Noah Millman

Liberals for Low Wages

I don’t normally write about immigration, because it’s not really my “thing,” but I agree with the restrictionists that there’s something very puzzling about progressive willingness to embrace a particular kind of business talking point. Here’s Kevin Drum doing it:

[The North Carolina Growers' Association] is required to heavily advertise for native workers before their applications for H-2A guest worker visas are approved, but these efforts seldom pay off. Even when unemployment was at its height in 2011, they received a grand total of only 268 referrals. They hired 90 percent of the applicants, but only 163 showed up for work on their first day—and that was the best response in NCGA’s history. . . .

Within two months, 80 percent of the native workers had quit. By the end of the growing season, only seven were left.

Now, as Matthews notes, this report doesn’t exactly come from a neutral source. It’s from a pro-immigration group working with a group of pro-immigration farmers. But unless they’re flat-out lying here, the numbers are pretty compelling. Most Americans just aren’t willing to do backbreaking agricultural labor for a bit above minimum wage, and if the wage rate were much higher the farms would no longer be competitive.

Anyone want to send me some contrary evidence? I’d be interested to see it. But all the evidence I’ve seen in the past points in the same direction as this study: it’s all but impossible to get native workers to fill field labor jobs. Immigrants really are doing the work we won’t.

Emphasis mine.

So, here’s my question: is there any other situation where progressives are inclined to believe that low wages are the key to competitiveness, and that this is a good reason to keep wages low? Any other industry granted this exception to the general progressive view that workers deserve compensation commensurate with the dignity of labor as such? Are progressives inclined to believe that, say, coal miners should be paid only slightly above the minimum wage for their back-breaking (and dangerous) labor, as opposed to getting the much higher average wage that they earned (in large part through unionization)?

What would happen if agricultural labor were better-compensated? To some degree American agricultural enterprises would become less-competitive—we’d import more of some kinds of food from abroad. Which would mean more money flowing into the agricultural sector in those countries, and more employment for agricultural labor there, as opposed to here. From the perspective of the farm laborers that’s not obviously a bad outcome—they have jobs and not have to uproot themselves to get them.

Another possibility is that American farmers would innovate, and find ways to get the same crop yields with fewer workers, through the application of automation. That advance in productivity would reduce agricultural employment overall, with the remaining employees earning a higher wage, more conducive to economic and social security. Genuine advances in productivity are usually counted as a good thing for everybody.

The American agricultural mix might change. America farms might focus more on those crops where there is a greater return to the application of capital, while more labor-intensive agriculture moves to countries with lower labor costs. There might be environmental consequences to that kind of change, but these could be addressed with regulatory legislation. If the end result is greater specialization, that, again, is not obviously a bad outcome for anybody—comparative advantage and all that.

Or America might shift not into more capital-intensive agriculture but into higher-value agricultural products. For example, suppose a greater percentage of American farms produced organic food. Organic is more labor-intensive, so that would seem an illogical response to higher labor costs. But it’s also a premium product that commands a premium price. Is it completely impossible that Americans could be convinced to pay a greater percentage of their budget on food, and a smaller percentage on other consumer goods, because the food is of “higher quality”? Clearly a certain percentage of Americans already do that—the question is whether that market could be expanded. I don’t see why not. The result might be the purchase of fewer plastic toys from China, more money spent on organic grapes and strawberries, and higher wages for the stoop laborers on those organic fruit farms. Again, not obviously a bad outcome.

We don’t know precisely what would happen, but it’s never as simple as “if this input factor changed, we’d all be out of business.” Business isn’t infinitely adaptive, but neither is it that rigid.

So here’s the point: would progressives make arguments like this if the minimum wage were $12/hour? Would they be arguing that farms should get a special exception to employ workers for less than the minimum wage, because otherwise they’ll go out of business (and, I guess, we’ll have no food)? I think to ask the question is to answer it.

And here’s another point. The smart pushback against the Jason Richwine argument—that measurable IQ differences between Hispanics and Anglos prove that mass-immigration from Mexico means importing a permanent class divide, with serious fiscal consequences—is that class affects IQ as well as the other way around. Take a group of kids who, based on ethnic and class background, would appear to have limited academic prospects, and put them in a situation where they have more resources (and those resources are applied well) and you discover that there’s more diversity in ability than was visible at the outset. I’ve seen this dynamic at work in the charter school network I was involved in founding, so I find it persuasive (though I think there are very tough questions of scale to be addressed before blithely acting as if we have the “solution” to things like the test score gap).

But, if we’re going to argue that mass immigration isn’t going to create a fiscal problem so long as we don’t allow class divisions to deepen and fester, then shouldn’t we be doing something to make sure class divisions don’t deepen and fester? Like, make sure wages, even for relatively low-skill manual labor, are high enough to allow a semblance of a middle class existence? If you believe that low IQs are partly caused by growing up poor, then isn’t a low-wage policy even more pernicious than it would otherwise appear, as it hobbles a substantial portion of the next generation as well? Wouldn’t a low-wage policy wind up making it seem like Richwine was right after all?

Personally, I’m in favor of relatively liberal labor markets, which generate real aggregate economic benefits. But I’m also not under the illusion that labor has equal bargaining power to capital under either hypothetical laissez-faire conditions or the world we actually live in. And I’m acutely aware of the how good private interests are at promoting policies to privatize profits and socialize costs. Immigration is one of those policies. There are real economic benefits to a more liberal immigration policy. But there are also costs, and those costs ought to be accounted for—and paid for—like any other externality. My personal policy preference—a substantially higher minimum wage and an immigration system that auctioned work visas and green cards—is designed both to make our labor markets freer and less encumbered by bureaucracy and to make sure this doesn’t lead to a negative wage spiral.

Maybe I’m wrong about that policy mix. But starting from the proposition that low wages are a bad thing is immensely clarifying. I wish more voices on the left would bring that clarity to bear when they discuss immigration.

 Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . 34 comments

Under The Volcano

To balance out the topic of the last post, I thought I’d say a word about consent.

Tonight is the beginning of Shavuot, or Pentecost, the celebration of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai (and also the second of three harvest festivals). I don’t plan on doing much to celebrate this year, but I’ve done more in years past, when I was more religious, and picked up a tidbit or two from study sessions along the way. Here’s a favorite bit of mine.

Among the various embellishing accounts in the midrash regarding the events at Sinai are two radically opposed views of just how Israel received the Torah. Radically opposed – but with a key element in common.

First, when Israel received the Torah, they accept it by saying, na’aseh v’nishmah – “we will do, and we will hear.” How is it possible to do first and hear later? This is glossed by saying: the Torah was actually offered multiple times, to multiple peoples, and all rejected it because they found something in it that they objected to. Israel, by contrast, answered, “we will do and we will hear” – that is to say, we accept it without actually knowing (or understanding) what is in it. Acceptance was a leap of faith, not a contract.

The second midrash says almost the exact opposite. At the same point, the people of Israel are described as being camped tachat hahar – “under the mountain.” How could they have been “under” the mountain – surely they were camped beside it. Nope, goes the midrashic gloss. What happened was, Israel did not want to accept the yoke of the law. So God lifted the mountain and suspended it over the people, and a voice boomed out: accept the law, or this mountain will be your grave. So, faced with death, the people accepted.

In one account, the people accepted a binding covenant without reading it. In the other account, the people were coerced into a binding covenant. In neither reading, though, are we dealing with informed consent.

Which makes sense to me. My God is the God of reality. And you don’t make deals with reality; you just deal with it. I don’t always get along with God – these days, I am much less-interested in winning His favor. But I don’t go in much for raging against Him either, any more than I go in for raging against the ocean’s tides.

 Tagged , , , , . 5 comments

Alan Jacobs Takes Me To The Woodshed

Which probably means that’s where I belong. Please read his response to my last post.

I’m going to have to think about my reaction a bit more, since people I deeply respect came away with a very different emotional response to the piece. But let me make a couple of clarifications.

First, why was I coy about the activities described in the Witt piece? Because I couldn’t think of a way of describing them that would be acceptable in this space, and merely alluding to them as “sludge” or “filth” would be doing exactly what I didn’t want to do. But I suspect Alan is right that this coyness made my argument seem more plausible than it might otherwise have seemed.

Second, would I attend such a thing? I hope not. I don’t think I could stand it. And I don’t want to be able to stand it. It’s not a goal of mine to plumb those particular depths.

But I suspect I could stand looking at images of those goings on (though I don’t think I would be aroused by them). I certainly could stand reading about them – I did. And that was precisely my point about mediated experience. The activities described are financed by the marketing of those images, but the images are not the thing itself. And neither is an article’s description. And in this case, I strongly suspect, a great deal of psychological and cultural significance is going on in that particular gap.

Third, what did I mean by “pretty civilized” behavior? Am I reducing civilization to consent? No – but I may be reducing it to rituals of courtesy, with which the scene that Emily Witt described was replete. Assuming she was describing it accurately, it sounded like a strange and (to me) unappealing culture, rather than an attempt to repudiate civilization. Of course, she may be describing it inaccurately – or I may be reading her wrong. Or my definition of civilization may be wrong. I am open to all possibilities.

Finally: why didn’t I judge the scene itself as morally horrifying? Because I just wasn’t interested in that question. How interesting is it for anyone to hear that I don’t like the ritual degradation of women – even women who (again, assuming the article is accurate) have enthusiastically signed up (not merely consented) for the experience? And what else, really, is communicated by my saying “shame, shame”?

There’s a titillating quality to these ritual condemnations that I distrust almost as much as I distrust the pornographic impulse in art. Maybe it’s as simple as that.

I was interested in Emily Witt after reading her piece. Interested to talk to her. Interested to understand why she felt – this is what I got, in part, from her piece – kind of guilty about not really being on the life-is-to-accumulate-experiences-the-more-the-better train, not being able to articulate what other trains might be. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary to condemn that particular train in order to talk about what life is like on a different train, or to note that most people quite sensibly prefer to ride different trains than that one. I did not feel pity for her; I felt compassion.

 Tagged , , , , , . 13 comments

Conforming To An Idea

I had started writing something about this (to me) fascinating (and extremely graphic) n+1 piece about San Francisco, extreme pornography, the wealthy (in monetary and information markets terms) world of Google, and a whole bunch else. But then Rod Dreher beat me to the punch again.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I came away from reading the piece with a very different reaction from Dreher’s. Dreher summarizes the moral of the piece as follows: “Unlimited money + unlimited freedom = Hell — created not by God, but by humans.” But it seems to me that that’s a moral he could have written without ever reading the piece. What I don’t know, from reading his commentary on the piece, is how the experience of reading it changed him.

Because it’s quite an intimate piece. Emily Witt isn’t a detached observer. She doesn’t just describe what she saw (though she does that, very well), but what she experienced, and how it made her reflect on other aspects of her experience – and not only her sexual experience. In that important sense, it isn’t a pornographic piece. It isn’t designed to provoke a reaction – whether of sexual excitement or, as in Dreher’s case, righteous anger. It’s designed to bring us into her experience, and reflect on it with her.

The moral she draws, it seems to me, is much subtler, and more interesting:

It’s tempting to think that life before internet porn was less complicated. There are sexual acts in porn that it would not occur to many people to attempt. We have more expectations now about what kind of sex to have, and how many people should be involved, and what to say, and what our bodies should look like, than we might have at a time when less imagery of sex was available to us. But if the panoply of opportunity depicted in porn seems exaggerated, the possibilities are no less vast outside the internet. The only sexual expectation left to conform to is that love will guide us toward the life we want to live.

What if love fails us? Sexual freedom has now extended to people who never wanted to shake off the old institutions, except to the extent of showing solidarity with friends who did. I have not sought so much choice for myself, and when I found myself with no possibilities except total sexual freedom, I was unhappy. I understood that the San Franciscans’ focus on intention—the pornographers were there by choice—marked the difference between my nihilism and their utopianism. When your life does not conform to an idea, and this failure makes you feel bad, throwing away the idea can make you feel better.

Emphasis mine. I’ve read Dreher’s wonderful and moving book, so I know he knows something about being unable to conform to an idea, and how bad that failure can make you feel. He also knows something about adopting a new idea as an alternative basis to conform to, and how bad it makes you feel when you are failed again by that idea. The problem just might lie in trying to conform your life to an idea, whether that idea is one of life as a relentless experimental journey or of living according to the dictates of an authoritative tradition. And, frankly, I have a hard time believing he really feels that he, personally, suffered from too much freedom to be who he really is.

And yet, he had a visceral reaction to a bunch of freaky Friscans flying their freak flag. Why? What’s his stake?

The answer, I think, lies in the earlier portions of Witt’s two paragraph peroration. The truly suspect position is not that of participant in this kind of event – indeed, if you read Witt’s essay, you’ll see that the participants, including those in the audience, all appear to be behaving in pretty civilized ways. The suspect position is our position, viewing safely from a distance, watching the pornographic video whose existence of makes this activity financially possible.

What’s our stake? The mere existence of these objects for consumption forces us to react – to affirm or oppose, accept or deny, look towards or look away. Of course, that’s the nature of community, and human beings are social animals – we don’t really exist, as humans, outside of a community. So it’s hard to object simply on the grounds that we don’t want to have to deal with what we don’t want to have to deal with. But we do not exist in communion with people we watch. There’s a one-way mirror in between us and them.

This is true of any mediated experience. When it aspires to art, mediated work takes us into its world. We don’t consume it; it consumes us, and after the fact we can reflect on an experience we’ve had, in a kind of fantasy. That’s what losing it at the movies is all about. Pornography goes the other direction, away from art. It is designed to move us to action – not to invite us into an experience, but to cause us to do. That’s why I talk about jihadi websites as being essentially pornographic – their purpose is to incite violence, just as the purpose of pornography is to incite sexual release.

The people attending (and, at the margins, participating in) Kink’s extreme pornographic shoot are, in a sense, participating in a much more extreme version of the kind of immersive theatre that I really appreciate. Everyone there was implicated by his or her presence. And you can see the effect of that presence in the tender details that abound in Witt’s description of the event. The participants could not deny that they were present, could not give vent to actual sociopathy because they were in a social space, with other human beings. None of that is part of the porn-viewer’s experience. The porn viewer is “free” of what makes him most essentially human – his communion with other human beings. And porn – inasmuch as it is porn (because nothing in life is all one thing or another) – is designed to exacerbate and deepen that isolation. Which in turn feeds the demand for more of the same mediated “experience.”

Lurking behind Emily Witt’s complaint that there is nothing “left” to conform to but that love will be her guide to happiness is a kind of status competition – am I living enough of a life, a life I can brag about. I am very, very familiar with that kind of status anxiety, and like pretty much all other forms of status anxiety – about wealth, or social position, or, for that matter, religiosity (pay a visit to Borough Park some time to see that one in action) – it’s toxic. And when she talks about porn, what she notes is the same dynamic – a kind of status anxiety triggered by the knowledge that someone out there is living a more exotic sexual life. But why surrender to that anxiety? Why even take it as a given?

When Witt says that love “failed” her, because she didn’t ultimately learn what she desired, I thought to myself: were you really looking for that? That is to say, were you really trying to find out what mattered to you? How you wanted to live? Or were you nagging yourself with the question: shouldn’t I want something different? And if so, why? Are we really prepared to blame pornography for a failure to know ourselves? Who is responsible for consuming whom?

The desire to conform to social expectations is built pretty deeply into human nature, because we are social animals, and no doubt wouldn’t function well as armed groups without a strong instinct to fit in. But in the internet age, that desire is dangerous, and needs to be interrogated. Now, not being ourselves, not knowing ourselves well enough to be ourselves, is dangerous. It’s not just that there is a massive media edifice out there, of which pornography is only a part, determined to convince us that we are not happy being ourselves, and showing us alternative selves that, if we only did what that edifice wants, we could become, and thus be happier. It’s that all the more or less happy freaks now have their own corners of the edifice, where they can replicate the same alienating dynamic. And as more and more of our waking hours are consumed by mediated experience, more of our psyche is subjected to this alienating dynamic. Even if Princess Donna says, as I suspect she would, that what she is doing is so much more authentic, ethical, and artistic than what porn was, say, thirty years ago, her industry’s mind-share is so much larger than it was then that the ways in which it remains alienating matter more.

Those who have made the most of freedom for themselves may find themselves in the business of cage-construction. Because it’s the only way left to make a living.

UPDATE: I should be clear that the above reflects my reactions to the article, not to participating in the kind of extreme sexual “event” described, which is nothing I’ve ever done, nor plan to do. It’s possible that my reaction to actually being there would be wildly divergent from what Ms. Witt experienced. But I guess that’s part of my point: were I to put myself in that position, which I don’t plan to do, I couldn’t avoid having a direct, unmediated experience. Watching a video, or reading Ms. Witt’s article, isn’t at all the same thing, and though Ms. Witt’s article was, to my mind, not essentially pornographic, that’s because it allowed me to enter into the experience of Ms. Witt’s mind, not because it allowed me to enter the experience of being in that San Francisco dungeon with her.

I am planning to visit San Francisco next month, though. I’ll let you know whether I see any brimstone falling from the sky.

 Tagged , , , , , , , , . 10 comments

Is Buying a Vacation Home Economically Irrational? If Not, Then Why Is Having Children?

I’m frequently puzzled by the line of argument Daniel McCarthy quotes (from Joseph Schumpeter) regarding individualism and fertility:

As soon as men and women … acquire the habit of weighing the individual advantages and disadvantages of any prospective course of action—or, as we might also put it, as soon as they introduce into their private life a sort of inarticulate system of cost accounting—they cannot fail to become aware of the heavy personal sacrifices that family ties and especially parenthood entail under modern conditions and of the fact that at the same time, excepting the cases of farmers and peasants, children cease to be economic assets.

This is unquestionably correct – but so what? Good china isn’t an economic asset either, but people buy it. Neither is that vacation home – for which you sacrificed a great deal of money to buy, and now have to spend time and money to maintain, and have to drive through traffic to get to, etc. Talk about personal sacrifices!

The conventional wisdom now is that experiences, rather than assets, are what give us the most satisfaction. And experiences are entirely ephemeral – they depreciate to zero immediately. Well, children provide a wealth of experiences – and they don’t depreciate anything like as fast as a skydiving adventure. So why aren’t they exceptionally rational investments, from a utilitarian perspective?

Silas Marner, before the little blonde girl shows up, was certainly maximizing something with his hoard of gold under the floor boards, but he wasn’t maximizing utiles.

Most people in developed societies want children. Most people want more children than they feel they can afford. They are not reluctant to make very substantial personal sacrifices – but most are status-conscious and reluctant to risk downward mobility.

And there’s little evidence that modern societies with “thicker” family bonds have higher fertility rates than those within more attenuated bonds. Indeed, the most recent evidence goes the opposite way. Remember that chart of European family structures? The weakest family ties were the “absolute nuclear” families, where new couples leave home to found their own homesteads and primogeniture undermines filial piety. That would, on the surface, appear to be the family structure least-oriented towards treating children as economic assets – workers in a family business, for example – and it predominates in England, Denmark, southern Sweden and the Netherlands. By contrast, the other family types – “stem,” “incomplete stem,” and “egalitarian nuclear” – that dominate elsewhere in Europe create stronger economic bonds between the generations.

So: how does total fertility vary across European countries?

UK: 1.91 children/woman
Sweden: 1.67 children/woman
Denmark: 1.74 children/woman
Netherlands: 1.78 children/woman

Spain: 1.48 children/woman
Italy: 1.4 children/woman
Germany: 1.4 children/woman
Greece: 1.39 children/woman

Either the relationship is the opposite of what the Schumpeter quote would suggest, or some other factor overwhelmingly predominates.

By the way, if you look beyond Europe you see:

Brazil: 1.82 children/woman
Iran: 1.87 children/woman
South Korea: 1.23 children/woman
South Africa: 2.28 children/woman

None of these are countries with weak family ties. Iran’s government actively enforces traditional religiosity. South Korea has a fierce Confucian tradition of filial piety. But they both have below-replacement fertility.

Whereas:

Ethiopia: 5.39 children/woman
Afghanistan: 5.64 children/woman
Yemen: 4.45 children/woman
Philippines: 3.15 children/woman

These countries have different predominant religions and different predominant ethnic groups, but they are all less-urban and less-economically-developed than the prior group of countries, and have not made a similar commitment to promoting family planning.

The overwhelming drivers of female fertility are urbanization and female literacy. Urbanization makes children more expensive. And literate women exercise more control over their fertility. Once you’ve made the transition to a modern, predominantly urban, literate society, the key variables that affect how many children women have relate to expense: the cost of housing, the cost of childcare, the cost of education. Make those cheaper, and fertility goes up – to a point. Make them more expensive, and fertility goes down – even way down. France, a European country where medieval family type varied by region, has one of the highest fertility rates in Europe – 2.08 children/woman. They’ve also got a longstanding pro-natalist bent to government policy.

And, by the way, this was true in medieval days as well. Age of first marriage went up and down with economic conditions – because there was no other reliable way to control fertility except to remain unmarried. Back purportedly before people weighed “individual advantages and disadvantages of any prospective course of action” parents were very concerned to make sure that a prospective husband could provide for his bride before they would agree to a match.

I think the mistake is in assuming that modern people don’t engage in a true process of self-creation – that all they do is shop. No, children aren’t free farm hands anymore. And yes, if that means children are now a consumer good, then they are a pretty risky consumer good to take on. They’re hugely expensive, there’s no quality control, and you can’t even sell them at a loss if you don’t like how they turn out, the way you can with a vacation home.

But if raising children is more like tending a garden, or learning to play the oboe, only much more demanding and much more rewarding, then I don’t see why there’s any reason to assume a rational individualist would decide to be childless. Unless that particular individual specifically didn’t want children. And most of us, several generations into modernity, still do.

 Tagged , , , , , , , . 23 comments

Are Jihadi Websites Haraam?

A common complaint heard from non-Muslims in the wake of jihadi violence is: where is the sense of responsibility? In response, people point to strong condemnations of violence – both in general and in terms of specific actions – made by Muslim leaders. And such condemnations are never very hard to find.

But that’s somehow unsatisfying – particularly given that often the form of condemnation is to say that such or such act was contrary to Islam. I suspect that sometimes reads to non-Muslims as an abdication of collective responsibility: yes, we condemn this act, but by calling it un-Islamic we’re saying that we, good Muslims, are not really responsible for it – in fact, we’re suggesting that the person who did it wasn’t “really” a Muslim. (The fact that Christians and Jews play analogous games – saying Trotsky wasn’t “really” a Jew because he attacked Jewish religion, or even that the Crusades weren’t “really” evidence that Christianity promotes violence because Jesus preached turning the other cheek rather than holy war – doesn’t seem to register with the critics.)

What I sometimes feel non-Muslims are looking for is a statement like this: yes, this was violence done – wrongly – in the name of Islam. I (the Muslim condemning violence) vehemently assert that such violence is contrary to Islam, and that the perpetrator is a criminal according to Islamic law, but I recognize that the perpetrator thought he was submitting to the will of God when he committed his crimes. And for that reason I am ashamed of him and angry at him, not only for the crimes he committed, but for besmirching the name of God as well in committing them.

It seems to me, though, that if such a statement can be made, then there should be things one can say prior to any atrocity that would lay down important religious markers.

For example, I was thinking about the pornographic violence that abounds on the jihadi internet. Is it permissible, as a good Muslim, to consume such images? Have respected Islamic authorities ever said that it is haraam to view (or to read) this kind of material, on the grounds that it may lead one into sin (murder being a pretty grievous sin)? I’m an outsider, so I don’t know what the requirements would be to making such a ruling, but it doesn’t strike me on its face as a silly idea. It would be analogous to other prohibitions designed to prevent, for example, adultery.

I also don’t know whether that kind of ruling would be particularly efficacious in preventing violence. I doubt it would, in fact, since you can always shop around for an Imam who will help you get into whatever trouble you want to get into. It’s not hard to find rabbis – including Orthodox rabbis – who condemn settler violence, for example, or who condemn the settlement enterprise itself, but those aren’t authorities that the settlers respect; they have their own rabbis. But from an inter-communal perspective, it seems to me those kinds of statements would be very valuable, and if they are being made then publicizing them better would also be very valuable.

In any event, I’m very curious to hear from knowledgable readers whether Sunni authorities have ever ruled against consuming material likely to lead one to commit murder, if so in what context, and if not what the jurisprudential obstacles would be to issuing a ruling of that sort.

 Tagged , , , , , . 12 comments

Two Sullivans, One Headline

Andrew Sullivan, at 12:18pm today, under the headline: “Yes, Of Course It Was Jihad” (apropos of the Boston bombings):

Five words: “God is all that matters.” If some secular liberals could grasp that a modern human can say those words and mean them, they would have a better grasp of our core predicament.

At that time of day, it was obvious that the core predicament we face is that when you take seriously the idea that one thing matters above all – the way, say, Kierkegaard did – it is hard to stop you from becoming a mass-murderer.

But then, at 2:00pm today, under the same headline, he quotes Michael Moynihan on what it’s like to spend extensive time on jihadi websites:

His big takeaway? It works – by numbing followers to violence:

The further I crawled down the extremist rabbit hole and the more caved-in skulls and headless corpses I saw, the more I found that my natural revulsion, usually an uncontrollable instinct, was easier to suppress.

What happened to “God is all that matters” being the core of our predicament? A couple of hours later, the core problem would seem to be immersion in pornographic depictions of violence, something that – obviously – doesn’t require religiosity at all (though, equally obviously, it’s perfectly compatible with it).

I would respectfully suggest that if two wildly divergent interpretations of events can be plausibly lumped under the same screaming headline, then perhaps the headline is not serving the cause of analytical clarity.

 Tagged , , , , , , , , . 3 comments

There Ain’t No Cure For Love

414px-Alice_Liddell_2

I am a huge fan of immersive theatrical experience, the kind of thing where you have to follow the actors around from room to room, and may be drawn into actual interaction. I love it because what it does can only be done live, and, for any art form, particularly a perennially-threatened one like live theatre, that’s a key question to ask up-front: why this form. What kind of experience am I offering, and why can’t my audience get that experience more cheaply, more conveniently, more effectively some other way. The proscenium of the 19th century may have made sense in its time, but even the great plays of that era come to life when that convention is ignored - when you stage The Pirates of Penzance as an Annette Funicello beach party to which we’re all invited (the show is being revived in Boston later this month – go see it!), in a production of The Cherry Orchard, you have Charlotta chat with the audience, and even hand someone a bowl of soup to hold; or, in a production of Ibsen’s Enemy of the People, you put the angry townspeople in the audience for the town hall meeting, so that when Doctor Stockmann goes on his rant he’s insulting not just them but us; and so on. The difference between the magnificently intimate film, “Vanya on 42nd Street,” and an in-your-living-room production of Uncle Vanya like the one recently staged by Soho Rep, is that, even at its most intimate, film keeps us safely in the position of the voyeur, whereas live theatre, at its best, draws us out of our seats, and onto the stage.

Immersive theatre makes this its fundamental principle. The king of the genre is Sleep No More, which I saw a couple of years ago (I re-posted my review apropos of its imminent closing – see it while you can). But you don’t have to take over a warehouse to do this kind of theatre, as the folks at Third Rail are proving every day at the Kingsland Ward at St. Johns in Williamsburg, with Then She Fell, an immersive theatrical experience based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice books and, more specifically, the author’s real-life relationship with the girl, Alice Pleasance Liddell, who inspired the main character of those books.

The show is set in a hospital ward. The tiny audience – no more than 15 per night – gathers in a waiting room, and then are led into the facility one by one. And, one by one, we are introduced to the peculiar inmates of this sanatorium: Lewis Carroll (Alberto Denis on the night I saw it – the cast varies night to night), a pair of Alices (Rachel Berman and Marissa Nielsen Pincus), the White Rabbit (Niko Tsocanos), The White Queen (Jennine Willett), the Red Queen (Jessy Smith), and the Mad Hatter (Elizabeth Carena).

When they are together, they engage in ritualized dances: the Red Queen teases and torments the White Rabbit, trapping his head in a chair, decapitating his half-white, half-red roses; the White Queen releases Alice’s hair, and teaches her to release herself physically as well. The Alices mimic each other across a “mirror” of empty air, then invite us to mimic them, and then (in another scene), mimic each other again through a one-way mirror of glass. Lewis Carroll dances with Alice up and down and around a staircase, yearning to take her in his arms, then finally doing so. The culmination of the dances is a mad Tea Party that the audience perforce must join, comically failing (in my case) to mimic the rituals of tea pouring/drinking/tossing and repeatedly shifting seats, a particularly effective bit of theatrical mayhem (and one of the few bits that directly mirrors an episode in the books, as opposed to alluding them).

When they are alone with us, the characters are more inclined to speak. Sometimes they ask you to take dictation for a letter. The Mad Hatter wants her hat back; when you’ve finished her letter, she stamps it and tosses it in a drawer with dozens of other copies. Lewis Carroll wants a last chance to say goodbye to his beloved Alice; when you’ve finished his letter, he takes it, removes his shoes, steps off the slatted wooden path into the water, then rolls the letter up in a bottle and sets it down to float away. Other times they tell you stories – the White Queen may lay you down on a bed and tell you a bedtime story, about a girl who lived backwards, so that, when she first met her beloved, she knew all about their relationship to come, and was already bored of him; and by the end, when he had grown to love her deeply, had already forgotten nearly all about him, until, after their last day together, he was a stranger to her. (This last was my favorite bit from the show – possibly I like being told stories in the dark, or possibly I just like being told to lie down in bed with strangers.)

Then She Fell is more intimate than Sleep No More – only 15 members of the audience, and the action is played out in a much smaller space – but also more stately and controlled. Unlike Sleep No MoreThen She Fell takes pains to make sure you actually do experience what they intend you to – you don’t wander; you are led. Which leaves you more time, as a member of the audience, to meditate on what you are seeing. You don’t have the anxiety about missing something happening elsewhere in a vast and maze-like space, but you also don’t have the urgency of needing to discover something. You can think, in real time, what does this mean?

My meditations traveled along a winding path. First, I thought about the age of the Alices. They are played, in the production, by adults. Ms. Liddell, meanwhile, was all of eleven years old when her relationship with Charles Dodgson was broken off by her formidable mother (I wondered whether the two Queens were two versions of this maternal spirit, the Red Queen fierce and domineering, the White more nurturing). That break may possibly have been occasioned by a proposal of marriage from the 31-year-old Dodgson (or there are other possibilities, such as that he was courting her governess – all answers are speculative). Within the world of the play, it’s very likely something like an inappropriate romantic overture was the cause of the rupture. By casting adult women to play Alice (though they are dressed as Alice from the books), the scandal of such a proposal is blunted, to a degree.

But the title of the piece is Then She Fell. Whether down the rabbit hole into insanity, or into love, we are concerned primarily with her trajectory, not with his. And her trajectory is towards adulthood. So I wondered: are we seeing Alice falling, well after she no longer knew Dodgson, for the man who had fallen for her before she could reciprocate? Is that the point of the “girl who lived backwards” story? Is this a theatrical counterpart to the movie, “Dreamchild,” in which Alice Hargreaves (nee Liddell) comes to grips, as an 80-year-old woman, with the story that colonized her identity as a young girl, and with the man whose love prompted him to plant that powerful seed in her young mind?

I thought about the hospital setting. What disease is being treated in this facility isn’t immediately clear – there are a lot of references to malaria on the walls, but none of the action revolves around that malady. As the tour goes on, it becomes clear that the malady being treated is, in fact, Carroll’s love for Ms. Liddell. And, after a century and a half, the cure still isn’t effective. Is this a comment on our tendency, as a culture, to medicalize abnormality? Most of us would look at a Dodgson, if we knew one, and say: he needs treatment. And we might well be right – but by how much would our understanding of his mind fall short if that was all we learned. By the same token, most of us would look at an Alice, if we knew one, and understand her in terms of trauma: how was she affected by the (emotionally) inappropriate attentions of this older man at such a young age – and is there a therapy that will help her get over it. But, again, by how much would our understanding of her mind fall short if we did not reckon with the importance, in all dimensions, that such an experience would have had for her?

Or is the piece ultimately about us and our experience (as immersive experiences are particularly apt to be)? We, the audience, are people who chose to be immersed in an Alice experience. The books already mean something to us – they have already colonized our minds. They are artifacts of our childhoods that have continued to affect us as adults, to bring us back to a state of childhood excitement, or to reflect on our distance from that state. Is that the love that we are supposed to recognize on stage, the love that this institution is trying, ineffectually, to cure us of? Are we Alice? Or, better, the Alice-Carroll duet, playing out a loving dance with our own childhoods, with childhood itself?

Then She Fell is, among other things, a hipster artifact: staged in Williamsburg, exclusive (only 15 audience members at a time), immersive, drenched in Victoriana – and, most important, in the props and signifiers of the gifted child. Because from Dave Eggers to Wes Anderson to whoever else you care to name, this culture is created by and for adults who were and still are gifted children. They were adults early, reading tougher books and understanding more than they ought of the adult world’s emotional complexities. And they remain children late, turning work into games, obsessed with the outward signs of self-creation, living by the golden rule of playing nice. And if you’re looking for a subject to exemplify that cultural nexus you can’t really beat the Alice books.

Late in the play, as I experienced it (different members of the audience go through scenes in a different order), I found myself outside a white room, gazing through a window past rows of medicine bottles. Inside the room, the Red Queen raged and fretted, throwing off her mantle with its fierce red frill, berating herself for something. Then she invited us in, and sat at a vanity where she adjusted her makeup, and told us a story – a story of how you have to control your passion to achieve any measure of power in this world. At the end of which she reassumed the mantle of the Red Queen, and led us out to exit the performance.

I had, prior to that scene, been thinking of the Red Queen as possibly a reference to Alice Liddell’s domineering mother, possibly a reference to Dodgson’s perceptions of a certain kind of female power. But now, I thought of her as a possible destination in adulthood for Alice, and for us – a reference to how one might deal with the madness of love, by subordinating it to power and control. And, as it turns out, her strategy didn’t keep her out of the same asylum where they keep the White Rabbit.

How to avoid being trapped there ourselves? I couldn’t say for certain – but I would recommend, as a first course of treatment, going to the theatre.

Then She Fell will be performed at The Kingsland Ward at St. Johns in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, through September 29th.

 Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . One comment

Full Immersion

I’m taking the opportunity of just having seen Then She Fell, an immersive theatre experience based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice novels (and on his relationship with Ms. Liddell) to re-post a lightly-edited version of my review from a couple of years ago of Sleep No More, the king of all immersive theatrical experiences. Sleep No More is actually threatening to close, in the middle of June, so I urge readers as strongly as possible: see it while you still can.

==============================

It’s not entirely fair for me to call Sleep No More a production of Macbeth. Among other things, apart from the title I only heard one line from the play – “they say blood will have blood” – in the two and a half hours that I spent in the McKittrick Hotel. But whatever it is – and I’ll talk a bit below about trying to read Sleep No More as a production of Macbeth– Sleep No More is a theatrical experience that you don’t want to miss, if only because it’s like nothing else you’ve ever seen.

The folks from Punchdrunk have taken over a trio of Chelsea warehouses and outfitted them as the McKittrick Hotel, a noir-esque horror fantasia palace. When you arrive, you are given a playing card and a Venetian mask, and told not to lose the card, not to take off the mask, and not to speak until you leave the hotel (or take a break at the hotel bar). And then you are let loose to wander as you please through five floors of insanely outfitted rooms.

I’ll throw out a few illustrative examples of the insanity, just to give you the flavor, though no description really does justice to the experience. A hospital ward where all the beds are bathtubs. An enchanted, blue-lit forest of birch trees, inhabited by stuffed mountain goats and a mysterious cabin that seems to belong to the nurse from the hospital. A witch’s herbarium, the overpowering sensation upon entry not sight or sound but smell. The Macduff living quarters, a perforated teddy bear on the bed, a wall-sized mirror beside that, when you look in it, you see right through yourself to the bed behind … and on the sheets and covers gouts of blood that was not so before. (And, indeed, there’s no such thing; turn around and you’ll see, the bed is clean. I have absolutely no idea how they did it.)

You wander in and out of rooms, encountering your fellow masked ghouls as you enter, leave, search drawers and cabinets (there may be hidden messages scrawled therein), examine half-developed photographs of murder in Malcolm’s darkroom. You walk down the hallway and pass other ghouls typing a typewriter, ruffling through files, staring back at you from windows on a graveyard. The addition of actors is almost superfluous.

But not entirely. When you first see someone not wearing a mask, it’s almost a shock. A living being! We must follow him (or her) – we are hungry ghouls, and feed on the life force of the living. And they have quite a bit of life force. There’s almost no dialogue in the production, and most of the action takes the form of stylized and repetitive activity – some of it dance-like, some of it less-coherent writhing (which, truth be told, did little for me), but all of it aggressive. Even Duncan, who sleepwalks to his doom (I thought that was Lady M’s job?) does so with vigor, pulling the veils off endless ticking clocks as he staggers.

I caught several scenes that I could identify as being from the play. I followed Lady Macbeth to her bedroom (a large bed filled one corner, but the center of the room was dominated by a spot-lit bathtub on a podium), where she read the letter from her husband, then, when he arrived, danced the dance of the femme fatale before changing for the banquet to celebrate Duncan’s arrival. I followed her to that banquet, where we saw her dance coquettishly with the doomed Scottish king while her husband looked on, the other guests including a grossly pregnant Lady Macduff and her husband – and, strangely, a blonde bombshell who pulled off her wig and was transformed into a writhing bald witch.

Later, I encountered Duncan and his clocks. He sleep-walked his way through that room and out, into a hallway where cushions were laid out on the floor under a tented canopy, and there he lay himself to sleep. No drugged guards watched over him, and when Macbeth came, he did not stab, but smothered him with the pillows, feathers flying. Yet somehow he still got covered in blood, and Lady Macbeth had to strip him down to wash the stain away in her bathtub, only to taint herself instead. Much later, I ran into Macbeth racing upstairs, and turned to follow him to a witches’ sabbath: lit by a flashing strobe, two seminude female witches cavorted with a nude male minotaur, and nursed the bloody child of Macbeth’s second vision.

But other scenes seemed to have nothing to do with the source play.

A lady in red right out of a pulp crime novel eats a meal at a cafe table, only to find something strange in her food. She worries it with her tongue, then spits it out: a wedding ring. She beckons one of the ghouls to approach, places it on his finger, and begins to sing – or, rather, lip-synch – a haunting and creepy cover (by a male voice I didn’t recognize) of Peggy Lee’s “Is That All There Is.” A thematically apposite song for Macbeth if ever there was one, and a viscerally powerful scene.

I, individually, was pulled into another scene, a one-on-one in the cabin in the woods with the nurse. When she gently removed off my mask, I was hyperventilating – I don’t know whether because I was afraid I would laugh, and break the spell, or because I was so fully in the moment that I was afraid of her, of being locked in this cabin in the woods with a mysterious witch nurse who was about to reveal to me secrets it were better I did not know. As it happened, she also told me a story of disillusion – about an orphan boy who tried to fly to heaven, only to discover that the moon, sun and stars were really rotten wood, a broken piss-pot and flying bugs. Objectively, not the most powerful story ever told, but in context, and told by a woman coming closer and closer to my face, until our noses were almost touching, it absolutely terrified me. I had to turn away and grab her arm – if I hadn’t, I don’t know if I would have kissed her or screamed.

As you can probably tell from my breathless descriptions, I’m a sucker for this sort of thing (not that I even know what “sort” of thing this is – I’ve never seen, or, more correctly, been inside, a show like this before). Effects that would be cheesy in a traditional play or movie – blue-lit fog on a graveyard; a red-headed woman in a red dress and red lipstick singing a sad song – become electrified when you are in the movie, in the play. I wandered through the woods, genuinely afraid that the right road would be lost; it was trivially easy to forget that I was in a play. It was even easier to forget that I wasn’t in the play, that I was in the audience – my fellow audience members sure looked like they were in the cast, or at least part of the scenery.

As you can also probably tell, a great deal of the imagery derives from film. The period and many of the individual objects are clearly intended to recall classic film noir and Hitchcock. But I felt like the real guiding spirit of the enterprise was Kubrick, an amalgam of “The Shining” (blood, mazes of woods, typewriters with creepy messages and endless repetition of the same catchphrases of horror, but most of all just the experience of wandering endlessly in a horror hotel) and “Eyes Wide Shut” (the Venetian masks, obviously, and the formal, ritual quality of the nudity and sexual writhing, and more generally the voyeurism of the whole enterprise – plus I kind of thought Lady Macbeth was got up to remind us of Nicole Kidman). If you’ve never wanted to be trapped inside a Kubrick film, well, I can’t say I really blame you, but you don’t know what you’re missing.

But what, in the end, does it tell us about Macbeth?

Not so much, and yet a great deal.

What’s lost from Macbeth isn’t just the language. It’s true that’s lost – but it’s also lost in what’s probably my most favorite production of Macbeth, Akira Kurosawa’s movie, “Throne of Blood” which, since it’s in Japanese, doesn’t have a single line from Shakespeare. Macbeth’s language can be an inspiration for the visual imagination of an adapter, and if it is then the language isn’t really lost at all, just transformed. A knowledgeable reader of the play will experience the connection between the vision and the text, will see what’s on the page, the text playing in his or her mind as a kind of remembered soundtrack.

But in Sleep No More, the story is also lost. I didn’t get a real sense of relationship between any of the characters – even between Macbeth and Lady M – from this production. Nor, even in isolation, did their characters feel sharply defined. This murderous pair, they weren’t individuals, they were icons – more specifically, icons out of film noir, playing out the scenes from Macbeth. This is a considerable reduction from Shakespeare. Lady Macbeth, for example, is a more complex figure than a noir femme fatale – indeed, her character can be understood as, herself, reacting to that kind of iconic figure, trying to play out that role in order to achieve her goals. She’s a real person playing the part of a cold-hearted killer – that’s why she can be driven mad, as the classic noir women are not. (If those women have a weakness, it’s that they may have fallen in love with the men they are trying to dupe – or is that just another plot? Depends on the movie.) Shakespeare takes us on what looks like a familiar journey – man is tempted by evil forces/an evil woman, and is undone by his crime – but then takes us places we didn’t expect to go. (Macbeth achieves a kind of apotheosis of nihilism by the end – he stares into the abyss so long that the abyss has to look away.) By returning us to the archetypes that lie behind Shakespeare’s play, Sleep No More returns us as well to a more comfortably familiar story.

And yet, the production does achieve one thing that so many productions of Macbeth fail at. It brings us into the world of Macbeth’s imagination. Indeed, sitting in the McKittrick hotel bar after the show, I decided that this was the best way to look at the play: not as an enactment of the play Macbeth but as a tour of the character Macbeth’s mind, full of scorpions as it is (and I believe I saw some of those in the taxidermy room).

Macbeth is not a terribly bright man – he never thinks more than one step ahead, and his first response is always brutally direct – but he has a powerfully vivid imagination. And so it seems appropriate to think of his mind as stuffed full of stock icons from horror and noir – bloody bathtubs, broken dolls, lip-synching women in red dresses and silent ghouls in Venetian masks – all rendered with boldness and specificity, and recombined to a total vision that is overwhelming in its power when experienced directly, unmediated, as the participating audience for Sleep No More does. A man whose mind was overwhelmed by these kinds of images, yeah, I could understand how he could turn into Macbeth. And if we really want to understand him, we need to see what he sees. Which this production enabled me to do as no other one has.

 Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Post a comment

Reading Alan Jacobs Makes Me Want To . . .

- Write an incomprehensible manifesto. (“In an age of continuous acceleration, our cultural destination blue-shifts to a single point! Every man shall be a Milton, and he shall circumcise his heart with its own individual scripture, all other texts deemed heretical!”)

- Illustrate that manifesto with reference to an exciting work of graphic narrative art.

- Interview Bob Dylan with questions taken entirely from his own song lyrics. (Do you know where I can get ride of these things? What’s the matter with your mound? When you gonna wake up? Am I wrong in thinking that you have forgotten me?)

- Write criticism so good it inspires someone else to write awesome criticism.

- Swing for the fences.

So glad you’re back.

 Tagged , . 5 comments
← Older posts