QUEENLY DRAG QUEENS

So. . . I went to a drag queen race this past Tuesday. Yeah. Before people start thinking that cars raced down DC, stop that thought. I mean a drag race as in men dressed up as women (and ridiculously high stilettos) and ran down 17th St. in Dupont (in their ridiculously high stilettos). Though it was a rainy night, the event was still awesome and I can say that it was one of the best events I have attended so far in DC. I must admit that people can get really creative in this city, from the Rainbow Brite drag queen to the person dressed up as the Washington Monument complete with red shining lights, all the costumes were amazing.

The queens first paraded down 17th. They strutted their stuff, posed for pictures, blew kisses to the crowd, you know, the usual queenly stuff. I was part of the cheering crowd that marveled at the creativity of the costumes and I was also one of the ones that cringed with some awkwardness when I saw some of the "edgy" costumes that some guys tried to pull off (like a guy who wore cowboy chaps and showed a LOT of skin, I'll leave the rest to your imagination). Anyway, I hate to think like Goffman, but for this event I must. You see, every single drag queen created a sort of persona that played with the receiving audience. Therefore, they controlled what impressions they left upon the audience. The Marylin Monroe drag queen strutted down the street (with a guy wearing a JKF mask holding up an umbrella for her) and acted in a regal way, meanwhile people in the audience cheered her on and yelled "Go Marilyn". People actually played and acted as if this man was actually Marilyn Monroe. It was pretty funny.

However, I also fell victim to the belief that the characters being portrayed were real. When the race was over and we were heading back, I ran into Rachel Maddow. . . drag queen Rachel Maddow. If you don't know, Rachel Maddow is an MSNBC news anchor. My encounter with Rachel Maddow went something like this:

"Oh my gosh! Guys, it's Rachel Maddow."

Rachel (remember, this is the drag queen we're talking about) responded like this:

"Sweetie come here and take a picture with me!"

She then grabbed me by the arm and we took a picture which hopefully I have posted correctly. I will admit that at the moment I met "Rachel" I seriously thought I was talking to the actual Rachel Maddow. To add to my embarrassment, I seriously considered asking for an autograph (I am so lame). Except that I forgot one thing, Rachel Maddow is a woman, and a woman that does not wear that ridiculous amount of makeup. Still, I fell victim to the theatrics.

Wow, I just realized how long this post is.

Who is governing America(n)?

Last year in my government course we learned three ways in which American government and its actions can be explained. The three were: pluralism, hyperpluralism, and elite and class theory. After hearing today's discussion on AU's budget allocation one word came to my mind: entitlement. Disappointgly, I came to the conclusion that most of my fellow students are firm believers in the elite and class theory.

In short, the elite and class theory is that the few elites, who hold the concentration of wealth, are those who persuade policymakers to make policies that favor them and policies that will ensure that their wealth is not in danger. Thus, it makes it seem as though those with the most money yield the most rights. But, since when did a right that one is supposed to be born with cost money? A sense of entitlement transpires because those that possess the money feel as though they are entitled to more rights than the rest and that they are inherently better than the rest of us average or below- average individuals in the socioeconomic structure of American society.

Concerning American University, we all are in some way paying for our education, whether it is you personally who is paying, your parents who foot the bill or if you received an outside or AU scholarship, there is someone who is paying for the bill in your name. Then if we are supposedly all on equal footing, shouldn't equality ensue? But, in actuality people feel as though they are in some way better than others and are entitled to certain resources here, but one sole individual should not be singled out to reap all the benefits, and if a certain radio station or club is helping a certain group of people or if they enjoy listening to it, it should not be destroyed just because you are not personally benefiting from it. That's just selfish. Money turns into a contest that can be very destructive and never ending, as Dante conveys.

If you do not like it, you do have the right as a student to express your discontent or ask for funds to start a club or some other type of organization that you think would be more beneficial. But, by sitting around and doing nothing and stating that you, since you pay tuition, are entitled to certain rights and you are allowed to make or break a radio station is ridiculous. I am not saying that you cannot make a difference. You can. But you cannot do so by just complaining. It is immature and since we are all paying, we are all equal and a few of us are not entitled to more than the rest of us.

We are The American University, and we, just as those in Congress, should be constantly reminded of the principles on which our nation was created.

And remember, life could be a lot worse. Just think about it. We are lucky to even have the opportunity to go to college. Sometimes it is necessary to open our eyes to what others do not have and what we have to realize that we should feel gracious and not selfish-- relative deprivation is a powerful thing.

Discuss, discuss!

"Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable, yet a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (Bellah et. al., p. 144).

To discuss this, first the "traditional forms" have to be defined. And what were these traditional forms of life? They were characterized by a life for one's family and community. A person's existence was integrated tightly into his or her social fabric. Utter individual separation from the pack was deemed "egotistic," a peculiarity and anomaly.

Another point is that the ancient republican and biblical religious values, of personal roles as wife serving a husband, slave belonging to a master, were aspects of an unequal yet respected and functional system.

Cutting off these republican and biblical traditions, thus, according to Tocqueville, would seem to weaken "the ideal of individual dignity."

However, somehow it does not for many. Perhaps because we are so accustomed to this "modern individualism," we don't quite mind ignoring biblical values. I question if individualism is the natural form of being for the human. Following Freud's teachings on the ego and superego - yes, clearly it's natural. Clearly we are all subconscious egotists. Perhaps within republican and biblical frameworks, people have been repressing their innate needs for individual expression and fulfillment, all along? Have their moral conscious superegos been at perpetual toil, struggling to repress their solitary desires and shove them into a place in society? Perhaps these individualistic ideas of life were taboos, taboos like certain sexual and social behaviors of today?

Thus, maybe people - once acquainted with individualism and, at last, a means to satisfy their desires stemming from the ID, once they feel the freedom - another way of life to them appears scandalous. Barbarian. "Intolerable discrimination and oppression" is of course a relative term based on our societal values. In ancient Egypt, many paupers would not have felt oppressed by their lower status because they accepted it as their ancient place within society. Their fathers had been paupers, their grandparents had been paupers, their great-grandparents had been paupers, they were paupers, and these were the ways of the Earth. Even a great legacy, history, and culture of their nation of Egypt.

In modern times USA, the wife is no servant to the husband. She searches for individual fulfillment and testing of her skills in a career. She is free to choose a social circle and thrives on a mutual relationship with the husband. Limiting the woman to a homemaker role would be discrimination, it would be oppression. The individual ID requires self-satisfaction, and it is unwilling to repress its desires into a taboo and conformed way of being. Not again.

Personal Worldly Bubbles

An individual is someone who thinks for his or herself. This means that their ideas are their own, they may listen to outside opinions and thoughts, but in the end, the opinions that that individual creates are crafted in an independent way free of outer influences. In other words, an individual's thoughts are produced by that person itself, their beliefs or ideas are not forced upon them. Some may argue that there are certain thoughts that may have not been thought of "independently". For example, religion, some people that consider themselves independent individuals may have had their religion since birth. However, those who are of free-will accept that they have a choice over their beliefs, just because one was handed-down a belief does not mean that they cannot question or re-assert themselves later on in life.

So why is being an individual not socially viable? For one, being an individual could mean wanting to live in your own "personal worldly bubble". This means that as people become individuals, they could tend to become less receptive of other people's opinions or thoughts, therefore becoming less receptive of others and withdrawing themselves from a community of people. A withdrawn individual is created.

But what is even worse than being a withdrawn individual? Living in traditional forms. Traditional forms could mean completely submerging oneself in a community, risking one's sense of independence and individualism. People could begin to think alike, with less variation and being in danger of becoming close-minded. So is community a bad thing? I think there has to be a balance between being your own person and belonging. You can't completely live in your own atmosphere because then you interact and impact others less, but you can't live completely with others because then one runs the risk of losing individuality and independence (and this is not a good thing).

Hope this makes sense. Maybe this is what Bellah meant or not, either way, anyone can make his or her own inferences, correct?

individualism

I do not think that the outlook for America is as depressing as this quote portrays it to be. I think that Habits of the Heart, in its entirety, did not seem to paint such a grim picture, because they identified such trends that they saw as problematic and then they showed that there is still hope for our society as a whole by the conclusion.

Nonetheless, I do think that modern individualism is not "socially viable" because increasingly people are learning to become more selfish in the materialistic society that we have, and working in their jobs to make others look bad (Bellah et. al., p. 144). People are constantly worrying how they can obtain their self- interests above others, and such trends as husbands or wives working later at the office to earn more money so that with this money they are able to flaunt their wealth over others is seen. There is so much needless opulence in the world and the sad part is that people are drawn to it out of their own greed. Therefore, individualism is pushing people away from others so that the individual can succeed, and thus it creates a less "socially viable" country (Bellah et. al., p. 1440).

People's interests are conflicting now more than ever and relationships become constrained. In this way, modern individualism is also not "individually... viable" because when one is unable to form close relationships with others and is forced to live alone, happiness is halted and people are unable to thrive. It is through relationships with others that we learn the most about ourselves, and yet if we are only looking out for ourselves, how can we ever expect to have even a friendship? People's tendencies to become increasingly interested in pursuing their self- interests is going to be detrimental to not only their own selves and happiness, but also to society as a whole. We cannot forget where we came from and relationships should not be forced to face such constant strains that individualism creates.

However, I disagree with the authors of Habits of the Heart, when they state that a "return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression," (Bellah et. al., p. 144). I do not think that people would revert to such extreme measures again if we were to go back to the individualism that was emphasized in the past, but I also do not think that it is possible to even go back to the old ideals of individualism. Society is shaped by many forces and technology plays a very important role. The advent of technologies like cell phones and computers allowed for people to become more self- reliant because if they needed someone they knew they could call them but they did not have to stay in constant contact with them to find out where they were; computers allowed people to search for information on their own and complete tasks on a more individual level, too.

Since we cannot remove these technologies from our current state of society because so much is based around them, we must, instead, find ways to use these advancements to stress ways in which individualism will promote progress for society as a whole, and not think about ways in which we can go back to the old individualistic ways since that is not even a possibility.

Reflection

I have to say, I was very impressed with our president, Neil Kerwin. In the world of politics that he inhabits, the straight-shooting, frank manner in which he speaks is a rarity. In the first semester of this year, I've a lot of BS coming from a lot of people on a certain number of subjects. Most of the BS comes from students who really don't know what they're talking about, and spew it regardless. However, Mr. Kerwin told us in a straightforward, no-nonsense tone, exactly where he came from, and where AU is going. I truly appreciated the fact that he did not condescend to us at all, and he never seemed to want to be doing something else. It was as if he actually wanted to be there (imagine that!), talking to us about the issues facing American University. Anyways, It was a refreshing look at the leadership of our school, and after meeting him and hearing him speak, I am extremely pleased and hopeful for the future of AU.

In other news, my family is doing very well (thank you very much for asking), and I can still prepare and cook a fabulous steak. I'm not gonna lie, I make a fantastic steak, and the best part is, theres no secret ingredients or marinade; all I use is salt and pepper (albeit ground salt and pepper). First you rub the salt into the steak, a good bit more than you think, too, and this makes sure that the steak loses no moisture during the cooking process so they're nice and juicy. Next you put a HUGE amount of pepper on, almost so you can't even see the meat!!! This, for some reason is the most delicious thing in the world; the french call it steak au poivre, I call it steak au my god I want to eat you. Anyways, it's the most delicious thing ever, and, oh yeah, I'VE GOT LEFTOVERS. So, uh, I'm gonna leave now and devour my leftover steak before I go crazy thinking about it.

On Identity Analysis and a Booklet Full of Tricks...

I'm having a tough time getting through Habits of the Heart. I have a hunch that if I make it to chapter six the reading will serve as beneficial to an understanding of my own identity. For now, though, I'm trudging.

(I would appreciate anyone's insights - how's your progress extracting the main ideas? The topics covered are very hazy and nebulous to me...)

Thinking in retrospect about President Neil Kerwin's visit, I must admit I wasn't aware of opening up a can of worms. My question about purpose of the Strategic Plan lead to an unraveling of AU's past tarnished reputation. Still, in my view, President Kerwin chose his words carefully and handled the replies superbly, outlining causes for the new Strategic Plan without exaggeratedly obfuscating the truth.

Yet, I wonder - what was Professor Jackson's intent of bringing President Kerwin in? Had we asked the right questions during his visit? And, how did President Kerwin recognize his talk to us? Was it a motivational speech for the identity-befuddled Explorers, or was it a conscious and quelled defense of his mission to improve the school? Had he known we would bring up the subject?

Putting a Stop to the Excuses

I have to admit that out of all the speakers that have come to our class so far, Dr. Kerwin has been the best one. For being an image of success and perseverance, he talked in a very humbling yet inspirational tone. His message was a simple one, that I'm pretty sure many of us have heard and possibly live by (I know I do), and that was that if you want something, go get it. The only obstacle you will ever face when wanting to get something, is yourself. When Dr. Kerwin first said this, I struggled to suppress a rolling of the eyes. It sounded so cliched and like something you would find on one of those posters pasted around my high school cafeteria or library. You know which ones, the ones that say something inspirational like "Courage" and then have a very inspirational picture on them. The message is so simple (and a little corny) but behind it lies so much power, if only one is willing to accept it. Living with no obstacles means living with no excuses. It means that if one wants something then just go get it, don't let anything hold you back.

There have been many times when I have wanted something, but I end up not getting it because I let fear dominate me, or I would make excuses like "Oh, I'll do it tomorrow" when really, I was just making excuses so that I would not have to face a challenge for fear of failing. Yet I've learned to hate regret, it's probably one of the worst feelings in the world. But for me, this is precisely why regret happens, because I allow myself to become my own obstacle, I deny myself the things that I want and wish for. However, ever since my arrival at AU, I have had my uncomfortable moments. At first, I thought that I was just learning how to adapt to a new environment, but since last Friday's class, I now understand that feeling uncomfortable is just a sign that I am finally fighting for what it is that I want. No excuses, no fears.

President Neil Kerwin's Visit

Although I had to leave President Kerwin's speech twice in the beginning due to my frequent coughing attacks, I still was able to grasp the message of his speech and some aspects of his life story. I found President Kerwin's words to be reassuring because I do feel "uncomfortable" here at the moment and I do think that the transition into the university has been very "traumatic." He expressed these sentiments and I related to them, and I am very glad to know that it is normal because usually people are very ashamed of such feelings or try to pretend they are just fine. So by having someone who has been through the entire process at AU before, though it was many years prior, to state feelings that I relate to currently was very comforting. President Kerwin, obviously, turned out to be quite successful so now I know that the difficulties that I am facing are not because I am not cut out for this entire college experience.

After President Kerwin's speech, I was surprised to find out about the history of the past presidents that AU has held, but it also explains why AU has a bad reputation still to some people and why it is so important for President Kerwin to create the strategic plan. However, I always find it disheartening when we discuss how people's speeches and responses are rehearsed because it makes one see the world devoid of sincerity. I do think that President Kerwin's responses were sincere and truthful because of the way his face lit up when he relayed certain stories. I also like to believe in the good of others so I do not think that the strategic plan was created solely to extract more money from alumni because to think that way is distressing to me. President Kerwin definitely had to have received similar questions to the ones we asked, but I do not think that he ever received the EXACT same questions before, and thus there is no way that he could have practiced saying such responses. Yes, he has to say certain things as a part of his job, but I think that he truly loves AU and he wanted to make a strategic plan to not only explain his dedication to the campus and the students, but also because such an action is necessary for any university to do at this time in order to ensure that it can continue to meet the growing demands of this changing world in which we live.

Uh? Solid Nomenclature.

I concur in finding this question slightly bizarre. What is the opposite or qualifying point to AU not being a community? Why would the university not be a collection, fellowship, grouping of people sharing common characteristics and purposes? There certainly don't appear to be any counter arguments.

While it is important to evaluate the meanings of certain terms to us, and perhaps analyze their usage in our world, I really don't feel like there is much in nitpicking the definition of a community and dwelling on how AU fits the term.

If AU is not a community, what are we saying that it is? A learning institution with student groupings and cliques not comprising a comprehensive whole? But they do!

Whether AU contains smaller communities, or is situated within a large community, all depends on point of outsider perspective. Equally as a foreigner, who, albeit being a physical member of his community in a town in Illinois, for example, is also a member of the emigrant group of his homeland within the new country (e.g. Polonia community in Chicagoland). Yet, this emigrant group is not limited to a certain region (Chicagoland) - it spreads cross-country (whole of United States). Polonia community leaders and quarters are scattered across the nation, but they do agree on collectivity and similarities and attempt to cooperate together. Thus, Polonia leaders from Florida give scholarships to Polonia kids in Illinois. On a much less tangible level, the Polonia community across the world communicates and connects via forums and chat rooms for support and information exchange.

In this light, AU, while a community formed of smaller groups in itself (as past posters have mentioned), AU belongs to the larger community of D.C. universities which include GU, GW, Catholic, etc. In the next hierarchical level, it belongs to the Eastern US universities. And, in light of a global scale, AU's community are the unis cross-country.

Geography appears pertinent, which is a curious discovery.

Community

I can't believe that this is even a debatable question. Of course AU is a community. A community is simply a group of people that have something, anything, in common, whether it be living location, sports team, favorite drink, FREAKING ANYTHING. It doesn't have to be several different traits it can only be one. For example: people talk about the gay community or the black community all the time, and those two have NOTHING in common except their sexual orientation and race, respectively. I do believe that AU is a community, because everyone here has something in common (I'll give you a hint: AU). So it is a bit ridiculous to say that even though the people involved with AU are completely different and therefore do not constitute a community; although, if that's your definition of community, then that's just what you believe. I honestly have nothing more to say about this. I don't think my argument needs any further explanation; it seems quite conclusive.

That Ant Colony You Always Wanted

First, one must define community. After all the discussions regarding “community”, I have concluded that a community must be composed of individuals that share common interests. However, a common interest is not the only condition, it can also consist of members that regularly interact with each other. Also, there must be communication between members of a community in order for a sense of unity to be created.

So is AU a community? Yes.

AU is a large community composed of smaller communities. For one, the people that live in residence halls, that’s a community. They share a common characteristic which is that they all live in a similar place. For example, the residents of Leonard Hall are a community because they all have a similar living area. Not only that, but they also have an open means of communication. Every day, they see each other either in their assigned hallways and say greet each other. Or they communicate through floor activities like floor dinners of meetings. Their common interest? Well, they are all interested in receiving an education from AU.

However, AU is not only composed of residence hall communities, it is also composed of educational and interest communities. The student body is divided into groups of similar educational focuses, whether that be SPA, SIS, CAS, or any other group, they have all become communities with a shared focus. There are also extracurricular groups where the student can choose which community to become part of. All these groups interact with each other throughout campus, therefore creating the greater community of AU.

If you were to look at AU, I guess we would look like a little ant colony (hence, my blog title). Everyone doing their job, but at the same time being part of a greater community.

The AU Community...?

Communities contain no boundaries, though they are sometimes defined by their geographic location. Communities do not stop at a specific number of people, though they usually involve a certain population. And communities always involve people that share a common interest, belief, or desire. Another important note about communities is that they have the power to include those who share the same beliefs, desires, or interests, while excluding those that do not.

With those parameters in mind, I will go on to explain how AU is a community, but it also contains many multiple communities, and it is also a part of a larger community.

AU is a community because we all made the decision to come here since we held the belief that it was where we were supposed to go to college. Therefore, all AU students have that common thread linking them together to form a community of students. Teachers also are an integral aspect of the AU community because it is assumed that they wanted to teach here and wanted to influence AU's students and allow them to succeed. The overall AU community is also exclusive in that one must be accepted here to attend this school, and since teaching here is a profession, one must be hired first. Through these measures, AU ensures that its community is composed of the people that it thinks are needed to keep this community thriving.

However, AU is composed of many multiple communities, too. When I first thought of the different communities that AU has, the first one that came to my mind was the Catholic Community because that is what they call themselves. They specifically use the word Community because it allows them to include those that are Catholics who will know that they have a place here. Also, the various other religious organizations are also communities because they have the power to exclude those who do not share their common religious belief. Although other clubs are less exclusive than religious ones, they still have the ability to exclude others once all members have joined. Varsity sports teams are another exclusive group on campus in that one must be invited to play for the team. Once one is on a varsity sports team there is a separate gym for one to use, and I am sure there are other privileges that they obtain as well.

Due to geography, AU is also a part of the larger, DC community since AU is recognized by many here and people can sometimes guess if you are a student there. However, AU is a part of a much, much larger community which is composed of all of the universities in the United States. All U.S. universities have in common the desire to educate people, and they are all very exclusive because one must apply to them to go to any university. This large community is defined by its geography in the U.S., and its population in mind is students, allowing it to meet all of the criteria for being a community.

Therefore, I think that it is important to not limit AU's community to itself, in that besides AU being a community, there are also many within it, and AU also plays a major role in a much grander community as well.

An epiphany? Not exactly...

I decided I am a different major. I am not studying International Relations. I am studying Neurology, the Cognitive Sciences, and my long-time passion and ecstatic tingle-down-the-spine - Linguistics. How do I go about that? I have a hunch. Most importantly, I know well enough to follow what excites me in life. And I have learned how to play the game.

I have turned into such a responsible adult. There are moments when I want to resist and regress into childhood, let carefree times reign. But that natural urge never prevails. I accept my responsibilities and I accept the consequences of my actions, arms wide open. Dedication carries me places, and I have accomplished fantastic things before.

I am here, for one thing.

Success is imminent. Success is certain. :-)

Timely Routines

WHOA!! I was just looking at my calendar (counting down the day 'til Christmas, I absolutely love Christmas) and realized that Halloween is just 13 days away. Where has the time gone? With classes, homework, a job, and just life all around, it seems as if time just disappears and leaves you to wonder where it went. It seems that a common theme in the reflections this week is homesickness. I'm not going to lie, I will admit that I have suffered my cases of homesickness, but after much thinking I have realized that what I miss the most are routines. Routines that I had established, like getting home, watching tv, eating dinner, and then doing homework. I now understand that it's little things like this that I miss. However, there's always room for new routines in college.

Overall, routines are just a way to pass time. I think this is why I have become so interested in the holidays, I see them as intervals of during which time can be measured so that days go by faster. And the faster days go by, the faster I can get home and see my family.

homesick

It seems like everyone is either going home or is homesick, I being of the latter category. I just put up a collage of photos and things that remind me of home on my wall and it made me long for all of those moments that I had captured in photographs. I should be excited because I just went for an interview for an internship for this spring, but instead I cannot help but feeling all alone, and it doesn't help that my roommate left for the weekend either. I think the internship possibility only solidified the sentiments that this blog post expressed, in that I, too, feel so grown up and alone at the same time.

All I keep thinking about is Thanksgiving, but that is over a month away. This whole semester is such a weird experiment because I did not know what to expect at all. I had no clue it would get this cold so soon, and so I am thankful that I convinced my parents to bring me my pea coat when they came here last month for a day. It is also an experiment in that I didn't know it would only take two months for me to be homesick. What I want more than anything right now is for it to stop raining and for my parents with my sister to come and pick me up and we go on a family vacation to anywhere.

I thought I would be used to this whole college thing by now, but in all honesty it still feels so strange. It feels strange to call this place home already when I have only been here for two months, but my real home was somewhere that I lived for 18 years. I was considering staying here over the summer to do an internship but I think I have made my decision to do one in the spring instead so that I can be at my real home for as long as possible.

Reflection

Well, it finally hit me. I am definitely not in Kansas anymore. A couple days ago, I finally realized that I am actually ON MY OWN.

Here's how it went down. I had to buy a quite expensive ticket to a concert at the Kennedy center for my understanding music class (Martinu, Tchaikovsky, and Brahms; ask me about it, it was awesome), and I realized that I had no money left. Now, I've been broke at home a lot, but it was no big deal; I'd just ask my parent for a few bucks and whatever was pressing would be paid for. But here, I had $18.00 in one bank account, $19.00 in the other, no money in my wallet, no eaglebucks (unlimited meal plan), and 50 cents on my smartrip card. So even if I wanted to go to work and make some money (which I had to anyway), I wasn't taking the metro there. Unfortunately, I had to borrow some money from my glorious, awesome, superb, ridiculously good-looking roommate (for which I WILL pay him back, I promise) to get to work.

But the reality of that situation was that I am all alone, and completely responsible for myself. It was a bit scary, knowing that if my roommate wasn't so generous (and caring, solicitous, kind-hearted, and tender), I would pretty much have been out of luck. I haven't had the separation anxiety and homesickness that I have seen in a lot of people, and this was the first time I really felt completely removed from home.

I have nothing to write about.

Ok, never mind, I do have something to talk about. Tonight, while watching the Phillies game with my fellow floormates Willz and Homer, we all agreed to start a band. This band, the future of music, will be called Beardstache. It may be simple sleep deprivation, it may be pure insanity, it may even be the fact that I can't think of anything to write about, but I do believe that this is gonna be FREAKIN' SWEET. But really, I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing than making fun music with your friends. We've already decided on a couple album/song titles, including: One Beard, Two Beard, Red Beard, Blue Beard, I'm too sexy for my Beard, and Waterbearding. There might be a beard/video game-themed album, with song titles like Super Stache Bros, or Stache Bandicoot. You can probably see a trend here.

Our band shall be original, different, unique, and original (and unique). But seriously, we're planning on making something completely different. We're all tired of hearing the same song on the radio (you know, the old verse, chorus,verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, chorus), it's the same song over and over. Beardstache will be, well, Beardstache. I mean really, with a name like Beardstache, it can't be like much else. Even you're curious, reader of my blog. Admit it. You're intrigued, you've got the beardstache rash (ew), and there's nothing you can do about it. The only lotion is to support the band when we actually start playing and doing stuff. It's gonna be big.

Home.

I greatly enjoyed our UC Common Event, the screening of Roy Germano's The Other Side of Immigration.

I know these stories. My neighbors have told me them over barbecues. My school friends have driven down to Mexico, from Chicago, by truck, for someone's wedding. And crossed back, illegally, with aid of a coyote. And... multiple times? They were "illegals," the ones who attended class, pored over their Driver's Ed textbooks, but were never granted a license. They were "aliens," bright and ambitious, limited to study at a less-than-satisfactory CC because of no hopes for scholarships, because of no ways to pay.

There was Joanna, who toiled at Little Caesars every day after school, to support her family, buy some new sneakers, and just maybe pay for her monthly internet connection.

But that was my high school, that was the American side. It was arresting to learn of the other side of the border. Yes, I've been to Mexico, and I've actually had a police officer in Taxco ask me about his cousin Rosario in Chicago. (How was she doing? I didn't know.) But I haven't been to those towns. Not to towns with half the population gone in the US. Almost ghost towns, if you will.

On a side note, this is a universal curiosity. It must be. In my mom's village of Dębno, close to half of "residents" dwell in the Chicagoland area. Some followed the mountains all the way to Colorado. The funniest and most striking example of the American influence in the village is my dear grandma's speech - I remember as a kid she used to ask me to throw something in the "garbeć." (Read: "garbetsh.") "Garbeć"? What "garbeć," I thought? Grandma, where?!

See, I just assumed it was the highlander dialect of Polish that my grandparents speak, which includes an ample vocabulary unbeknown to the average Pole. Upon arrival in the US I finally realized my grandma had been speaking Polglish. Has she been to America? She hardly ever leaves the village. But the three of her children do live in America. Some of her neighbors have walked down Archer Avenue (represent!).

And seeing those Mexican families on the other side, feeling the immigrant sorrows, of ones gone, and of ones left behind, I felt like crying. Bawling my eyes out. Not only was this the demographics of Franklin Park, Illinois, flashing before my eyes, it was also the image of grandma, sitting in her musty living room and on speakerphone, asking whether I'd be coming to visit for the summer. Grandpa mumbling "yes, yes" in the background.

This has been my life, and as far as identity goes, the experiences have shaped me immeasurably. How often I have been bewildered at my own ambiguous identity - it's like my HS Spanish prof once put - "so it's a line... where does Polish end and American begin?" I didn't know. Who was I, anyway? But now, it's different. Who would I be without this background? That's almost ridiculous to ponder. Thanks to it all, I am responsible, driven, independent, ambitious. I take charge, I know I am able, and I am most definitely grateful.

That hit home. Much.

Dislikes and Future Selfs

So Mary Hansen was okay. What really surprised me and I must admit greatly admired from her, was that she immediately sat down to talk with us. Presenters that have come to the class usually stand and deliver their lectures however, Mrs. Hanson immediately sat herself down and asked us what it was that we wanted to talk about it. I really admired that. She let us direct the conversation to our specific thoughts and ideas. Not many lecturers that I know have ever subjected their conversations to the will of a group of college freshmen. It takes courage to do something like that, to not follow a plan and just go with the flow, especially if you're the main speaker.

Though she gave advice that I had heard before, like "don't expect your life to follow a plan that you've laid out for it", she said something that I had never thought of. She said that in order to find what it is that we are passionate for, we must also find our dislikes. It makes sense. I mean, what if we become so focused on finding the things we like, that we completely forget to be more spontaneous and willing to try something new? And if we lose this spontaneity, could we possibly be missing out on opportunities to discover something that we could have loved to do? It was a very interesting thought. She was asking us to step out of our comfort zone and to realize that though we may be enamored with an idea that we hope to one day become, we must accept that every day is a struggle to define yourself and a struggle to let go of this vision of our future selves. For all we know, this vision that we hold for ourselves may be blinding us from other choices and options that we must take.

A Cost/ Benefit Analysis of My Life or something of that sort

I just glanced at this person's blog and since he/ she has an alias name I really do not know who it is, but I agree with his/ her annoyance to hearing the same advice from every presenter. Also, I find it interesting that all of our presenters have been women, and usually women, at least from my own personal experience, tend to worry more in general, but these women all advocated for not worrying abut the future because everything will work out. Well, my life is not a movie and there is a possibility that I won't have a success story like them. After all, why would PTJ bring in unsuccessful people to talk about their lives? But, this trend is definitely shedding an unrealistic aspect upon all of us. Sometimes life doesn't work out and people become unhappy about their careers, and I guess that is where I do worry. My parents have spent their whole lives with jobs they really disliked, and that is what I wish to avoid. I do not want to have spent all this time in college only to be unhappy in my career choice, so why shouldn't I worry, or rather how can I not worry? I have, to be honest, become less worried, but in the back of my mind, in the back of all of our mind's, we all have to be wondering where our lives will lead and if, in fact we are doing the right thing at this very moment by even being at American University.

If there is one more presenter who comes in and relays the same information that Mary Hansen and Diane Walker and Debra Humphrey stated I may begin to wonder if they all planned their presentations to coincide and to teach us that worrying is useless. Well, I already know that worrying isn't completely useless because sometimes it ensures that one is able to avoid problems in the future. I think that Mary Hansen is correct in saying that we do need to find what we like, but she made it seem as though we have all the time in the world to do so, but in reality we don't. It is already mid semester of my freshman year, and it feels as though we arrived here only a few weeks ago. Therefore, time, as I have observed, is never on anyone's side, and I don't see it as a cost to worry about the future, but rather a benefit so that one can be adequately prepared.

On Invisibility

So I thought, the best and most telling example of invisibility is the narrator's perception as an older man, as described in the prologue:

"That invisibility to which I refer occurs because of a peculiar disposition of the eyes of those with whom I come in contact. A matter of construction of their inner eyes, those eyes with which they look through their physical eyes upon reality (3)."

Based on this quote and on the many experiences of the author, including the battle royal, work at the paint factory, treatment at the hospital, etc., I feel this invisibility is only result of his bottom of the social hierarchy. I don't see how one could be invisible if the inner eyes of others, impacted by their prejudices, are not ready to ignore them and dispose application of treatment of the other person as a respectable human being. It is not generally applicable - you can't be invisible just if you want to. If you are a Caucasian and living within white suburbs, I don't see how you could be invisible, unless your family income is significantly lower than that of your neighbors, or your cultural/ethnic background considered inferior by the rest of the suburban population. Otherwise, when people'd notice you, pass you, bump you on the street, I'd say you'd be properly acknowledged and, most of time, with certain degree of respect.

Through this same as narrator's, or even worse, invisibility suffer the peoples of the lowest Indian Untouchable caste, who are treated as vermin of the streets and required to make way for all the castes of higher ranks. This is an example of social hierarchy, just as in the author's case, where inner eyes and prejudices of the viewer cast invisibility and inexistence upon who is viewed. In the past, Indian Untouchables even had to attach brooms to their backs to clean up after themselves and erase any evidence of their passing.

{ } (Invisibility)

To answer the question directly, yes, anyone can be invisible regardless of race. Invisibility within the context of the book refers to race, but in a wider context, invisibility refers to those viewed as inferior. Like the "Invisible Children" (child soldiers), whom the world, for the most part, overlook. Anyone considered so low down that they're not even worth noticing. Not just races, anyone, of any race, who is deemed worthless. These people normally get lost in whatever majority they "should" be a part of.

It reminds me of the part in Invisible Man when the black drop disappear into the white mass of paint. It symbolized, to my thinking, the disappearance of black identity into white society. In the case of Invisible Man, this is a very specific occurrence because it refers to black people, but it could be applied to other cases of invisibility. It is very easy to lose an identity when you are under great pressure to conform to the identity of the majority. In the case of Dr. Bledsoe, he perfectly represents the tiny black drop consumed by the white. He has lost most of his black identity in favor of a more popular white persona. In class today, we discussed whether or not he had shifted his personality, and I don't believe his white identity was just a front, I think it consumed him.

My Invisible Post

In discussing the Invisible Man and the feeling of invisibility of the narrator I have selected this passage:

"I felt that even when they (white people) were polite they hardly saw me, that they would have begged the pardon of Jack the Bear, never glancing his way if the bear happened to be walking along minding his business. It was confusing. I did not know if it was desirable or undesirable," (Ralph Ellison 168).

In this passage, Ellison defines what invisibility means in the context of the novel. The invisible man is invisible for two reasons: one being that the white people in society tend to think less of blacks at this time and disregard his presence as being in the way, for he causes them to run into him, and two being that the narrator is invisible because he is not doing anything important to draw attention or recognition to himself, by the blacks and whites alike at this point in the novel. The narrator is torn between wondering if this is a good or bad thing, and this is the beginning of his struggle with himself in figuring out what he wants. The passage comes from when the narrator is faced with unresponsiveness in finding a job from all of the trustees, but he still places hope in Mr. Emerson.

Therefore, I believe that the narrator's invisibility is equally due to his race and to his experiences, so I guess the latter can constitute the "generally applicable" section of the question. But, this is where I fall into confusion because I argue that the narrator's experiences are so distinct to himself because of his race. The narrator would not have been kicked out of college for showing a white man the immoral and impoverished situation of True Blood unless he was black because True Blood's existence conveys the true state of many Southern blacks at the time, but this was supposed to stay unknown to the white, rich trustees-- to Mr. Norton.

So maybe I have changed my mind, maybe the narrator's invisibility is solely due to his race. He cannot have his initial purpose in life fulfilled because of the constraints placed on blacks to act a certain way, which forces him into a position of invisibility in society because he does not feel as though (at least at this point in the book) that he knows what to do with his life.

Anyways, another part of the prompt was about if anyone else can be invisible as well, or must they be of a group that is subordinate. I think that, yes, invisibility will always stem from someone feeling subordinate or even inferior to others. I have even felt invisible before. I have felt invisible this week... but I don't really want to make this an entry in a personal diary so I will not disclose anything further. The point I am trying to make though is that invisibility can occur when someone feels unaccepted for who one is, and one is repressed by those that are in control, leaving one to feel inferior and confused about one's purpose and position in society. And this is exactly why the invisible man feels invisible: because he has basically been brainwashed to act a certain way in college, and he still believes in the goodness of whites, but upon coming North and realizing that he cannot find a job, he feels overlooked and useless in society-- he feels invisible.

Ellision, Ralph. The Invisible Man. New York: 1947.

The MBTI, Electro-Groove, oh, and the Joys of Winter Sledding

Apparently I am borderline INTJ. (Slightly 'T' - 3 points in favor. Last time I took the exam, I had been INFJ.)

But actually, the mad scientist stereotype is appealing. It's quite intriguing, this rational thought and analytical, knowledge-search-based personality. Maybe it's even perfect?
After all, I am the kid hobbling about the library with a stack of obscure books on astronomy, borrowing out unfathomable texts with hardcore equations that I dare to hope to decipher. Never mind if I ever actually do, (or get around to it, for that matter), I am overtaken by an unquenchable thirst to know. As of lately, I'm conquering a cognitive neuroscience textbook. Don't ask how I find the time.

And, well, based on this INTJCentral description, quite fitting...

Q: Can I become an INTJ?

A: Unless you are born an INTJ, your only hope is to find a genie lamp while strolling on the beach, rub it, and make a wish. You can fake being one of us by burying yourself in a mound of books, nerding out on a favorite subject (like quantum mechanics, not needlepoint), wandering around by yourself, not giving a damn what others think of you, etc. If this sounds like too much work, just try doing a good robot impersonation.

Well, I can do the robot dance. (Albeit, not nearly as good as these two Danish guys.)
The only thing that bothers me is the INTJ emphasized lack of emotion; yes, the robotic manner of the personality type. That's what doesn't quite click. Everything else fits neatly into place, which once again, stirs me uneasy about my major choice. In retrospect, I am awestruck by how many strangers in life have peered at me and inquired whether I wanted to be a physicist or chemist (I particularly hold dear memory of a merry elderly lady in a bustling Distrito Federal restaurant). Somehow sciences have never been my forte, but I am realizing that my problem-solving abilities are up to par, and that I am capable. And if I have a tinge of passion for the sciences, why not do it?

I guess, certain abilities and assumptions of what we might be good at (or, the horrid term - destined to do), are only results of past experience. Now, basing myself on the recent scientific idea of the plasticity of the brain (ability to be shaped or form, i.e. our brains are not machines and we can alter their maps at will), which I had discovered in the book The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge. On page 209 of the text, he presents an enlightening metaphor on the brain and our current abilities/talents:

Pascual-Leone explains this with a metaphor. The plastic brain is like a snowy hill in winter. Aspects of that hill - the slope, the rocks, the consistency of the snow - are, like our genes, a given. When we slide down on a sled, we can steer it and will end up at the bottom of the hill by following a path determined both by how we steer and the characteristics of the hill. Where exactly we will end up is hard to predict because there are so many factors in play.

"But," Pascual-Leone says, "what will definitely happen the second time you take the slope down is that you will more likely than not find yourself somewhere or another that is related to the path you took the first time. It won't be exactly your path, but it will be closer to that one than any other. And if you spend your entire afternoon sledding down, walking up, sledding down, at the end you will have some paths that have been used a lot, some that have been used very little... and there will be tracks that you have created, and it is very difficult now to get out of those tracks. And those tracks are not genetically determined anymore."

What we have done repetitively in life, the ways we've steered and tracks we've molded to, make us who we are today. Since some paths are so easy now for us to slide down, we might consider them our abilities, talents. But that does not mean we are incapable of steering differently and molding other tracks. Genes do not hold us back, they but provide the characteristics of the hill. No more excuses of "my brain doesn't work that way," or, "I just wasn't made to solve math equations."

So, if you've got passion for something you're not certain you've got talent for, go for it. It's just a matter of sliding down for a whole afternoon and creating another "really speedy" track.

Go on, impress a new track, one that is also "efficient at guiding the sled down the hill."


Works Cited
Doidge, Norman. The Brain that Changes Itself. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2007. Print.

MBTI

As I'm sure everyone else is blogging, the MBTI really described me in a way that I couldn't believe. I've taken other supposed personality tests, but none that actually captured me in that way.

Although, I was very confused by the career choices that the test gave me. I mean, botanist? Dancer? Geologist? Exotic animal breeder? What an odd, arbitrary grouping of livelihoods. As interesting as all these careers seem, I have never really been interested in any of them. What did disturb me, however, is that my career field, international relations, is nowhere to be found. It may be that the MBTI career list is outdated, and the (relatively) new field of international relations is missing. Be that as it may, it gave me pause to think, "Dang, the MBTI was so right about my personality, what if it's right about my career choice?" Maybe I'm in the wrong major! I was a little depressed until I realized that I can do whatever I want, and right now, IR is what I want to do. I'm a freshman. I'm young. I don't HAVE to know what I'm doing with my life. If I want to be an archaeologist later in my life, I can.

For now, though, I am more than happy to be doing what I find interesting: international relations. and being awesome.

On the Absence of Innocence

While watching “Children of Men” I was horrified at the cruelty that human beings demonstrated to each other. But what worried me even more was how apathetic some people were about this violence. For example, when Theo gets “kidnapped” while he’s walking in a random street, there are people that see him get pushed into the van however; those people that see him disappear only continue to walk as if nothing had happened, without any sense of alarm. That’s when I really began to worry, violence between people is scary, but being indifferent about it is what is even more disturbing.

One of the questions that this movie raises is a very haunting one. After seeing this movie I couldn’t help but mull over the question, if a world crisis were to happen, would people try to help each other through it, or would they selfishly close themselves up (like Britain did) and only look after themselves? I hope it’s not the latter. I’m someone who believes that in all occurrences, the kindness of human beings will always shine. Yet this movie made me question my idea. Is there ever a point where kindness stops and the human instinct to survive takes over? And if the human instinct to survive takes over, does kindness cease, or would we all still watch over each other? These are some questions that have been popping into my head since Wednesday.

One problem I did have with this movie is that some of the logic behind it seemed flawed. Or maybe I missed some point in the movie or something. The idea that the world would go into chaos because there are no more children being born doesn’t make sense. How can the world just break down because of this? I guess the idea of civilization ceasing to exist is crazy, but would it really cause a global breakdown? The only thing I could think of is that maybe with the absence of children, men would forget what innocence is. For example, in the scene where the soldiers are firing, they immediately lower their guns at the sight of the baby. Maybe they were reminded of how innocent and fragile a new human being can be. Maybe that’s what led to that global chaos, the failure to recall the definition of innocence.

Anyway, I hope these thoughts made some sense.

My Personality/ Preferences

WOW! I was so surprised by how accurate the MBTI Personality test was. Even though when I self- evaluated myself there were two discrepancies between my results and what I thought I would get. Those were the two categories of Introvert/ Extrovert and Thinking and Feeling which were two that I was on the fence about anyways. My result was: ENFJ. The results were definitely reassuring. It's funny because now I do DC Reads and I really enjoy it, and my boyfriend suggested that maybe it's some sort of calling. I always thought about education but was never serious about it. But now to see that most of the careers that would correspond best with my personality are ones that deal with Education/ Human Services, I beginning to at least consider this fate now. I am going to apply to become an intern with my senator for possibly this Spring or Summer, and I think that experience will let me see if I really am interested in working for the government and foreign service because my senator is on the Foreign Relations Committee, that is if I get the job.

Overall, I would say that the presentation that Susan Gordon gave and receiving the MBTI results was my favorite presentation thus far, only because of its perceived utility to me. I think that the other activities which we have done and will be doing in Explorations will reveal their usefulness later on in the semester and/ or in life. Since I am only looking at the present, today's class was my favorite. Probably, when I do my final reflection, my views will have changed completely though!

Fiction vs. Nonfiction

Both Augustine's Confessions and Invisible Man could be works of the opposite genre, either Confessions could be fiction, and Invisible Man could be nonfiction.

In all seriousness, I would have enjoyed Confessions a huge amount more if it were a piece of fiction. An enormous amount of the book seemed ridiculous to me. Not the religious messages, per se, but the way he presented his views. I mean, whining for a whole chapter about stealing pears? That could almost be viewed as a parody if it were fiction. If the work were fiction, it would have been simple to remove myself from it and understand the concepts better. As it is, I have trouble relating to the book because his behavior in it is so far removed from my own. So really, Confessions would have been more effective if it were fiction as opposed to an autobiographical work.

As to Invisible Man, it most definitely could be a piece of nonfiction. I'm not sure if I would enjoy it any more, however. Those kind of stories about our country's not so illustrious past sadden me. However, the harrowing tales of injustice in racist America shown in Invisible Man could definitely be true stories; I have heard much, much worse things come out of the racially charged history of America. So, with a believable story and a very well developed character Invisible Man could very easily be nonfiction. Of course, nonfiction would include the name of the main character, which Invisible Man lacks.