Monday, May 28, 2018

Class at the Forefront: 2018 Working-Class Studies Association Awards [feedly]

Class at the Forefront: 2018 Working-Class Studies Association Awards
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/class-at-the-forefront-2018-working-class-studies-association-awards/

Since the 2016 election, the working class has been repeatedly blamed in the news for electing Trump, though as many have argued, the issue of class is a far more complicated and often misunderstood category that defies such summary scapegoating.  But instead of ignoring the nuances that inherently define working-class experiences, scholars, journalists, activists, creative writers, and artists in the field of working-class studies have critically examined the subject of class and working-class life, placing it at the forefront of their work.  As past-president and this year's chair of the Working-Class Studies Association's Awards Committee, I had the pleasure of assembling works published in 2017 for our five awards.  More than a dozen scholars from nine disciplines reviewed the nearly 70 nominations. On behalf of the WCSA, I wish to extend our deep appreciation to these judges for their time and especially for their thoughtful responses.

The nominees for the Studs Terkel Award for Media and Journalism brought to light many issues that remain obscured from mainstream news: how contract-for-deed sales impact Chicago's communities of color, the activism of Oakland longshore workers to combat Trump's anti-labor agenda, the deceptive practices of guest-worker programs in recruiting foreign students majoring in STEM-master degree programs in the U.S., as well as  personal narratives detailing the demands placed on drivers in a rapidly-changing trucking industry and what it is like growing up as an Arab-American woman in the Rust Belt. In reports on a wide range of workers, from the Carrier furnace plant workers in Indianapolis to the housekeepers working at Harvard University, journalists have documented the ways in which working-class people remain exploited by exploring the intersections among race, gender, region, and class.  Judges agreed that Lizzie Presser's "Below Deck," published in The California Sunday Magazine, is a powerful example of investigative journalism detailing the exploitation of Filipino laborers on U.S.-based cruise lines like Carnival, exposing how "labor has been reconfigured and re-racialized in our contemporary global economy."  One judge wrote, "Presser's piece is a real feat of gorgeous writing combined with painstaking research, and sheds light on the dark side of an entire industry. I was especially impressed by the thoroughness of the reporting, as it was clear that she put in significant time in the Philippines searching out current and former workers, and her ability to sift through what must have been mountains of legal documents, complaints, etc., to emerge with an engaging narrative about a single man that includes so much more."

This year's nominations for the C.L.R. James Award for Published Book for Academic or General Audiences reveal the breadth of our interdisciplinary field with books exploring oral health and social mobility, the resurgence of craft and trade work in today's post-industrial labor market, the privatization of retirement pensions, U.S. working-class women's writing in the antebellum period, migrant farmworkers' work conditions, and how  race and masculinity shaped the early labor history of Cubans in New York. From trade unions and working-class inequality in Palestine during the 1920s and the evolving cultural history of coal mining in Yorkshire to chicken processing plants in North Carolina and the ongoing working-class movement in Turkey, these studies span the globe, bringing the fight for worker justice and equality sharply into focus. Scott Henkel won for his book, Direct Democracy: Collective Power, the Swarm, and the Literatures of the Americas, an examination of labor and racial resistance emerging out of the Haitian Revolution through the long nineteenth century. In their comments, judges praised Henkel for "outlining a new approach to the role and potential of collective action and the concept of power to analyze a variety of intersecting class struggles that have traditionally been viewed within distinct racial and gender boundaries," adding "his interdisciplinary approach combines literary and historical analysis in a way that brings alive the complexity and interconnectedness of a variety of struggles for basic human rights."  David Roediger's Class, Race, and Marxism, a collection of recent and new essays, also won in this category.  One judge wrote, "Roediger has spent a lifetime addressing the complexities between the constructs of class and race, and this book is a culmination of what he has discovered over those many years. The introductory essay, 'Thinking Through Race and Class in Hard Times,' should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the era of Trumpian politics. Roediger has a writing style that draws one in, even when talking about difficult subjects. This is an important book, with lessons that some may wish to ignore, but at their peril."

 

The John Russo & Sherry Linkon Award for Published Article or Essay for Academic or General Audiences also covered a wide range of material, including the lives of working-class academics, Puerto Rican farm labor migration, the role of Italian radicals in the Mexican Revolution of 1911, and gentrification to name a few. This year's award goes to Liza Sapir Flood for her essay, "Instrument in Tow: Bringing Musical Skills to the Field" published in Ethnomusicology.  Flood explores "ethnographic methodology in the context of a working-class amateur country music scene in eastern Tennessee."  As one judge noted, "she fruitfully explores the intersections of class and gender and brings them together in the theoretical framework she uses to analyze her experiences in the field."  Another offered this praise: "Flood's essay is an elegant and surprising analysis of a specific ethnographic situation, the nature of ethnography, and the assumptions researchers bring with them to the field. At the essay's start, a reader is led to expect a study that is relatively traditional in its methodology, but by the essay's end, Flood has delivered insights about the project's case study, about the role of a scholar, and about the ends of scholarship itself."

The winner of this year's Tillie Olsen Award for Creative Writing is David Joy, for his novel, The Weight of This World.  Set in rural Appalachia, the book, as one judge describes it, takes "a raw look at the lives people live when left with very little kindness or opportunity, and few options. It's a powerful, pointed narrative that's hard to read, but harder to turn away from."  Another commented, "The Weight of This World is a testimony to the power of love, friendship, and many hungers leftover from childhood.  Pain bubbles up and spills, entering our senses, not like ash, but like a terrible ache in the jaw-dropping world of these troubled characters.  A master storyteller, David Joy's on-the-fringe people become visible, so alive their deeds impale themselves into our hearts long after the final page.  It's a world we'd rather not see, ledgers about settling scores and carrying secrets. It's a compelling narrative driven by whispers and screams that show our deepest wounds in a night where no mother comes."

Two awards were given for this year's Constance Coiner Award for Best Dissertation for their significant contribution in advancing future directions in working-class studies.  The first goes to Steffan Blayney for "Health & Efficiency: Fatigue, the Science of Work and the Working Body in Britain, c. 1870-1939."  One judge concluded, "Blayney has written a history of a commercial science and professionals' contribution to managing the worker as a body to be fragmented, controlled, and so optimized for the extraction of surplus value. . . .  this dissertation topic, in its capable, de rigeur execution, suggested exciting paths forward for scholarship." Simon Lee's "Working-Class Heroics: The Intersection of Class and Space in British Post-War Writing," the second winner in this category,  elicited the following praise: "In surveying British working-class 'Kitchen sink' literature, Lee finds that post-war British writing expresses a contingency of being in opposition to pre-war working-class solidarity. Paying contemporary theoretical respects to the structuring agency of the manufactured and owned material world, Lee submits a classic contribution to the great Atlantic tradition celebrating the restoration of a universalist cosmopolitan cultural viewpoint, highlighting the freedom and humanity in cultural distinctions."  

Congratulations to all the awardees and also to those whose work was nominated.  Together, they show how the multi-dimensional and complex field of working-class studies is not simply about the white working class in the U.S., but inclusive of the varied experiences of working-class life and culture both past and present.  Working-class studies draws strength from its intersectional, interdisciplinary, and international focus, and these works explicitly give voice to the working class in ways that are difficult to ignore. As the WCSA prepares to honor these awardees at its annual conference in June, I encourage you to consider adding these titles to your summer reading list.  

Michele Fazio

Michele Fazio is an associate professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke and is currently co-editing, with Christie Launius and Tim Strangleman, the Routledge International Handbook of Working-Class Studies.  Her research centers on the intersections among ethnicity, gender, and class with a particular focus on Italian American labor radicalism.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Single-Payer Health Care in California: Here’s What It Would Take [feedly]

Single-Payer Health Care in California: Here's What It Would Take
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/business/economy/california-single-payer.html

Universal state health coverage has rallied Democrats in the governor's race. But even with the state's size and wealth, it would be hard to achieve.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

How Is a Functioning Republic Possible?: What James Madison Had to Say... [feedly]

How Is a Functioning Republic Possible?: What James Madison Had to Say...
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/05/james-madison-the-federalist-papers-no-9httpavalonlawyaleedu18th_centuryfed09asp-it-is-impossible-to-re.html

James Madison: The Federalist Papers No. 9: "It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the... state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy...

...From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty.... It is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals.... If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible.

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve....

Montesquieu... explicitly treats of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government, and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.... "A CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC... by which several smaller STATES agree to become members of a larger ONE.... If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped.... Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it.... As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies...

 

James Madision: The Federalist Papers No. 10: "A faction... citizens... united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community...

...As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.... The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.... So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property....

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail....

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole. The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.... [But] either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.... A pure democracy... can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.... Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic... promises the cure for which we are seeking.... The delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country.... The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views.... The public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.... As each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts.... The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government.... Take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.... The same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic....

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists...



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Economic Update - An Unsustainable System - 05.27.18 [feedly]

Economic Update - An Unsustainable System - 05.27.18
http://economicupdate.podbean.com/e/economic-update-an-unsustainable-system-052718/


download
 (size: 107 MB )

Updates on decline of cities/private cities, freelancers' economy, why legalize sports betting now, Fiat-Chrysler-Porsche added to emissions cheating scandal, new federal jobs guarantee, Catholic University attacks tenure. Interview with Chris Hedges on unsustainable US system.




 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Kate Manne review of Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson is a kind of Trumper pretending to be a philosopher.  This is not economics, but you do not need to waste time reading any of Peterson's garbage after enjoying Kate Manne's first class review.



Reconsider the lobster

Jordan B. Peterson's 12 Rules For Life: An antidote to chaos was born as an answer to a question posed on the internet discussion forum Quora: "What are the most valuable things everyone should know?" Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, proposed a list of maxims, which became popular with Quora users. As Peterson tells us in his book's introduction ("Overture"), the list received 120,000 views and 2,300 "upvotes". "My procrastination-induced musings hit a nerve. I had written a 99.9 percentile answer." "You win Quora. We can just close the site now", read one comment, as recounted by Peterson.

Each of the ensuing chapters of 12 Rules is a series of meditations – or, less kindly, digressions – leading up to its titular rule, presented as the solution to a problem revealed therein about life and how to make order out of chaos. The chaos is in turn presented as a universal, ahistorical fact about the nature of Being or human existence. Given all this, it is striking how many of the discussions reduce to advice about how to win at something, anything, nothing in particular: and how not to be a "loser", in relation to others whose similarity to oneself is secured by the time-honoured narrative device of anthropomorphization, under a more or less thin veneer of scientism. Rule One is "Stand up straight with your shoulders back", to avoid seeming like a "loser lobster", who shrinks from conflict and grows sad, sickly and loveless – and is prone to keep on losing, which is portrayed as a disaster. Peterson:

When a defeated lobster regains its courage and dares to fight again it is more likely to lose again than you would predict, statistically, from a tally of its previous fights. Its victorious opponent, on the other hand, is more likely to win. It's winner-take-all in the lobster world, just as it is in human societies, where the top 1 percent have as much loot as the bottom 50 percent – and where the richest eighty-five people have as much as the bottom three and a half billion.

Critiquing these hierarchical structures and finding, when possible, a way to live outside of them in more co-operative ways are obvious alternatives for human beings about which Peterson says little.

Rule Four is addressed to those who might currently feel inadequate: "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today". Alternatively, if you're not winning the game you're playing, find another game at which to win. Then there is the odd, not infrequent, throwaway remark that betrays Peterson's fascination with ranking everything. When it comes to cats killed by cars, it is better to be torn apart by the engine they curled up in for the warmth rather than run over, for some reason. "Only loser cats die that way", he pronounces contemptuously of the latter, with an effect presumably intended to be jocular. Hierarchies turn up everywhere in Peterson's book – sometimes seemingly coming out of nowhere.

Peterson often writes in the first-person plural, with an effect either cosy or alienating, depending on whether or not you number among his chief addressees. One senses among his readers a version of his former self: a restless young buck from a small town in Alberta, Canada, looking to escape and achieve greatness in the wider world. "It was easier for people to be good at something when more of us lived in small, rural communities", he reflects. Strictly speaking, this seems false, or at least vulnerable to counter-examples. It was just easier to seem good relative to other people when one knew less about their exploits. "Someone could be homecoming queen. Someone else could be spelling-bee champ, math whiz or basketball star", Peterson reminisces. But since we have become digitally connected across the globe, "our hierarchies of accomplishment are now dizzyingly vertical". For Peterson, this makes giving up in despair all too tempting. He speaks at length in the voice of an imagined "internal critic", whom he has telling "us" things like this: "Your career is boring and pointless, your housekeeping skills are second-rate, your taste is appalling, you're fatter than your friends, and everyone dreads your parties. Who cares if you are prime minister of Canada when someone else is the president of the United States?"

But notwithstanding the mere existence of such great heights, we should ask: who in the world is likeliest to be experiencing vertigo at the moment? Peterson does not consider this question, but its answer is not far to seek: those with furthest to fall, given their historically great expectations. Privileged white men, all else being equal, who also happen to number disproportionately among Peterson's loyal readers.

This helps to explain Peterson's first, and to me most vivid, choice of anthropomorphized creature: the lobster, with whom readers are invited to identify, based on a supposedly shared obsession with territory and status (and also something about serotonin that seemed question-begging). The lobster is a bottom-feeder, fighting other lobsters for territory and food scraps. Lobsters who lose ground are miserable beasts, according to Peterson, who often wind up dead or worse. "If a dominant lobster is badly defeated, its brain basically dissolves. Then it grows a new, subordinate's brain – one more appropriate to its new, lowly position." And such a position is "not good", to echo one of Peterson's oft-repeated, oddly subjectless, evaluative verdicts. (Not good for whom? The answer isn't always obvious.) Peterson also betrays the gender of his number one envisaged lobster, and hence audience, when he writes that the

top lobster, by contrast – occupying the best shelter, getting some good rest, finishing a good meal – parades his dominance around his territory, rousting subordinate lobsters from their shelters at night, just to remind them who's their daddy. The female lobsters (who also fight hard for territory during the explicitly maternal stages of their existence) identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him. This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation. It's also one used by females of many different species, including humans.

Peterson's advice is primarily directed towards, and has resonated with, a very particular audience: those predominantly white, straight, cis, and otherwise privileged men who fear being surpassed by their historical subordinates – people of colour and white women, among others – and losing their loyal service. Greater equality of opportunity is of course a necessary condition and symptom of social progress. (Although it is very far from sufficient when it comes to social justice – and such progress is often concentrated in the upper echelons of society.) But new opportunities and better odds for at least some members of historically subordinate social groups cannot be expected to come as good news to all of history's traditional winners. It may result not only in disappointment and shame among some of them, but also resentment and violent outbursts among others. Peterson recognizes the existence of these corrosive reactions, but not their social locus. When it comes to diagnosing and treating these ills, he misses the mark spectacularly.

This is where Peterson is at his least perceptive and most pernicious, in my view. Rule Six might sound at the outset like an inoffensive over-generalization: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world". But the chapter opens on a very strange note. "It does not seem reasonable to describe the young man who shot twenty children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012 as a religious person." (Indeed not.) "This is equally true for the Colorado theatre gunman and the Columbine High School killers." (Again, granted.) "But", Peterson continues, in the teeth of such rational and moral appearances, "these murderous individuals had a problem with reality that existed at a religious depth." Peterson moves to support this eyebrow-raising – even while highly unclear – claim with a passage from the diary of one of the Columbine killers, Eric Harris:

The human race isn't worth fighting for, only worth killing. Give the Earth back to the animals, they deserve it infinitely more than we do. Nothing means anything [any]more.

On the basis of this and one other entry (which recommends extending the final solution beyond the Jews to the entire human race – or, "KILL MANKIND!" in Harris's formulation), Peterson diagnoses Harris and his ilk with a kind of existential crisis – a crisis in Being, which is dignified by the capital letter, and companions in misery such as Tolstoy at his most misanthropic (and suicidal), who dismissed human existence as "meaningless and evil". Following the passage from Harris above, Peterson writes:

People who think such things view Being itself as inequitable and harsh to the point of corruption, and human Being, in particular, as contemptible. They appoint themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting.

Eric Harris and Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook killer) and the like are thus held to be "the ultimate critics" of the moral value of human beings and our (mis)deeds – as opposed to nihilistic, in denying or rejecting the very existence of moral values, a distinction which makes an important difference here. Remarkably, Peterson even credits these mass shooters with despair about the inevitability of human suffering and moral evil. Given what such "killers tell us . . . in their own words, who would dare say that this is not the worm at the core of the apple?" asks Peterson. This rhetorical challenge is easily met, however. If this was the source of their angst, then why choose to do moral evil, and cause yet more suffering?

Some may resist all attempts to ascribe to such people an even semi-coherent moral outlook. But that would risk making the same mistake as Peterson does, when he ignores a few distinctive facts about those who commit such violence. First, he fails to acknowledge that these killers are overwhelmingly male, typically white, and otherwise privileged (straight and cis, in particular). Second, they often betray an obsession with being top lobster (many, for example, have also committed acts of intimate partner violence, which typically function to express and enforce male dominance). This makes them members of the very group to which Peterson's book is chiefly offering advice. The resulting discussion is not good, to put it mildly; it is highly irresponsible and deeply deceptive by omission.

If one clicks the link Peterson provides in an endnote, one finds that the next entry in Harris's journal begins thus:

wooh, different pen. HA!

alright you pathetic fools listen up; I have figured it out. the human race strives for exellence in life and community always wanting to bring more =good= into the comm. and nulify =bad= things.

Thus fortified by his new pen and this insight, Harris goes on to conclude:

People always say we shouldnt be racist. why not? Blacks ARE different, like it or not they are. they started on the bottom so why not keep em there. it took the centuries to convince us that they are equal but they still use their color as an excuse or they just discriminate us because we are white. Fuck you, we should ship yer black asses back to Afri-fucking-ca were you came from. we brought you here and we will take you back.

America=White. Gays . . . well all gays, ALL gays, should be killed. mit keine fragen. lesbians are fun to watch if they are hot but still, its not human. its a fucking disease. you dont see bulls or roosters trying to fuck do you? no, I didn't think so.

women you will always be under men. its been seen throughout nature, males are almost always doing the dangerous shit while the women stay back. its your animal instincts, deal with it or commit suicide, just do it quick.

In another entry, Harris indulges in a highly disturbing rape fantasy. Peterson completely neglects to mention any of this, or otherwise convey the fact that Harris was fixated on social hierarchies and desperate to be, or remain, on top of them. He was not, contra Peterson, someone who "believed that the suffering attendant upon existence justifies judgment and revenge" and who despaired because "human beings [are] a failed and corrupt species". Harris was a white supremacist, a vicious homophobe and a misogynist.

These are common and revealing moral co-morbidities of mass killers. (A few other salient examples: Dylann Roof, George Sodini, Marc Lépine – and more to follow.) Even when they do wax biblical, this need not be attributed to quasi-religious sensibilities, but rather the possibility they are projecting themselves into the highest position they can imagine – appointing themselves God, and wishing a pox on any mere mortal who fails to worship them. The virulently misogynistic, and also racist, mass shooter Elliot Rodger wrote:

Humanity has never accepted me among them, and now I know why. I am more than human. I am superior to them all. I am Elliot Rodger . . . . Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent . . . . Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god.

Rodger didn't really believe he was a god; on the contrary, he felt small, and was furiously over-compensating. He had previously written of feeling like "an insignificant little mouse" in the eyes of the girls who failed to grace him not only with sex, but also the "love and affection", and the social validation, he craved so sorely. Indeed, Rodger deemed it a "crime" that such women had collectively deprived him of these goods – choosing instead to "throw themselves" at the "obnoxious brutes" they preferred to him, "the supreme gentleman". Rodger declared: "On the day of Retribution, I will enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB (the University of California, Santa Barbara), and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there . . . . I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male. Yes". And Rodger tried to enact this plan, though he was partly foiled in its execution.

Such homicidal violence may indeed be a last resort to restore order and stave off chaos. But the chaos in question exists not in the fabric of some grand, impersonal, metaphysical reality; rather, it stems from a small tear in such an agent's hitherto dominant social position that undoes him – and makes him prone to take down others with him.

By way of last words in his so-called manifesto (really more of a memoir), Rodger went on:

When I think about the amazing and blissful life I could have lived if only females were sexually attracted to me, my entire being burns with hatred. They denied me a happy life, and in return I will take away all of their lives. It is only fair.

Peterson offers no effective antidote to the problem of the toxic masculine despair he reinforces and dignifies, having misrepresented it as a general and hence presumably equal opportunity crisis of Being. ("The stupidity of the joke being played on us does not merely motivate suicide. It motivates murder – mass murder, often followed by suicide. That is a far more effective existential protest.") He merely asserts that overcoming the thirst for vengeance in light of the world's unfairness is possible, somehow:

Truly terrible things happen to people. It's no wonder they're out for revenge. Under such conditions, vengeance seems a moral necessity. . . . . But people emerge from terrible pasts to do good, and not evil, although such an accomplishment can seem superhuman. I have met people who managed to do it.

As advice goes, this is less than helpful (especially since Peterson's subsequent examples are an Indigenous Canadian man, a woman, Gandhi and, in the following chapter, Jesus, among others). Peterson's suggestion (the overarching rule of this chapter, recall) is to clean up your own house and cease to do wrong, inasmuch as you know you are doing it, before criticizing others. But another point worth noting about the killers above is that, by and large, they felt entirely justified in their actions; they thought their victims deserved to be punished.

In April, ten people were killed, and many more injured, after a van ploughed into them in the streets of Toronto, the city where Peterson happens to teach. The majority of the victims were women, and the alleged killer, Alek Minassian, twenty-five, wrote on Facebook, minutes beforehand:

The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys. All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!

The term "incel" (or "involuntarily celibate") is a newish word for a considerably older problem, which has come on the heels of feminist social progress. It encompasses generally privileged, often youngish, men protesting the world's perceived unfairness, in their having been deprived of (read: not having) what they thought they would and should have been able to take for granted. The desirable women, the "Stacys", are held to favour the alpha males, "the Chads". And so-called "nice guys", betas, "supreme gentlemen" – or, more ominously self-proclaimed "incels" – take themselves to deserve more of these "hot" women's sexual, emotional, and moral attention, understood as a social commodity as well as currency to buy status.

Peterson's 12 Rules For Life is a fast-acting, short-term analgesic that will make many of his readers feel better temporarily, while failing to address their underlying problem. On the contrary, the book often fuels the very sense of entitled need which, when it goes unsatisfied, causes such pain and outrage. Peterson might have done a good thing by reaching and trying to talk young white men out of their unwarranted resentment, which is the predictable result of social norms changing for the better and the fairer. Some historically subordinate group members can sometimes now compete with and defeat the historically dominant person, who may subsequently have to master the art of losing gracefully. This might have been said with the candour, and sometimes ruthlessness, which Peterson clearly prides himself on being capable of elsewhere. Unfortunately, when it comes to this morally important battle, Peterson shrinks from conflict, and thereby avoids provoking – or improving – his readers.

Still, despite these and other objections, I agree with Peterson's last rule entirely: "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street". Unless they are a loser cat (i.e. dead), as perhaps goes without writing.



--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

China to Clear Qualcomm-NXP Once Confident of ZTE Deal [feedly]

A Rescue Plan for a Jobs Crisis in the Heartland

The national unemployment rate hit 3.9 percent in April, the lowest level since 2000. Still, wage growth has been and remains underwhelming. More alarming, America faces a historic crisis of male joblessness in what we call the Eastern Heartland, a band of states that runs from Louisiana north through to Ohio and Michigan.

Some of these places, like Detroit and Cleveland, were once industrial powerhouses that have been hammered by automation and an exodus of industrial employment to places with lower labor costs. Other places, like Mississippi, spent much of middle 20th century escaping from excruciating poverty, only to experience increases in joblessness over the past 20 years.

Federal policy can't bring the Rust Belt back to its former glory, and we shouldn't try to artificially relocate economic activity to less productive places. But we must do more to fight the scourge of long-term joblessness, and we should focus our efforts in the places where joblessness is most severe.

To meet this challenge, many economists have argued for a universal basic income or more generous earned-income tax credit. We would support an E.I.T.C. expansion. But the most direct way to encourage work is with a new wage subsidy that benefits workers and encourages companies to replace joblessness with employment.

The subsidy program should be more generous in struggling areas, like the Eastern Heartland, although even a flat nominal wage subsidy would deliver more bang in depressed areas with lower prices. Targeted employment subsidies aren't going to reverse the tectonic trends of regional change, but they can potentially change the hard crash of regional collapse into a softer landing.

The longstanding tendency of incomes to rise more quickly in formerly poor areas has now slowed or reversed. Divergence is replacing convergence. Migration has fallen and poor people are much less likely to move to richer areas. Moreover, the migrants who leave depressed areas are much more skilled than those who stay, depriving the area of their most likely economic leaders.

In Flint, Mich., over 35 percent of prime-aged men — between 25 and 54 — are not employed. In Charleston, W.Va., the joblessness rate for this group is 25 percent. These places represent some of the more extreme examples of what may be America's largest and least understood social problem: the rise of prime-aged male joblessness, which has reached over 15 percent for most of the past decade from under 6 percent for all of the late 1960s.

The Eastern Heartland is the epicenter of much of America's economic distress. Between 1965 and 2016, real gross domestic product in the Eastern Heartland increased by only 2.07 percent a year. Its relative G.D.P. would have been more than 50 percent higher had it grown at the rate of America's Coastal states and more than double had it grown at the rate of the Western Heartland states. The Eastern Heartland has suffered disproportionately from the opioid epidemic, and overall prime-aged male mortality rates are over 30 percent higher than for the rest of the country.

A Rescue Plan for a Jobs Crisis in the Heartland

By Edward L. Glaeser, Lawrence H. Summers and Ben Austin

Mr. Glaeser and Mr. Summers are professors of economics at Harvard, where Mr. Austin is a Ph.D. candidate.



As technological trends reduce the demand for less skilled labor, we must both strengthen American skills and encourage the employment of all Americans. The simplest way to encourage employment across America is just to add a few dollars into workers' hourly wages, which would effectively increase the national minimum wage without discouraging employers from creating new jobs. The benefit could go entirely to workers, or be split between workers and employers to increase the incentives to generate new jobs.

Subsidizing employment makes sense, because the suffering associated with not working appears far more profound than the pain associated with being part of the working poor. Two percent of prime-aged men earning over $50,000 report that they are unsatisfied with their lives. The share reporting such unhappiness rises to 4 percent among men earning between $35,000 and 50,000, and 7 percent for men earning less than $35,000. But the share of jobless men reporting such unhappiness is 18 percent.

The fans of programs that accept, and even encourage, joblessness, like universal basic income, seem to forget that human satisfaction doesn't come primarily from material comfort, but from purpose, a feeling of accomplishment and the social support that often occurs in a work environment. An America in which 40 or 50 percent of adults live without working, relying on the generosity of a federal handout, is a nightmare.

The earned-income tax credit has been effectively promoting employment for over 40 years, but its design makes it poorly suited to fighting the ocean of male joblessness. Its benefits are skewed strongly toward single-earners in families with children. Three-quarters of long-term jobless prime-aged men do not live in households with children, limiting their maximum credit to $510 in 2017. Of the men who do live in households with children, over 80 percent live with a spouse, and two-thirds of those spouses are working. The earned-income tax credit is a good policy, but it has little impact on jobless men.

Textbook economic theory suggests that the subsidy can be paid either directly to the employer or to the worker, and it will have equivalent effects since wages will adjust. But in practice, paying directly to the employer may do more for employment when wages are downwardly rigid because of explicit or implicit minimum wages. An employer-based system may also be easier to administer.

The main downside of subsidizing employment is the cost, and that's why regional targeting makes sense. The wage subsidy can be lowered in labor markets with low joblessness, and it should be phased out entirely for the prosperous and the long-term employed. The subsidy should be highest for workers who have been jobless for a long period, and for veterans, or for those overcoming a labor market disadvantage.

America's joblessness is a social disaster, and to fight that disaster our resources should be targeted toward the areas that suffer most. In the mid-20th century, we could trust in the free flows of capital and labor to equalize regional suffering, but those flows have dried up in the 21st century. We cannot bring back the Rust Belt, but we must do more to make sure that its residents have jobs.

Edward L. Glaeser and Lawrence H. Summers are professors of economics at Harvard, where Ben Austin is a Ph.D. candidate.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.




--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.