Escape Velocity

If you drop a penny, does it fall to the ground? Do you ever expect it might not? Cultural attitudes towards children, relationships, and religion can be described in a similar fashion. Most people don't even think to think about these beliefs any more than they think about gravity because to even question the general flow of the cultural zeitgeist takes an enormous amount of energy, let alone break free from the gravitational pull.

A few weeks ago, Time Magazine had their cover story on people who decide to remain child free. There are many reasons that people give when they defend this choice, but the point is, they have to defend it, especially if they are white women, as Jill Filipovic points out in this post for The Guardian:

Bring up the possibility of educated white women choosing not to have children and you'll be met with intense hostility. The desire to forgo childrearing is a "banal fantasy"; having kids is the only way for adults to avoid "destructive self-absorption". The photo of the child-free couple on the cover of Time Magazine this month showcases "lazy yuppies" whose "matching swimsuits reek of self-satisfied, in-your-face Dinks [double income no kids]." The cover model's smile "is supposed to communicate her disdain for her uterus and her utter satisfaction with her size-4, cellulite-free, vacation-filled life".

That's a lot of pressure. What kind of energy does it take for someone to decide what is best for them when the cultural gravitation is pulling in another direction?

Perhaps part of the same gravitational construct is the idea of monogamy as a cultural constant. A recent post on the MS blog for MS Magazine asks whether feminists should be questioning "compulsory monogamy" as many have come to question the assumption of heternormativity and, I would add, having children.

Filipovic pointed out the censure that child free women meet but that's actually less than the cultural condemnation of non-monogamy. A recent Salon post by Angi Becker Stevens currently has over 600 comments, most of them condemning the woman who wrote the post for everything from narcissism to child neglect. It was even worse for Sierra Black after her Huffington Post article of a year or so ago, with over 1000, mostly censorious comments. Those are just the ones I'm most familiar with because I read all of the comments. On both. The pull being exerted on both Black and Stevens can very rightly be seen as the hands of thousands trying to pull them back to earth. They might say "reality."

There is something, besides simply tradition, to the powerful indoctrination of "grow up, get married, have babies" that adds to that cultural gravity. As Stevens says in a post on the MS Magazine blog:

Of course one function of compulsory monogamy is that polyamorous relationships are widely condemned, by both liberals and conservatives alike. But it’s important to reflect on the root of that condemnation. Whenever a society prohibits a certain behavior or identity, that prohibition is most likely serving the interests of people in positions of power.

Finally, the report of a study making the rounds the last few weeks purports to show a relationship between how "intelligent" a person is and the likelihood that someone is atheist. Religion is one of the biggest cultural gravity wells we have in our society. America is one of the most religious countries on earth. Most people grow up with a religion and even for those who don't, religious beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions abound. Pull a dollar bill out of your wallet and take a look. Go to a baseball game and wait for the "God Bless America" to be whipped out in the seventh inning. Even from a simply literary point of view, the assumption that a god exists underlies much of western literature.

Pulling away from that sort of gravity well takes a lot of effort. Is intelligence one of the boosters helping people escape it? As posted at PZ Myers site, the abstract of the report says:

First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

Now, as Myers points out in the link above, there are plenty of issues with the studies that have been done and none of us atheists can go high-fiving each other over our smarts. Filipovic thinks that "[t]o see some nebulous, grainy, other potential for which there are few mainstream models and say, "I want that," takes courage and imagination." Stevens says "We all stand to benefit from supporting relationships that serve as a model for less patriarchal, less hierarchical ways of intimately relating to one another."

To me, these three things: living childfree, nonmonogamy, and atheism all question the dominant paradigms of our culture. As such they are incredibly threatening to those who either benefit from the current paradigm or call into question another person's acceptance of that paradigm. It takes a lot of energy to fight against that gravitational pull.

Maybe it takes intelligence, however broadly defined, so that someone can be less likely to "conform" or more "analytic" in order to question the inherent inconsistencies within the dominant paradigm. Maybe it takes "courage and imagination" to envision a way of life different from those around one and then stick to it. Maybe we just like being nonconformist and maybe shaking the foundations of those in power, even just a little bit.

  

Maybe it takes affluence and privilege. The Time article talked mostly in terms of Western white women, where "an increase of 15 IQ points decreased the odds of [a girl] becoming a mother by 25%" (p41) and then goes on to point out that these women are also more likely to have had higher education. Self-identified polyamorous folks tend to be white, middle class, and with graduate degrees. As too many news articles to mention point out, higher ed costs money. There's a safety in money, in being part of the dominant class. There's less need to rely on institutions such as family, marriage, the church. The freedom to make one's own way is a kind of power itself, maybe the greatest power launching towards escape velocity. 

Begger that I am

In my Netflix queue at present, there are 5 different movie adaptations of Shakespearean plays: Twelfth Night,  Henry V, Richard II, and Hamlet. There had been three Hamlet's at one time, but I've already watched the Gibson followed by the Brannagh, with only the Tennant one left (not Olivier. Never Olivier. Perhaps Kline).  I studied non-Shakespearean Renaissance drama for my Honor's degree as part of my Bachelor's in Literature and didn't get enough of Shakespeare when I earned my Master's degree. I still study the plays as I have three different Shakespearean lecture series that I listen to every year or so. The language got me early on and I go back regularly.

However, I've rarely seen the plays performed on the stage. Movies, yes. Reading, surely. But performed? In that I have been much amiss.

Last Saturday, on an impulse, I went out to the American Players Theater in Spring Green to see Hamlet and I wanted to put some thoughts down. I'm assuming that I won't have to go into detail about the plot or the characters. If you need more of that, I can recommend some lecture series.

The play was performed outside on their thrust stage, an approach that I favor, having had my first theatrical experience on the thrust stage of Hopkins High School (now supplanted by a proscenium arch. Pity). The in-your-midst approach that it provides, coupled with the very minimalist set dressing made the play feel immediate and compelling. That I have to do more to imagine the setting makes me more complicit in the experience perhaps. It's an approach that APT does well and this production was no exception.

Seeing the play live provides a much changed response to many lines. There are laugh lines that I'd never read as laugh lines. And crowd reactions that Shakespeare never would have anticipated! I'm pretty sure old Bill would not have expected derisive guffaws at the line "Frailty, thy name is woman!" And yet, this 21st century crowd no longer buys into the casual misogyny of the play. That's a good thing, and I am resolved to see more live theater to regain my sense of the vitality and energy of the lines.

The performances were generally strong. Matt Schwader plays Hamlet and he hit all the right notes. Jim DeVita (who I believe played Hamlet the last time I saw the play at APT) was quite good as Claudius. Almost all of the main roles were well cast and properly acted. The one exception has me concerned, a bit. I have tickets for a later performance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Ryan Imhoff as Rosencrantz was a bit overplayed for my taste. I hope the character isn't that much of a clown in R&GaD.

But I'm not overjoyed by the production. Well acted, yes. True to the text and spirit of the play, of course.  True to Shakespeare, without question. So what's my problem?

The play felt very much by-the-book. Do the lines, hit the marks, let the text carry everyone along. I never got the sense that any of the actors were pursuing a portrayal that included a character arc or change during the course of the play. The mania of Hamlet after seeing the Ghost his Father was not all that much different than the mania that he put on for Polonius. But that seemed like it was him doing the "crazy schtick" more than a conscious decision to either draw a parallel between the two to cause the audience to wonder if he was actually mad instead of "mad in craft."

There are so many ways to approach the role of Claudius and DeVita has been a marvelous actor. Again, he hit all the right notes, played each scene very well. But I didn't get a sense of connection between the Claudius of the first scene welcoming he who is "most immediate to our throne" and the one who cries out "Yet what can it when one can not repent? / O wretched state!" and the one who calmly plots with Laertes to murder his wife's son. As written, there's an arc to the character, a movement from someone who got away with it, to one who might repent, to one who countenances even the death of his queen. Each scene: delightfully done. But the whole?

One question that was not answered I alluded to above. Hamlet can very easily be read as a misogynist. He rails against his mother's sexuality and then Ophelia's and then his mother's again. This is something that really needs to be addressed by the performers and director. Just, please gods, not the Olivier approach that it is all about the Oedipal complex. But Hamlet DOES have issues and there should be a plan for dealing with them so as to address a 21st century issue for 21st century audiences.

In my opinion, Hamlet's railing against Ophelia is mostly for effect. He should know that Polonius is there and is condemning Polonius by his words to Ophelia (I like Brannagh's take that H and O had consummated their love). The issue with his mother is a bit harder to take. Again, not because he wants to fuck his mom but because he can't see his mother wanting to be with any other man than his father. It is loyalty to old Hamlet that has him say such stupid things, and Gertrude should react to them as stupid things to say. Shakespeare was at least 35 when he wrote Hamlet. I seriously doubt that Bill believed "The hey-day in the blood is tame, it's humble, / And waits upon the judgment." Depending on your approach, Hamlet might be near that old or Gertrude not much older. Perhaps it is our era, where people of any age can act as fools for love, but I don't think people have changed all that much.

No, it isn't about his mother getting it on, it's that she got it on with Claudius! That same set of lines supports my thought:

     have you eyes?

You cannot call it love; for at your age

The hey-day in the blood is tame, it's humble,

And waits upon the judgment: and what judgment

Would step from this to this?

It's not about mom, it's about dad, and should be apparent to everyone that is where Hamlet has issues. But I didn't see it in this production. Hamlet is a jerk to Ophelia, but was he just trying to get her out of the line of fire? He's an ass to Gertrude, but was he just unnerved that she might move so quickly from his hero, his dad, to the scheming uncle?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the play. It was well acted by those who obviously relish the material. But I had higher hopes for a stronger, more nuanced production.