 |
| Angela Davis |
While browsing at HPB over the weekend, I picked up a cheap copy of the Beacon Press edition of One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse has been an intriguing figure to me ever since I learned that he was a mentor of sorts to Angela Davis. I have read pieces of the book online at marxists.org and I have always intended to tackle the entire volume at some point in time. And so, tonight -- as K. plodded through her keftedes and potatoes -- I figured it was high time to introduce her to Marcuse's 1964 critique of capitalist society.
K. pretty much knew what was going on when I left the table and came back carrying a book. Now, the initial phase of my dinnertime "intellectual aversion therapy" always features a short period of time in which all eating completely stops and we go through a bit of groaning and whining. It's only when the kids realize that I'm both willing and able to read aloud for an indefinite period of time that the complaining subsides and gives way to focused and orderly dining. (Of course, my "analytical" tone here is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but believe me when I say that there are nights when drastic measures are needed to reign in the dinnertime chaos.)
Z. had already finished her dinner and was playing in the other room, leaving Thomai, K. and me at the table. I showed Thomai the book (I had already shared it with her at least once or twice since Saturday night) and she was kind enough to endure yet another of my digressions on why I was so intrigued with this particular work. Using the notes on the back cover, I explained that Marcuse effectively "argues that members of Western societies, both capitalist and communist, must reassert their individuality and personal freedom against the oppression of the technologized status quo." I also explained that the questions in my mind at this point did not so much have to do with whether or not Marcuse was was fundamentally correct when the book was published in 1964 (I have no doubt that he was) but instead I wondered:
1) Have advances in technology such as cellular phones, personal computers, and the Internet (including the advent of 'net-based alternative media outlets, user-generated content and social networking forums) negated the concept of "oppression of the technologized status quo"?
...and...
2) If the answer to the above question is "yes," than is this because of incremental social-revolutionary change or is it because of simple evolution (with the absence of a class-conscious mass movement)?
Maybe my questions were a bit verbose, but I think most folks might still get the gist of what I'm pondering. At any rate, Thomai was relatively attentive, yet silent. But the panic in K.'s voice was evident as she came to the realization that any book which gave rise to these questions must be truly boring. She looked at Thomai and said, "Mama...?" And Thomai quickly replied, "You're on your own!" as she promptly got up and left the room. Well played, my dear.
I started reading from the book and, as expected, there was considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth from K. Unfazed by the familiar and predicable results, I continued and after a bit, K. settled back into eating, doing so with some new vigor and a slight sense of urgency. She voiced a few minor protests now and again, interjecting comments like, "This is really boring" and so on. At one point, she exclaimed, "Just what is this book about, anyway?!" I replied, "Let me tell you what this book is about!" and I read her one of the most notably significant passages from chapter one:
Contemporary industrial civilization demonstrates that it has reached the stage at which "the free society" can no longer be adequately defined in the traditional terms of economic, political, and intellectual liberties, not because these liberties have become insignificant, but because they are too significant to be confined within the traditional forms. New modes of realization are needed, corresponding to the new capabilities of society.
She was quiet...still eating, but not complaining either as I broke down a little about what the sentences actually meant. Even though she's still really young, K. is a lot like I was at her age in that she watches the news and has some level of what's going on in the world. Of course, I am realistic about things; I know she can't grasp the intricacies of the important philosophical concepts in Marcuse, but I'd like to think that a basic awareness of the idea that ideas can be discussed, debated and redefined is preferable to raising a child to simply accept conditions as they are so that he or she can settle for life as nothing more than a small cog in someone else's machine.
I stopped reading for a bit and we had a short chat about the ideas of freedom and change. I enjoyed it and K. was a really good sport about it until she finished her last bite and jumped up from the table. I had to call her back to clean up her spot and put her dishes in the sink and I took advantage of the time to read yet a few more passages out loud while she tidied up.
When I posted my original "parenting tips" article years ago, my friend Anthony joked: "You'll only get an award if you achieve the twin ends of both making her finish eating AND take an interest in the subject." I can't promise that K. is going to go out and set the world on fire with her radical ideas starting tomorrow, but maybe someday she'll remember nights like this and make some good use of the concepts that we have discussed. But at the very least, I hope she'll just appreciate spending a few moments at the dinner table with her silly, silly daddy.
