after seeing some dubious characters lay claim to the title these past 40 years, I’d like an updated definition, or at least what it means to you.
I’m with Beau, Puma. Come on up and join us one of these Fridays. I’m UD, too, similar vintage.
To Kurt’s point about the randomness of topics drawn from a fishbowl: it’s true that the practice tests the limits of salon civility, which is the main reason we discontinued the practice several years ago.
The dynamic itself was interesting: the entire group agreed either: that there was no such thing as a bad topic and that we could have a scintillating discussion about anything, or that we could all rise up against a topic and the anonymous topic-submitter would not allow himself to be offended, no matter how loud the hoots. I didn’t feel fully comfortable with either option.
But I’m open to more suggestions.