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?