The role of government

It never fails to astonish me that the same conservatives who argue that every last aspect of big government is irreparably broken and corrupt inevitably see a capital punishment system that is perfect and just. If you genuinely believe that the state can’t even fix a pothole without self-dealing and corruption, how is it possible to imagine that police departments and prosecutors’ offices are beyond suspicion?

So asks an excellent Slate article about two mentally retarded teenagers who were falsely convicted of murder and have just been released, 30 years later. One could ask the same question about the military, which most conservatives also believe ought to be run by the state and properly funded.

And liberals like myself ought to ask ourselves carefully why we think a government that so badly mishandles justice ought to be trusted with our health care or our environmental protection. The same self-dealing and corruption that leads to false convictions and unnecessary military hardware might also lead to unfair over-regulation or mishandling of patient care.

These aren't questions with easy answers. They're questions we need to keep asking and asking. That's pretty much the whole point of a democracy with a free press.

Goryeo and the construction of tradition

I've been reading Martina Deuchler's The Confucian Transformation of Korea, which addresses the way that Neo-Confucian values came to play such a prominent role in Korean society during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910). To make sense of it, she tries to piece together a picture of social norms -- marriage, inheritance, mourning, and the like -- during the preceding Goryeo period (918-1392), which is exceedingly difficult because of limited sources.

Deuchler's scholarship is admirable. She's obviously put tremendous effort into reading a ton of Goryeo documents, and it's not like they're nicely indexed to let you know when they're going to start talking about marriage laws. Reading them is presumably difficult, since it means reading Koreanized medieval Chinese as preserved in some very old hand-written books. Furthermore, the existing evidence is almost entirely for the upper classes, as it is for Heian Japan (784-1195) around the same time, so we have to make do with a limited picture of the upper echelons of society.

What Deuchler finds is interesting. Though the evidence is fragmentary, it appears that women had far more power in Goryeo than in later Joseon, just as they did in Heian Japan and in Tang China (618-907). That is not to say that they were equal to men or that there was anything like a patriarchy. But inheritance laws meant that estates were divided at the discretion of their owners, and it seems that they were customarily split evenly among both sons and daughters. Matrilineal prestige was important in claiming oneself as an aristocrat, and men often moved in with their wives' families rather than vice versa. There also seems to have been a lot of what we would consider incest: marriages with cousins, even with half-siblings, which kept wealth contained in a tightly knit family unit.

There are two points that I want to make about all this. The first is about shamanism, where some theorists have claimed that shamans were probably men in an earlier period, and only later shifted to women when shamanic practice became disparaged. I find this idea unlikely, and there's little evidence for it. It seems far more likely to me that shamanism became a less diffuse, more specifically identified set of practices only when it was distinguished as heterodoxy, but that shamanic practices probably went on long before, and probably had plenty of female practitioners.

Secondly, the evidence about Goryeo and how different it was -- and about Heian too -- should remind us that "traditional" culture is generally a modern invention, developed in contradistinction to modernity. What's considered traditional culture in Korea -- hanbok, Chuseok, all the traditional music and dances -- is largely Joseon, and late Joseon at that. Typical presentations of traditional culture make it seem as though people lived a certain way statically since time began, and then suddenly they got modernized (European sailing ships, the first streetcar, an ethnic man in eyeglasses, a war of some kind, skyscrapers). And modernity does have certain distinct characteristics. But what's labeled as "traditional" is often something like "How I remember it from before modernity arrived," or "How my grandmother used to do things in the old days." Most of the scholars doing the remembering that established traditional cultures across Asia were doing it in the 1890s forward, which has meant that traditional culture is whatever people were doing in the mid-19th century. Those scholars, further, had particular motivations: to make their societies seem legitimate in the eyes of the West, to establish a national culture and character, to make the case for or against modernity. So certain things get kept in as legitimately traditional, and others get tossed as hillbilly nonsense.

This is important to remember no matter what culture you're looking at, including American culture, where pundits are often trying to reconstruct an imaginary 1950s or 1960s, or an imaginary time of glorious freedom back in the late 19th century. It's true in Judaism, where the Orthodox like to dress the way their rabbis did in 18th- and 19th-century Europe.

Tradition is a construction, always. The actual past is more complicated, and far more interesting -- and we can always plunder it to construct new traditions.

A short story in one picture

I happened to find these in the office, things that had been left behind during a major workspace reshuffle. Kind of fascinating, and a little sad when you put them in this order.

Surviving feedback

What makes receiving feedback so hard? The process strikes at the tension between two core human needs—the need to learn and grow, and the need to be accepted just the way you are. 

That's from a Harvard Business Review article on finding the coaching in criticism, and the authors provide some excellent strategies for responding to criticism even when it hits our emotional triggers.

Beyond their suggestions, you might also think of criticism and feedback -- all of it, whether you're giving or getting -- as a form of acknowledgement: the people giving you feedback are saying that you're worth their time, that what you do actually matters to them. In receiving feedback, even when it feels at first listen like it's little more than abuse, you can look for what impact you have on your critic (or at least what impact your critic perceives you to have). For the harshest criticism, that might give you a starting point for empathy; for more ordinary feedback, it might even make you feel good that you matter to that person.

And when it comes time to give feedback, you can keep the concept of acknowledgement in mind. Forget about the compliment sandwich. Acknowledgement is acknowledging what's so, without any bull, and at the same time expressing appreciation. That needs to be honest. (If you find that you're not able to say what's so with appreciation, even in a small way, it's probably not a good time to be giving feedback.) Through acknowledgement, it might be possible to support both the need to grow and the need to be accepted, all at the same time.

Eating deliciously

Yesterday a Korean professor showed me a paper by one of his students and asked me to guess whether it was written by a native speaker of English. Within one sentence, I knew not only that it was written by a foreigner, but that the writer was Korean.

Of course, with a Korean professor handing me a paper on Korean studies and asking me that question, I could guess before I read anything that it was written by a Korean student. But within one sentence, I knew. How?

Because the student wrote that a certain topic is "controversially debated." That phrasing, with the weird adverb, is a sure sign of Korean thinking. In Korean, adverbs have a much wider range of signification than they do in English. In English, an adverb modifies a verb, changing the way the verb's action is carried out. You can run, or you can run quickly, or you could even run stupidly, and however you do it, it's about the act of running. But in Korean, you can use an adverb to create a general sense or feeling around how a verb occurs. For example, Koreans have a set phrase for the beginning of a meal: 맛 있게 드세요 (mashitge teuseyo), which literally means "eat deliciously." In English, that makes no sense. The act of eating can't be done in a delicious way. But in Korean, it's perfectly normal: "deliciously" is the feeling that should accompany the action.

So back to that "controversially debated." In native English, you'd probably need to say that the topic "is the subject of debate and controversy," or that it's "hotly debated." "Controversially," when it modifies the action of debating, means that the very act of debating engenders controversy -- that someone thinks there shouldn't be any debating -- when the intended meaning is that there is an atmosphere or feeling of controversy that accompanies the debate.

So in English, adverbs tell you how an action occurs, while in Korean, they can tell you what feeling an action engenders. Which makes sense, when you know Korean and Anglo-American culture. English is set up to give you precision about external action, while Korean is set up to give you nuanced precision about social relations. It makes sense that a grammar construction that's used in English to tell you what's happening is used in Korean to tell you how it feels.

Slacker, 25 years later

Spurred by the big Richard Linklater profile in the latest New Yorker, I decided to rewatch Slacker, the film he made in 1989 (it was released in 1991). When it came out, it was supposed to represent my generation, more or less -- I was in high school then -- but what strikes me about it now is how completely it inhabits a kind of just before.

Slacker is a film about isolation, dislocation, alienation. The characters drift, no one really seems to know anyone else very well, and the only people who seem to be doing anything are obsessives and cranks: the woman trying to sell Madonna's pap smear, the guy who collects TVs and video tapes, the Kennedy conspiracy theorist who's working on a book you know he'll never finish. Watching the film from 2014, what's astonishing is how many of these people's problems are solved by the Internet. For the TV guy, there's YouTube. For the Madonna girl, there's TMZ and eBay. For the Kennedy conspiracist, there's pretty much the whole damn Internet. For the guy who says you really ought to read the paper, and for the guy who can't manage to buy himself a USA Today, there's all the free news on the web.  For all the artists with weird ideas, there's Kickstarter. Heck, for the very end of the movie, when the guy throws a movie camera off a cliff, there's GoPro.

Throughout the film, with its talk of conspiracies and new forms of consciousness, you can feel the characters yearning for the kind of interconnectedness that was just about to become possible. We are living in a new consciousness. When you're in it, of course, it's much less magisterial than the Age of Aquarius or some kind of New Age breakthrough. It just feels like life, and life hasn't ceased being difficult. But the last 25 years have brought a profound change in the way that we understand ourselves in the world.

Last night I was walking along the street in New York, speaking into a small device that I carry in my pocket, and my girlfriend was speaking back on a similar device from inside a palace in Seoul. Tomorrow I'll fly to the other side of the world to join her, and I'll let all my friends and family know when I've arrived -- the word will go out to Seoul, Phoenix, New York, California, Japan, who knows where else. Last weekend I went to Tobago for a wedding, and now the steel drum band I saw there is visible to you. The isolation and alienation of the Slacker moment is unimaginable today.

That's not to say that we have banished loneliness, done away with drift, overcome alienation. The age of social media has its own forms of alienation: distraction, envy, endless mediation. But it's a different world. Slacker is a fine film whose characters yearn for the things that people of that generation were about to create. The last five minutes, when the movie goes from clever to brilliant, point to the way forward. What was hailed at the time as a kind of manifesto of nihilism was in fact a DIY manifesto: a kind of a guide or a roadmap to what to do next, once we invented a better way of talking to each other.

Because Koreans are funny (on purpose sometimes)

Some of the funniest stuff out of Korea. Enjoy.