Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Annihilation Fountain Issue 09
_________ _______ ______
/___ ___\ / __ \ / ____\
/ / / /__\ / / /
/ / / __ / / __\
/ / / / \ / / /
/__/ /__/ /__/ /__/
THE ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN
A JOURNAL OF CULTURE ON THE EDGE...
TEXT ONLY - ISSUE #9
The Annihilation Fountain & TAF Copyright c 1997-99 Neil MacKay
ISSN 1480-9206
http://www.capnasty.org/taf/
the_annihilation_fountain@iname.com
CONTENTS:
---------
*SIDEKICK'S PHILOSOPHY: ON BEAUTY, COPROPHILIA, AND THE MIND-DEPENDENCE
OF THE COUAC
*THE INSTITUTION OF MOTHERHOOD
*DESTROY ALL STEPHENKINGS
*LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS
*YES, WILLIAM, YOU CAN BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT
*CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE
***********************************************************************
SIDEKICK'S PHILOSOPHY: ON BEAUTY, COPROPHILIA, AND THE MIND-DEPENDENCE
OF THE COUAC
by Paul Laurendeau
***********************************************************************
I: So you approve of this style of music?
HE: Of course.
I: And you find beauty in these modern tunes?
HE: Do I find beauty? Good Lord, you bet I do! How well it is suited to
the words! what realism! what expressiveness!
I: Every imitative art has its model in nature. What is the musician's
model when he writes a tune?
HE: Why not go back to the beginning? What is a tune?
-Denis DIDEROT, Rameau's Nephew, Penguin Classics, p. 97.
The year is 1958. The place is right in the middle of the reeds
section of Edward Kennedy ELLINGTON's Big Band, on some stage, in some
ballroom or concert venue, somewhere in America or Europe. The
protagonists are the tenor saxophonist Paul GONSALVES and the
clarinetist and alto saxophonist Russell PROCOPE. By the end of the
fifties, ELLINGTON's orchestra is in its "revival" phase. The seminal
features of its creativity fizzled away in the mid-forties with the
gradual departure of its most talented musical elements. But the
mythical Newport Jazz Festival of 1956 has set the Duke's men, whoever
they currently are, back on track. And all in all, the Duke ELLINGTON
Orchestra will perpetuate itself for at least another quarter of
century, playing everywhere in the Western World and Asia. Central
figures of that "revival" phase, newcomers of the comeback era, if one
may say, Paul GONSALVES is the guy who replaced Ben WEBSTER (Ah! Ben
WEBSTER, of course!), and Russell PROCOPE is the guy who joined the
band four years after the departure of Barney BIGARD (the great Barney
BIGARD, yes, yes. I see!). That is what they are. So should it be and
so be it. They play their parts in the gigs and they hold themselves
together. Steady and firm. They beautifully shadow-horn for a maestro
who brilliantly shadow-directs. GONSALVES is an elegant 38 year old,
polite, well dressed, sensitive, and friendly gentleman. His boss will
write of him years later: "In fact, his purity of mind suggests to me
that he would have made a good priest". PROCOPE, 50 years old, more
relaxed, more casual, more former-hobo-always-with-his-hat-on-even-
indoor, is the old self-taught wolf who howled everywhere during the
Jazz Years: Chick WEBB's Orchestra, Fletcher HENDERSON's Orchestra,
John KIRBY's Orchestra, name it. Both of them work very well and "can
be relied upon", as one says in the jargon of semi-improvised musical
performance. They are no Charlie PARKER or Sidney BECHET but hey, they
are no losers either. A subtle cluster of long-term has-beens and
perpetual wannabes: they are sidekicks. And, nobody knew that until
now, but, they always sit together to shine their instruments long
before the gig begins... the ideal conditions for a philosophical
dialogue.
Russell PROCOPE: Give me the white flag, cat. It's rag-time...
Paul GONSALVES (handing the rag he was shining his instrument with):
Tonight, we are going to give them Beauty, man.
PROCOPE: Without even knowing what Beauty is. Yeah, (imitating
Ellington). A-Flat! A-Flat!
GONSALVES: What do you mean not knowing what Beauty is. Are you all
right, my friend?
PROCOPE: I'm perfectly fine. But you, my cutie one, just dare to tell
me, in your own words, what Beauty is.
GONSALVES: I can't define exactly what it actually is, but I know for
sure that it objectively exists. I can feel it when it's there.
PROCOPE: Like a cigar on your lips or a turd in your ass when it's
getting urgent, I suppose. The notion is as thick and tangible as that
to you, I'm sure. I can see it on your face.
GONSALVES: All you see on my face for the moment is my absolute
annoyance when you indulge in that type of vulgar language. It is...
it is...
PROCOPE: Ugly?
GONSALVES: Precisely.
PROCOPE: I find it beautiful, personally.
GONSALVES: What? What are you talking about? What do you find beautiful,
Russell? The word turd or the object itself.
PROCOPE: (meditates a moment, staring at his instrument): The object,
I suppose.
GONSALVES: What a silly idea! You are a disgusting tramp.
PROCOPE: Oh Paul, don't be so stiff, buddy. There is fundamentally
nothing wrong with finding a turd beautiful or attractive. There are
precedents, you know. The renowned prophet EZEKIEL even ate some turds
at a certain moment of his career. A Bible reader like you should be
aware of such trivialities.
GONSALVES: The prophet EZEKIEL was ordered to "eat some", as you say,
by God himself. It creates some obligations to comply, you should admit.
PROCOPE: Well, I don't know. ABRAHAM was ordered to kill his son by the
same God of his, and we can feel his reluctance to do it on every
single line of that fragment of your sacred text. Even the God
eventually changed his supreme mind on the matter. But EZEKIEL? No my
friend, they don't tell us everything in that dammed story. I think
the guy was a shit-lover.
GONSALVES: Shit-lover! God changed his mind in his case too, you should
know. The human turds to be eaten by the prophet were eventually
replaced by ox turds.
PROCOPE: Oh, is that so? I see that you are well informed on the
matter! Correction acknowledged. I can understand the importance of
such a decision shift. Specially for a shit-lover.
GONSALVES: A coprophiliac, if you don't mind. I find that nicer to my
ears. Coprophiliacs exist... and you are one of them, obviously, to
force me to entertain that type of conversation when the gig is about
to start. (To the back seat of the reeds section). Guess what! Russell
is considering creating the Fan-Club of EZEKIEL!
UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: Fine, fine. Count me in!
PROCOPE: Paul, the question is more important than it may seem at first
sight. Think about it impartially. Consider the essence of things and
tell me. Is there such a difference between a turd and, say, a piece of
clay?
GONSALVES: (obviously meditating the question): There are major
similarities in color and texture. Both are shapeless and malleable. But
there is a crucial element that makes the distinction totally and
blatantly unambiguous.
PROCOPE: And what is that?
GONSALVES: The smell, my friend. Clay is odorless, whereas... well,
you know what I mean.
PROCOPE: OK. You have a point here. However... (he pauses)
GONSALVES: What? However what? Say it!
PROCOPE: I don't know. I hesitate. I'm reluctant to address such a
delicate issue with a distinguished gentleman like you...
GONSALVES: A distinguished gentleman who plays in a world-renowned
classy orchestra, namely the same orchestra you are playing in
yourself. So, please, cut the shit...
PROCOPE: It is the word!
GONSALVES: And say what you have to say.
PROCOPE: OK, it's a question.
GONSALVES: Fine.
PROCOPE: A question that requires an absolutely sincere answer.
GONSALVES: Absolutely sincere.
PROCOPE: Absolutely sincere?
GONSALVES: You have my word, cat. On my mother's head.
PROCOPE: Paul, tell me... No wait a minute. I'll make it simpler. I
will formulate it in the form of an aphorism followed by the question.
It will be easier.
GONSALVES: Whatever, my friend.
PROCOPE: The aphorism is: I love, I absolutely adore the odor of my own
farts and hate, detest those of any other human being I ever met.
GONSALVES: Oh!
PROCOPE: And the question is: Paul, aren't you in the exact same
situation?
(There is a pause. They both stare at each other for a short while and
start to laugh)
GONSALVES: (laughing): I must admit (laughing) that you, sonofabitch
(still laughing) got a point here. (Cooling down) Oh boy, what a night!
PROCOPE: So I take this as a yes.
GONSALVES: (still smiling): I'm afraid so, yes.
PROCOPE: So we are back to our starting point, cat. What is Beauty
exactly? My fart for me, yours for you. We got a problem...
GONSALVES: One minute. I like the smell of my farts but not the one of
my turds. There is a crucial distinction here.
UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: Hey, Paul! Is this another of your
philosophical dialogues with Russell? Smells strange this time!
PROCOPE: Are you so sure that you don't enjoy the smell of every single
thing generated by these superb guts and asshole of yours.
GONSALVES: (annoyed): What is that discussion anyway? Leave me alone,
you perverse coprophiliac.
PROCOPE: This is no coprophilia, brother. It's a purely esthetic matter
You claim that Beauty is stable, that it objectively exists. I answer
that the Beauty of the sniff is in the nostril of the sniffer.
GONSALVES: There is one more element to be added to that reasoning of
yours over that sordid example, I must say.
PROCOPE: And what is that?
GONSALVES: We enjoy sniffing exclusively what is generated from the
inner foundations of our intimate little self. In a word, we love what
we are.
PROCOPE: Excellent subsidiary observation. However you must not
generalize that subjectivist dimension excessively. For example, I
usually prefer your choruses to mine.
GONSALVES: Oh Russell, you...
PROCOPE: No, come on. Let's not digress on that old argument again. I
played in enough orchestras for more than thirty years to be able to
recognize a good musician when I see or hear one. I'm OK. I play my
part. But I'm also Johnny HODGES' sidekick on the alto line-up, so
gimme just a five minute break. Whereas you, man, there is something
very hip and unique to your sound.
GONSALVES: That is very nice of you to say. Since you require it, I
will stick to our initial discussion. You seem here, my dear Mister
PROCOPE, to admit some objective existence to Beauty. My choruses,
differently from my farts I presume...
PROCOPE: (laughs)
GONSALVES: ... make you experience stable esthetical sensations.
PROCOPE: Yes Paul. But the problem remains the same. Myself, and the
Duke also, we love your playing, and we consider that you are one of
the stars of our reeds section. But John BIRKS did not, You were not
esthetic to him.
GONSALVES: John BIRKS!
PROCOPE: Yes, John BIRKS! Dizzy GILLESPIE!
GONSALVES: But Russell! Please don't quote me in public on this.
But... but... What the Diz does is not music. It is ugly, man! That 's
why I quit his band and joined the Duke. It is him who was not
esthetic to me...
PROCOPE: Well...
GONSALVES: Look, no. Don't say well... We can agree on this at least
ARMSTRONG called his stuff Chinese music and he was damn right. This
bebop thing is just a bundle of... of... of couac.
PROCOPE: Of what?
GONSALVES: Of couac! I learned that word when we were in Paris last
month. Remember? Two phonies from the Hot Club of France came to see
me after the gig. They were hyper, man. Two psychos. The first one
said: "You made a terrible couac in the second chorus of Perdido".
PROCOPE: A terrible what?
GONSALVES: A couac, man. That's the way they call a false note over
there.
PROCOPE: A couac!
GONSALVES: Right. And I didn't have time to whisper a word before the
second phony jumps in, with an accent thicker than the first: "It was
not a couac, my poor friend. It was a very exploratory blue note, but
it was in complete conformity with the pace and the tonality of the
chorus".
PROCOPE: "exploratory blue note"...
GONSALVES: As I tell you. The couac-guy objected; "I'm a forty years
aficionado, Mister. I know my Perdido by heart. Top to bottom. It was
a blatant couac". The exploratory-blue-note-guy answered back: "If
that note was a couac, the complete works of Ben WEBSTER are an
integral cacophony, little man. You are missing the whole point."
PROCOPE: The ghost of WEBSTER again, hey...
GONSALVES: Mister Sax, himself. Yep. Story of my life. I'm a sidekick
too, you know...
PROCOPE: And who finally won the argument?
GONSALVES: No one as far as I can say. The bouncer had to kick them
out of the wing. They were starting a fight. They really meant business
around that couac issue, let me just tell you that. Anyway, all that
to say that GILLESPIE's music is couac to me. I cant stand it. The cat
is simply not in tune. Period. And he willingly refuses to ever be.
What do you think of his work yourself? Sincerely. Off-record.
PROCOPE: I don't know, man. There have been so many shifty changes over
all these years in the way music is played. When I was a child, by the
end of Wold War One, to play hot was often the same thing as to play
out of tune. The fanfare leaders were constantly begging their boys:
don't play hot! Stay in tune! You will put me in trouble. This is a
very demanding audience. Mind you, a bunch of hilbillies chewing
tobacco on wooden benches. What did they know about the new music?
About staying in tune, my violin teacher used to say...
GONSALVES: Russell, don't change the subject. Answer straight to me.
Mister out-of-tune GILLESPIE. Your judgement.
PROCOPE: As I say, I don't know, man. I really don't. Maybe these
bopers are opening new horizons of Beauty. Who knows?
GONSALVES: Who knows! You gotta be talking abstractly here, cat. You
don't say that as a musician. It's not possible!
PROCOPE: I admit that I'm speaking abstractly, yes. It's an excellent
way to formulate it, Paul. Look. Forget about the Dizzy-Man for a
minute. Our problem here is fundamental and straightforward, if not
simple. A reality is either in the world or in our mind.
GONSALVES: Or both.
PROCOPE: Well, both. Let's say: in our mind alone, or in the world
alone. Or in the world and reflected in our mind.
GONSALVES: I see that. In my mind alone: the superb hip chick I dreamed
about the other day. She was just perfect. Nice, beautiful, everything.
But I don't know her. She corresponds to no actually existing person.
If I ever meet her, I'll marry her right there. But I'm afraid she
exists only in my dreaming imagination.
UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: You better believe it!
PROCOPE: Excellent example. Keep on.
GONSALVES: In the world and reflected in my mind: say, my saxophone. I
see it. I feel it with my fingers and lips. I hear the sound of it.
But if I put it in its case, and the case in the closet,, my then
silenced saxophone continues to exist independently from my knowledge
of it and the memory of it I still carry in my mind. I can even forget
where it is and it is still there.
PROCOPE: Very good.
GONSALVES: In the world alone but in no mind: say, the hidden face of
the moon, or the center of the earth. They exist, they are there, but
nobody has ever had a look at them.
PROCOPE: Bingo!
GONSALVES: Right on! (They slap each other's hand).
PROCOPE: Now, where is Beauty?
GONSALVES: Where is Beauty?
PROCOPE: Yes, Paul. Where is that Beauty with a capital B, we are
supposed to give them tonight. Look at them (He discretely shows with
the mouthpiece of his saxophone the audience which is now slowly
entering the room). They're all here for "it".
GONSALVES: (staring at the room): They're some beautiful cats, man!
PROCOPE: You really find them people beautiful, Paul. You say it
constantly.
GONSALVES: Yes, actually I do find them people beautiful, as you say so
inelegantly....
PROCOPE: So that Beauty you are so apt at noticing, that you see even
when it is not completely there, where is it? In the world? In our
mind? Their minds? The world and the minds at the same time? Where?
GONSALVES: OK OK. I see the problem you raise here. Hold on. This is
kind of tricky. Let's proceed by elimination. First, in the world
alone: no. Because in order to be beautiful, it has to be perceived.
Second, in the mind...
PROCOPE: Wow, wow! You open a book and you see a beautiful photograph
of, say, the countryside. The sun shines. The little birds sing. There
is a lake. All the shebang. It moves you to tears.
GONSALVES: I see it.
PROCOPE: You close the book. The picture is not beautiful anymore in
the closed book?
GONSALVES: (hitting lightly his forehead with the mouthpiece of his
instrument): Oh, that is tough man! A hard decision to make! Let toss
that one aside for a minute. What about: in the mind alone?
PROCOPE: This is my option. I want you to know it already.
GONSALVES: That is your option?
PROCOPE: Oh yes (closing his eyes and touching his forehead). How did
he put that again? Let me quote it for you. I will premise that I do
not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion.
Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or
deformed, ordered or confused.
GONSALVES: No way, man! Who said that? BEETHOVEN when he did not want
to clean his room?
PROCOPE: The Dutch philosopher Benedict de SPINOZA.
GONSALVES: Whooahh!
PROCOPE: In a letter written around 1665 to a cat by the name of Henry
OLDENBURG. One more?
GONSALVES: Sure!
PROCOPE: Listen to this (he lifts his head and closes his eyes). Just a
second... Beauty, my dear Sir, is not so much a quality of the object
beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or
shorter, or if our constitution were different, what now appears
beautiful to us would seem misshapen, and what we now think misshapen
we should regard as beautiful. The most beautiful hand seen through
the microscope will appear horrible. Some things are beautiful at a
distance but ugly near... I'm losing the rest. That is from a letter
to Hugo BOXEL written in 1674.
GONSALVES: Gee man. How can you quote all that stuff by heart. You are
a brain, man.
PROCOPE: I can't take credit. It's the photographic memory of the
mediocre songster, my friend. To quote and to understand are two very
different things. In philosophy as in music. Let me tell you that
GONSALVES: Hmmm... There are times I would just love to have your
photographic memory!
PROCOPE: Don't wish too hard for it. It would alter your improvisation
capacities, my Paul. The worse musicians are the ones with a goddamn
photographic memory. They are senseless songsters with an old bag of
tricks. They...
GONSALVES: (holding one hand to interrupt him): Ho! Never mind! Cut it
out! Enough about the whining songster, OK. So in the views of Milords
SPINOZA & PROCOPE, Beauty is only in our imagination. (Monkeying
PROCOPE) It is an effect in him who beholds it. Frankly you surprise
me this time.
PROCOPE: How come? It's nothing more than the fart effect, brother. The
pleasure coming from smelling my own fart is my own personal subjective
emotion. No other living soul shares it.
GONSALVES: What about you liking my music more than yours.
PROCOPE: No, Paul. I like your performance more than mine. But we are
playing, you and me, the same antiquated music. We are in the same band,
rolling the same gig forever. We are together, strapped in the same
esthetical faded ribbon, as opposed to, say, GILLESPIE, or RACHMANINOV,
or that new wig-wagging Elvis PRIESTLEY guy. We, PROCOPE and GONSALVES,
modest and laid-back Ellintonian saxophonists, manufacture the same
music. You simply perform it better than I do.
GONSALVES: We are two ass-holes generating collectively the same
team-worked fart. Is that what you are telling me?
PROCOPE: You said it this time. (Louder) And we all proudly stand up
together when the time comes to blow it out. Hey, boys!
UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: By all means, Russell, cat, boy!
GONSALVES: No, but wait. How can Beauty be in the mind alone if what
triggers it is always in the world. The sound of the reeds section, the
colors and shapes of the photographs you were talking about.
PROCOPE: Well, in the mind alone is a very shitty formulation.
GONSALVES: I can see that. It is quite immoral, in a way. It makes our
mind look like some travel satchel or something.
PROCOPE: Precisely. To argue my point I would rather say that Beauty is
mind-dependent.
GONSALVES: Mind-dependent. Just that...
PROCOPE: Yes, cat, just that. For Beauty to be experienced you need
minds, possibly strictly human minds, to interact with whatever these
minds will judge beautiful.
GONSALVES: Hmm. I'm afraid there is a couac in your reasoning, big
brother.
PROCOPE: Alright. What is it?
GONSALVES: My couac in the second chorus of Perdido in Paris.
PROCOPE: What about it?
GONSALVES: Well, it was obviously grasped by minds. But the mind of
Parisian Phony Number One called it a couac, whereas the mind of
Parisian Phony Number Two called it "exploratory".
PROCOPE: Then?
GONSALVES: Then your mind-dependence story falls apart if it gets
scrambled like that and looses all consistency, even between two very
careful fans who, after all, share identical musical tastes and heard
the exact same chorus.
PROCOPE: Why so? Let suppose that Number One called it a couac because
he found it ugly and Number Two called it "exploratory" because he
found it superbly beautiful.
GONSALVES: That is exactly my point.
PROCOPE: Well that is not an obvious point at all. If a couac is a
false note. It could be argued that it is the manifestation of some
sound disorder external to any esthetic judgement. The same way, for
example, a false ball is a ball moving outside of the diamond, as we
can all see, independently from any inter-subjective interpretative
debate, in an objective disordered way. But I premise that that idea
of disorder is something we imagine strictly because we did not grasp
yet the more fundamental order of things.
GONSALVES: SPINOZA, hey!
PROCOPE: Precisely.
GONSALVES: But you got a big problem here, man.
PROCOPE: What's that?
GONSALVES: It's a foul ball man.
PROCOPE: What is a foul ball?
GONSALVES: What you call a false ball, it's a foul ball.
PROCOPE: What are you talking about? My violin teacher used to call
that a false ball.
UNKNOWN MUSICIAN ON THE BACK SEAT: False! Foul-play, fool man!
GONSALVES: Well he was a violin teacher, obviously! Maybe SPINOZA would
not accept to say that he deformed a word , or confused two words, but
I think that's what he did! And you with him.
PROCOPE: Its a foul ball? You sure? I've always called that a false
ball... since my childhood. False ball, Paul. Its... its nicer than
foul ball...
GONSALVES: Perhaps it is nicer to you, friend. But, personally when I
hear that type of English I call it broken, not nice. Obviously, as I
said earlier, we love what we are and if we are wrong, we love wrong!
Now this being said, I am about to commit my major act of generosity
of the day, man. I will, for a very brief moment of my so short
existence, imagine that a foul ball is called a false ball, in order
to permit to my excellent friend Russell, who claims that he can
explain to me the most subtle esthetic distinguos conceivable when he
does not even speak his mother tongue properly, to casually end up his
brilliant piece of reasoning, how is that?
PROCOPE: (relieved) Paul, you are a prince. Your magnanimous generosity
is proverbial.
GONSALVES: So, what about that... false ball?
PROCOPE: (still puzzled): Well... Where was I now?
GONSALVES: The idea of disorder is supposed to be a product of our
imagination. You premise that that idea of disorder is something we
imagine strictly because we did not grasp yet the more fundamental
order of things. Its my turn to quote a genius, genius...
PROCOPE: Yes, yes...
GONSALVES: Then, what about the false ball? Aren't you contradicting
your good pal SPINOZA here? Since everybody in the stadium saw the
so-called false ball fly aside, we don't imagine its movement! You and
your violin teacher call it false for a reason. The rest of humanity
call it foul probably for quite the same reason: it's not straight,
it's not satisfactory.
PROCOPE: Well, maybe we should all rename it! Let us simply call it a
curved ball, a deviant ball or whatever descriptive name like that. You
withdraw the notions of falsity or foulness from it, you describe its
movement more accurately, you see more clearly its status in the
broader order of the game, and SPINOZA is still right to say that to
call it foul or false is a judgemental trick of our imagination.
GONSALVES: Hmm... Debatable... But let suppose I grant it. The idea of
foul in foul ball is obviously of a judgemental nature. If, in my
proverbial magnanimous generosity as you say, I admit some intellectual
accuracy to the connection between the two words made by your violin
teacher and yourself, I'm forced to open myself to the possibility that
the idea of false could be... a false idea. Fine. Back to the couac
versus "exploratory blue note" argument now?
PROCOPE: Well, to address it more precisely, I just have to adjust my
initial aphorism. I should say: Beauty and Ugliness are mind-dependent
Since both are dependent on specific subjective minds, debates
constantly occur between different subjective minds on the status of
Beauty or Ugliness of a given object.
GONSALVES: Not bad, big cat! I can see that. They fought over opinions
rather than over the understanding of a fact of the world.
PROCOPE: Beautifully said, if I may say. See, there is a point on what
your two Parisian fans did not debate: the mere existence of that note,
its presence in the chorus. Neither of them said I heard nothing, what
was another possibility for another argument... No, both agreed on the
presence of that controversial note. It is because the sound of that
note is not mind-dependent. Its Beauty or Ugliness is.
GONSALVES: One minute. You are losing me here. Granted the dependence
of the sound's Beauty or Ugliness. But the sound itself has to be
perceived by a listener with ears and a mind in order to exist. What
if one of these Parisian phonies would have denied the mere existence
of the controversial note, as you just said?
PROCOPE: Not an issue. The Duke would have told you after the gig if
the note had been performed or not, in a snap! To support his already
highly reliable perception, he could even have used the testimony of
the other musicians. The existence or non existence of that note would
have been clarified, because it was or was not. No fluctuation. No
alternative.
GONSALVES: OK. Agreed. I can easily imagine the Duke and his men
getting impartially to the bottom of that couac inquiry!. Nevertheless,
I maintain that a sound has to be perceived by a listener with ears
and a mind in order to exist. Yours, mine, the fans', the Duke's...
anybody's, but somebody's!
PROCOPE: Where did you get that idea, Paul? Look, did you see these new
portable tape recorders? Buster had one in his room the other day.
GONSALVES: Yes.
PROCOPE: Well, you take your sax and play Turkey in the Straw, and
Buster records you on his portable tape recorder. Do you see that?
GONSALVES: I see that.
PROCOPE: Then bring the recorder to the recording studio and instead of
sitting on the stool in front of the mike with your sax, put the
recorder and start it.
GONSALVES: Done.
PROCOPE: Then have the disc recording technician start his recording
device, and both of you get your asses out of the studio before your
ears and mind perceive a single note. What happens?
GONSALVES: Turkey in the Straw gets transferred directly from the
portable recorder to the disc.
PROCOPE: Without the intervention of any perceiving mind during the
process. These combinations of sounds are popping and cracking
independently from any mind or consciousness. They are in the world,
just like your sax, in its case, in the closet.
GONSALVES: But hey, these devices don't know that this specific tune is
titled Turkey in the Straw.
PROCOPE: No they don't. Because this title is mind-dependent. The same
way the words false and foul are mind-dependent, and can therefore be
mixed up only by thinking minds, not by recording devices. The
recording devices of the studio have also no clue at all of the fact
that they are recording music either. Because the mere reality of
music is mind-dependent.
GONSALVES: Oh man! This is getting too heavy for me, man!
PROCOPE: Why? Look. Bring Buster's tape recorder in the wood. It has
batteries, you know. Turn it on for the animals. What do they make of
your Turkey in the Straw? What do they hear? Noise, my friend. Only
noise. And they are scared shitless and escape. Hegel mentioned
somewhere these animals which have listened to all the tones in some
music, but to whose senses the unison, the harmony of their tones, has
not penetrated, That's exactly what it is. To a raccoon, your finest
solos are not music, but strictly auditive annoyance, my brother.
GONSALVES: OK, Mister Hegel PROCOPE, Sir, what about the other so
called arts: painting, drawing, sculpture?
PROCOPE: Mind-dependent.
GONSALVES: Wow! One minute! A statue of Russell PROCOPE playing his
outstanding clarinet is erected in a square in Paris. Do you see it?
PROCOPE: Shit, man! I would love to!
GONSALVES: It would be a totally realistic project, man. They love
clarinetists over there. You know it.
PROCOPE: If you say so.
GONSALVES: It is a superb statue of you. A bronze. Your exact replica.
Same size, same expression when you play. Everything. A marvel of
figurative art. It is like you being there, playing clarinet on a
small pedestal in that small intimate square in Paris, with trees and
so on. Do you see it?
PROCOPE: If you insist, yes.
GONSALVES: The pigeons see it too. It is exactly your shape and size.
But they quickly recognize it as a statue despite its eloquent realism.
So, they are not frightened by it. They go perch on it.
PROCOPE: They even shit on its head and face. So what? They do not
recognize it as "a statue", but rather as a non-human, safe, non-moving
solid structure. They care a lot about safe solid structures of a
certain height. They look for them. Such structures are part of their
personal dharma, if one may say. On the other hand, they give jack-shit
about the notion of a bronze imitation of a human being crafted for an
artistic purpose. These ideas are totally foreign to them.
GONSALVES: (scratching his head): You reproduce the mentality of a
pigeon in a quite convincing manner, I must admit.
PROCOPE: (throws the rag to him): Clean your instrument, Mister Funny
Guy. The gig is about to begin.
(A short silence)
GONSALVES: (shining his saxophone): If I may come back to coprophilia.
PROCOPE: Shit, man! You like it more than I do, obviously!
GONSALVES: No. Take it easy, man! If I follow your reasoning,
coprophilia is the confirmation of the mind-dependence of the Beauty
of the turd.
PROCOPE: Absolutely. That mind-dependence is constant for every
subjective mind, but allowing the idea and the sensation of Beauty or
Ugliness to fluctuate from mind to mind, or from group of minds to
group of minds.
GONSALVES: And a couac is nothing but a musical turd...
PROCOPE: ...susceptible to be energetically defended as incredibly
beautiful by sincere and convinced couacophiliacs, some of them as
renowned as the Dizzy-Man.
GONSALVES: (sighs)
PROCOPE: Oh Yes, my Paul. And you, the performer, you stay a hit as
long as the mind-dependence of their esthetic pulsions gives some
focused collective consistency to their perverse orientation toward
your music. Beauty...
(Duke ELLINGTON enters on stage. The audience applauds)
GONSALVES: Quick man. Here's the Duke. (They both stand up, along with
the rest of the reeds section)
Duke ELLINGTON: Ladies and gentlemen, we are all so pleased, so
honored. So gratified to welcome you in that incredibly beautiful
Grand Theatre. You are fantastic and we love you all!
PROCOPE: (sliding the reed between his lips, whispering): The first
couac of the evening...
GONSALVES: (sliding the reed between his lips, whispering): What's that
theatre again?
TO BE CONTINUED
NOTA BENE
I want to thank my colleague and friend Louise RIPLEY for her precious
help.
Russell PROCOPE quotes SPINOZA in the 1883 Bohn edition, reprinted
three years before his current gig. He does not remember that, but his
two quotes on beauty are on page 290 and 382 respectively. Always
reading these books instead of rehearsing. Strange cat...
Spinoza, B. de (1955),On the Improvement of the Understanding - The
Ethics
-Correspondence, New York, Dover Publications, 420p. ISBN 0-486-20250-X
-initially published in 1677, English edition of 1883.
He quotes HEGEL from the original London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner &
Co. edition of 1892, which was to be reprinted with no alteration five
years after his gig. The remarks on the effects of music on animals is
at the middle of the so-called prefatory note, on a page paginated xv.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1963), Lectures on the History of Philosophy, London,
Routledge and Kegan Paul; New York, The Humanities Press, vol.1, 487p.
ISBN 0-8032-7271-5 - published in 1840, English edition of 1892.
The quote from Edward Kennedy ELLINGTON provided in the introductory
epigram can be found under the title Paul GONSALVES in the so called
Dramatis Felidae of the ACT FIVE of his autobiography. The portraits of
GONSALVES and PROCOPE are respectively on pages 221 and 222 of the
reprinted edition. That is actually particularly ironic because it
makes them look like Mister Number Two Two number One, and Mister
Number Two Two number Two.
Ellington, E. K. (1973), Music is my Mistress, New York, Da Capo Press,
523p. ISBN 0-306-80033-0 - initially published in 1973, reprint.
***********************************************************************
THE INSTITUTION OF MOTHERHOOD
by MARY STASIUK
***********************************************************************
The emergence modern industrial capitalism transformed European feudal
society from a society with a relatively stable social order with rigid
social roles based on obligation and responsibility, to a society
wherein the vast majority became dependant on wages and the mercies of
contractual obligation, or social policy, to remedy the worst
vulgarities of capitalism. Using the Marxist conceptualisation of
social relationships being formed around modes of production and
commerce, "mothering", or the work of reproduction has since been
informed by the needs and neglect of capitalism. Mothering has not been
recognised or validated as being a necessary part of production and
commerce. Women's "private" reproductive and childrearing labour in
modern welfare states does not entitle them to public recognition as a
social contributor. Women who are already marginalized by other factors
such as; poverty, race, single parenthood, and sexual orientation,
experience the marginalization of motherhood more acutely.
In North America, the prototypical "good mother" is likely to be white,
married, not working in a job that takes her away "too much" from her
parenting responsibilities; has only one or two children, and they do
not have any physical defects or behavioural problems. She conceived
her children and is raising them in a heterosexual relationship; and
she and her spouse are older than 20 years of age and are of the same
ethnic and racial background. The more a mother deviates from this
prototype, the more likely that she and her mothering practices will be
marginalized (Coll et al. 1998. Pg.6)
Further oppression of women occurs when mothers are blamed for their
children's problems and larger societal problems that are structural
and beyond their scope. This blame creates further damage when mothers
internalise this pervasive personal and intellectual isolation and
marginalization. Cultural persciptiveness about the image of the "good
mother" further marginalizes women who are mothering with diverse
circumstances.
The definition of the "good mother" is ideologically charged in our
society and has changed over time to suit the changing needs of the
capitalist nation. In Ontario in 1916, the Bureau of Child Welfare was
established as part of an effort to improve high infant mortality rates
and the general poor health of Canadian men. The poor health of
Canadian men became evident when a substantial proportion of potential
recruits were rejected on the basis of poor health, when signing up for
military service in World War 1.
Although poverty, overcrowding and malnutrition were acknowledged
contributors to the problem, the intervention direction was almost
exclusively an individual approach directed at mothers. This was an era
before pasteurisation and widespread availability of sterilised baby
formula, so, women were encouraged to breastfeed and set aside work in
the paid labour force or any other responsibility that interfered with
breastfeeding.
During the 1920's and 30s, "scientific" child care was implemented
which corresponded with the expansion of science and the medical
profession. Every mothering activity was to be carefully regimented
and monitored. Feeding, diapering and bathing were to be dictated "by
the clock". Mothers were warned against relying upon their "maternal
instincts", and kissing of young children was forbidden as it was
believed to spread germs. The reality of poor women was ignored when
advice was given about hiring help for six weeks postpartum, and living
accommodations. One prominent health crusader, Helen MacMurchy wrote in
her pamphlet, "Never let the baby sleep with anybody...A flat is not a
good place for a baby"(Arnup et al, 1986 pg. 202)
A brief time during World War II, was the ony period of time that
Canada endorsed a national daycare program. The definition of a "good"
mother at this time, was a mother who worked in an area where there was
a shortage of male labour. The end of the war saw an abrupt change and
women were forced to hand their jobs back to men. In keeping with the
needs of the state, they were encouraged to stay home, have babies and
become consumers.
By the 1950's and 60's the medicalization of childbirth had reached its
height and bottle-feeding of infants in North America had become more
common than breastfeeding. Women were routinely sedated to the point of
missing the birth of their baby, and at the hospital, mothers were most
likely not given the chance to breastfeed. Companies such as Gerber and
Carnation benefited and expanded from women relinquishing the task of
infant feeding to them. The institution of motherhood changed
drastically in the first half of the 20th century, and can be seen to
have been informed by the dictates of national and commercial
interests.
The therapeutic or individual approach of women in social work has
historically focused on women helping "other" women to be better
mothers. In London, England of the late 1800's, women from the middle
and upper classes had become an active presence in the lives of the
poor. Young privileged women actually yearned for the slums. For women
enmeshed in Victorian gentility, exploring London poverty added zest
and romance to their otherwise staid existences. And thanks to London's
excellent regional railway network, ladies and gentlemen could combine
work with the poor with the routines of middle-or upper-class life
(Ross 1993).
From the British perspective, the field of social work appears to have
sprung from the need for recreation or diversion of the privileged
class. And if we think that the profession of social work in Canada has
come along way from offering a diversion for privileged women, we need
look at the research that points out that white women were the group
most to benefit from affirmative action policy in Canada. Along with
the reality that social workers, like other professional, middle class,
white women have children, and their maintenance of middle class
participation in society, is dependant on domestic workers (nannies)
of colour.
Becoming a mother tends to have different antecedents for women of
different social classes. Compounded by women's different educational
and income-earning resources and lack of social support in raising
children, it also has different consequences for how women experience
social citizenship. Policies with the 'regular' worker in mind do not
serve women well(Vosko, 1996 in Evans and Werkerle 1997). Middle class
women can experience motherhood and look forward to a pension from
their participation in the recognised labour force. While women who are
single parents on assistance, or who are working class and unable to
afford the cost of childcare, are likely to experience poverty and old
age at the same time.
Social citizenship, is shaped by women's roles as mothers, carers and
paid workers and is constricted by the ideology and reality of women's
economic dependency. Claims made through social assistance on the basis
of 'citizen-mother' are accorded neither the degree of legitimacy nor
the level of benefits that accompanies 'worker' claims through social
insurance(Evans 1997). Women who are "working" in paid labour are
entitled to make limited claims employment insurance. Women who are
caring for a child already are afforded no such claims. The changing
images of women as mothers' and women as 'workers' that underpin income
security play a defining role in relations between women and the
welfare state.
This worker-mother dichotomy is also played out in the class and race
tensions in the welfare mother characterisation. At the core of this
characterisation is the patriarchal force that struggles to control
women's sexuality and reproduction. Moral panic around the issue of
welfare mothers, is more about children being perceived as primarily
men's children, produced through women's bodies, than it is about poor
black mothers creating a drain on the welfare state. According to Coll,
Surrey and Weingarten (1998), Ronald Reagan's family policies were as
much about shoring up patriarchy as they were about establishing
capitalism. Ensuring that women as mothers do not raise children
independently is about maintaining the gendered nature of hetero-
sexuality and the economic dependency that must follow.
In the United States the reality is that few adolescents engage in sex
in order to become parents and thereby claim welfare or housing
subsidy(Furstenberg, 1992, p. 240 in Coll et al. 1998). Some theorists
argue that unwed women's claims on welfare are in fact caused by the
failure of the capitalist state to generate full employment. Male
unemployment has made it impossible for many young men to support
families. Contrary to the myth of the black single mother on welfare,
the increase in unmarried birth-rates in the United States has occurred
amongst white women(Coll, Surrey and Weingarten 1998).
Linda McQuaig (1998) argues that high unemployment in Canada is
desirable and maintained by banks and other financial power brokers,
who benefit from the high interest rates and low inflation that
accompany high unemployment. The desire for high unemployment and the
consequential inability of young males to support families, may
indicate that if the free market considers unemployment to be a benefit,
the state will have to take over supporting children. For women who are
forced to depend on government assistance, the power and capriciousness
of husbands is being replaced by the arbitrariness, bureaucracy and
power of the state, the very state which has upheld patriarchal power
(Coll et al. 1998).
Among Fabian circles of the late-nineteenth-century England, one woman
did have a vision that would place motherhood as a compensated and
acknowledged part of patriarchal, capitalist society. Eleanor Rathbone
formulated the Endowment of Motherhood Movement which proposed the idea
that "society" rather than the "male parent" should pay directly for
the "cost of renewal". There would be a well funded set of health
services for mothers and children as well as a new method for the
national distribution of income that acknowledged the wife-mother's
social contribution. State subsidies to mothers would eliminate the
demeaning "economic dependency of the married woman" which Rathbone's
Family Endowment Committee saw as the badge of female "subjection"
(Ross, 1993).
The "family wage" was to be replaced by a new system in which wages for
both male and female employees would be aimed at the support of only
one dependant, and state agencies would supply wives with housekeeping
fund based on the number of children they cared for. Money issued to
mothers would be in recognition of the social value of the work they
were doing as mothers.
This endowment notion was viewed as controversial but reasonable in
1919, however, by the mid 1920's, Rathbone's ideas began to lose appeal.
The only tangible result of the Family Endowment movement was a token
mothers allowance which was granted in 1945. Although it is difficult
to believe that such a woman centred proposal would ever gain ground in
a capitalist, patriarchal society, this kind of endowment plan had the
potential of evolving society into one that would see the engendered
division of the work of reproduction ended. While women involved in
this movement were likely to have supported the maternal superiority of
women as caregivers, the ideal consequence of their plan, would have
been the result of men becoming equal parents. Thus allowing women to
participate equally in the benefits of society outside the home while
men shared domestic work equally.
The present reality in Canadian families, is a far cry from equality.
While women are participating in the workforce more than ever, and
continue to earn less than men, studies have repeatedly shown that they
still retain primary responsibility for work in the home (Luxton 1990,
Michelson 1985, 1988; Bourdais et al., 1987). Over two-thirds (68 per
cent) of employed women with children under 6 years of age worked
full-time in 1991. Yet, Eighty-three per cent of women spend an average
of 2.25 hours a day on housework, compared with just 50 per cent of
employed men who spend an average of 1.75 hours a day doing housework.
When it comes to meal preparation, 78 per cent of women had sole
responsibility. In the areas of cleaning and laundry, 77 percent of
women were burdened with this task. (Statistics Canada, 1992d:4; taken
from Evans and Werkerle 1997)
Homeless single mothers can count on little of no recognition of their
special needs of mothers. According to 1995 American statistics, 79% of
homeless families in 29 major cities were headed by single parents. In
these predominantly female led families, 59% of women said
unavailability of childcare was a barrier to gaining employment and a
home. Yet Canada and the United States have no national system of
childcare like other countries such as France and Sweden. This lack of
structural supports corresponds with the dominant American belief
system, that it is the moral fabric of individuals, not the social and
economic structure of society, that is taken to be the root of the
problem. Social activists close to the issues would disagree;
"As women who have worked with homeless mothers for more than 25
years among us, we reject this view [individualised] of the
roots of mothers' homelessness. We believe that social,
political, and economic factors far beyond individuals' control
create poverty, and we believe poverty creates the homelessness
of mothers.(Coll et al, 1998 pg11)"
There are important differences between the ways it which working women
and middle class women experience motherhood. These differences were
reported by McMahon in 1995, from data gathered in 1988-1989, through
in-depth interviews with 59 mothers living and working in the metro-
politan Toronto area. Middle-class women indicated that they had to
achieve maturity before having a child, while working-class women saw
themselves as achieving maturity through having a child. Motherhood was
taken more for granted among working-class women, while for middle
class women motherhood was seen more as a lifestyle choice.
The average age working-class became mothers was 22.1, while for
middle-class women it was 30.5. Middle-class women do not typically
give birth in their teens or early 20's when they have little post-
secondary education and limited work experience. Middle class women do
not typically become welfare mothers. Seventy-one per cent of all
middle-class women planned their first pregnancies while only 46% of
working-class women planned their first pregnancy.
It is not early childbearing itself, that causes poverty, but the
reality that women in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom,
who become mothers in their teens come predominantly from groups of
women who are already economically, educationally, and economically
disadvantaged. It has been difficult for middle-class people to
understand how motherhood is viewed so positively by many economically
disadvantaged women. However, for these women, motherhood may offer a
means of (temporary) liberation from dreary work (Griffin, 1989) and
remains one of the most valued aspects of the feminine role. Middle-
class women, on the other hand, can find valued adult identities and
self-esteem in the roles and relationships of advanced education or
professional training (Rubin, 1976, p, 41; Sidel, 1990, p150).
Rubin (1976) argues that accidental pregnancies among young working-
class women are often not truly accidental. She contends that, the
emotional pain of growing up in families scarred by poverty, creates
particular urgent needs to escape parental control, to assert adult
identity, and to find safety and nurturance. Rubin's assertion that
accidental early pregnancy is chosen on some sort of conscious level by
working class, seems like one more way to blame individual women for
the larger structural issues of poverty in which they exist.
However, Roddy Doyle's portrayal of Paula in his novel The Woman Who
Walked into Doors, illustrates how one working-class woman's need to
escape poverty, parental control and seek safety and nurturance in her
own family, put her at risk. Paula had a desire to escape a family in
poverty as well as the hopelessness of her future prospects, which was
created out of being placed in a stream of school that she described as
"the dopes, the thicks...nearly retarded" The destruction of her hopes
for the future can be seen in this passage;
"One day I was Mrs Paula Spencer, a young wife and soon to be a
mother, soon moving into a new house, in a new place, making my
husband's dinner, timing it so it would be just ready for when
he came in from work and had a wash...was a young, attractive
woman with a loving, attractive husband who was bringing home
the bacon with a smile on his handsome face. I was loving and
loved, sexy and pregnant. Then I was on the floor and that was
the end of my life. The future stopped rolling in front of me.
Everything stopped."(Doyle 1996, pg168)
Although spousal abuse is by no means confined to the working class,
working class mothers like Paula are more likely to lack the resources
to leave an abusive situation. The younger age that working class
women become mothers increases the likelihood that they will be
economically dependant upon their spouses.
Mothers like Paula, who are seriously compromised in their ability to
access social resources are blamed, mis-seen, or vilified. It is
precisely in the context of the unrealistic demands placed on
contemporary mothers that marginalization of mothers and their
mothering practices take place. Marginalization is the social
phenomenon of being diminished and devalued in comparison to others, or
having one's ideas, feelings, practices or actions rendered less valid
or useful in relation to a dominant ideal. Value is placed on the
experiences of those in the Centre, and less value, no value, or a
negative value is placed on those pushed to the margins(Coll et al.
1998).
Those who are marginalized also resist, motherhood as resistance can
also be seen as creating a counter-culture. Mothering to persisting in
practising one's own language, religion, health-care, community or
family against the dominant ideals, is resistance. Enduring on-going
hardship as mothers do, while refusing to give up one's belief or life,
is resistance. As a member of a marginalized culture, raising one's
children to understand and to live in both their own and the dominant
culture, is resistance(Stacey 1997 from Coll et all. 1998).
The theme of motherhood as resistance and creation of a the counter-
culture of motherhood, comes across clearly in these letters published
as "Litters" in the Spring 1997 issue of the rural Ontario magazine;
The Compleat Mother: The Magazine of Pregnancy, Birth & Breastfeeding.
"I'm a labor and delivery nurse working in a toxic environment
(hospital). Just birthed my third child at home much to my
co-workers' disapproval..."
Lisa Lilley, Berlin Maryland
"If there were any justice in this lunatic asylum we call our
world, I would send you ten million dollars and say give me and
my next three generations of daughters life time subscriptions.
But, sadly there is no justice and I have to beg for a free
subscription.
Anne V. Peyterek, Chicago, Illinois
"It is comforting to know people like you exist in our troubled
world. Next year I hope to be able to pay for a subscription for
myself. Our town is very conservative, everything is so
underground. No one here knows about The Mother except for a few
who are "on the edge"
Glenda Turner, Richmond, Virginia
"I read The Mother one week before I gave birth and I loved it.
I plan to spread The Mother around this small community, and
turn some other mothers onto real mothering."
Shireen Sumariwalla Finck, Mt Currie, British Columbia
How does The Compleat Mother define "real" mothering? Notions of "real"
and "natural" are culturally constructed. This counter-culture magazine
defines these terms by actions such as homebirth, prolonged nursing,
opposition to large multi-national companies who persistently market
breastfeeding substitutes, rejection of immunisation and infant male
circumcision, large families, home schooling and stay-at-home
parents (mostly mothers).
The counter-culture of the Compleat mother is situated in a specific
social context that may not include women of colour and immigrants. For
example, the option of homebirth is mostly a reality for white
middle-class "low risk" women. (Reid 1998) Immigrant women are
frequently diagnosed as "high risk" or having "infant at risk" due to
language barriers and labelling which accentuates differences, and
interprets them as deficits. (Fraktman, 1998) The label of "high risk"
carries with it the probability of increased medical intervention,
therefore immigrant women are more likely to undergo Caesarean section
births. Social workers involved can further self-empowerment through
the provision of information and support, for women who are
experiencing a sense of victimisation, and have been negatively
affected by poverty and stress in their lives.
Because women's experience and ideas of motherhood varies greatly
according to the diversity of women, it is problematic to propose any
utopic view of what motherhood would look like. For example, second
wave white feminists such as Betty Friedan in her 1977 book The
Feminine Mystique, lamented the isolation that white middle class women
felt while caring for children at home. These women left themselves
open to criticism by black women who were seldom afforded the
privileged of being able to raise their own children. The challenge for
women seems to be, the ability to transform the oppressive ideologies
of motherhood into cultural practices that support the multiplicity of
ways that motherhood is lived.
Whether women will continue to become mothers by cultural dictate or
choice, they may not consciously associate their experience of the
institution of motherhood as being informed by the larger economic and
political structures of society. However, while discussions about a
woman centred influence on the institution of motherhood are being
played out, it is more likely that motherhood will be informed by other
global economic realities. Private interests in the United States are
ready and willing to fund family planning efforts that that aim at
reducing population growth in developing countries. These wealthy
philanthropist's self interest can be seen in their desire to quell
growth of poor, non-white babies, and their fear of immigration to the
United States. All of which, they fear, may lead to a decrease in the
standard of living for wealthy Americans. Along with this fear of
population growth among "the undesirables", is the restructuring of
capital that requires less and less human power. These two factors may
combine to result in motherhood becoming a privilege for the chosen
few. When workers are no longer desirable, society's concern with
children is likely to decrease. Government policy which aims at
supporting women and creating equal opportunity for all children is
also likely to be an unrealistic ideal of the past.
Bibliography
Arnup, Katherine & Levesque, Andree & Pierson, Ruth (editors) (1990).
Delivering Motherhood: Maternal Ideologies and Practices in the 19th
and 20th Centuries. Routledge: London.
Coll, Cynthia and Surrey, Janet and Weingarten, Kathy (1998). Mothering
Against the Odds: Diverse Voices of Contemporary Mothers. The Guilford
Press: New York.
Doyle, Roddy (1996). The Woman Who Walked Into Doors. Penguin: New York.
Evans, Patricia and Wekerle Gerda (1997). Women and the Canadian
Welfare State. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.
Katz Rothman, Barbara (1989). Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and
Technology in a Patriarchal Society. W.W. Norton & Company: New York.
McMahon, Martha (1995). Engendering Motherhood: Identity and
Self-Transformation in Women's Lives. The Guilford Press: New York.
McQuaig, Linda (1995). Shooting the Hippo:Death by Deficit and Other
Canadian Myths. Penguin: Toronto.
Reid, Margaret (1989). Sisterhood and Professionalization. A Case Study
of the American Lay Midwife" in Women as Healers. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Ross, Ellen (1993). Love and Toil: Motherhood in Outcast London 1870-
1918. Oxford University Press: New York.
Thurer, Shari (1994). The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents
the Good Mother. Penguin Books: New York.
Young, Catherine (1997). The Compleat Mother: The Magazine of Pregnancy,
Birth & Breastfeeding.
***********************************************************************
DESTROY ALL STEPHENKINGS
By Anti-Press (c) Copyright 1999 Anti-Press
***********************************************************************
No bloodshed: boycott!
Boycott not Stephen King the man nor Stephen King the writer but
Stephen The King.
He's top o' the heap. Ruler of Royal Royalties. Good. But what
about the rest of us, writers struggling just to get published in
the mainstream once before we die? In the "golden age" there used
to be more opportunities for an aspiring writer to break into
print. Big names from Mickey Spillane to Tennessee Williams broke
in through pulp magazines. And there were the "slicks", the classy
magazines like Colliers that used to publish short fiction. All
gone.
Years ago with the paperback market you had inexpensive Ace
Doubles, two books in one, especially for science fiction. An open
frontier for Harlan Ellison, Philip K. Dick, and many others to
stake their first claims. And the other fiction genres: mysteries
and westerns. Sure, most of it was crap, but most writers had to
crap before they learned how to walk. And some went on to run,
runaway bestsellers that poured in the money and soon created the
limited market for new talent.
A publisher's (simple) mind: Why take a chance on a new writer with
a new idea when Stephen The King can crank out another one and rake
in the moolah on just name recognition? Cut down on the midlist,
that middle zone of opportunity between the Big Bestsellers and the
genre titles. Play it safe. Stay with a winner, even though there
might be many other winners out there to be heard.
Stephen King-- man and writer-- didn't create Stephen The King. It
was the unimaginative middlemen (meddlemen) who run the major
publishing houses that brought forth this massive hindrance to new
talent. And now with one Big House buying out The Other Big House,
it seems the day of One Gigantic House (Get lost, kid!) is dawning.
(Yes, publishers are middlemen because they become between the
writer and his audience. The world will be a lot better off with
fewer people meddling with producers and their endeavors. For
example, the struggling farmer would get more pay for his toil if
there were less middlemen between him and the consumer,
"facilitators" siphoning off too much money for their
semi-parasitic involvement.)
But while the publishing industry heads towards a literary
oligarchy, hack editors aren't worried about fewer jobs tomorrow,
they're just concentrating on the here and now. Their key operating
phrase: Play it safe. Follow success, don't try to create it. "Hey,
we need our own stephenking." Does your publishing house have a
stephenking? If not-- losers!
The cover blurb: THIS WRITER IS THE NEXT STEPHEN KING! (Gee, does
Stephen King want to be the next Anti-Press?)
We came across a New York Times article that stated The King had
taken a cut on the advance for His latest book-- He was just
getting only $2 million as opposed to His initial demand of $18
million. Boo hoo. Maybe we should start up a collection for Him and
Disney honcho Michael Eisner. (You know about poor Mike: his
_bonus_ is being cut from 9.9 million bucks down to a paltry five
mil. How can he live on such a paltry bonus with his regular pay?
Does this mean he can only buy three private jets instead of two?)
A cut down to two million for The King. So the publisher saves
money. How much of that savings will be put into showcasing
up-and-coming writers?
We spoke years ago to someone who was involved with a
professional
writers vorganization. He said publishers would rake in money off a
book and then throw the dough into a bank to collect the interest
before paying out royalties. It was a great system until the
interest rates went down. So with conservative interest rates
publishers went the conservative route and now avoid any dark
horses.
Fine. Let's show them how we appreciate their narrow-minded
thinking. Don't buy a bestseller. Read it at the library or buy a
used copy or bum a copy off a friend. Want to really stick it to
'em? Do some bin-diving behind your local bookstore and get a nice
clean copy with the cover stripped off. The cover has been returned
by the bookstore for credit so why waste the rest of the book?
Recycle! Boycott with your bucks. If you enjoy reading Stephen
King, OK, but realize you're supporting a stagnating system of
stephenkings and johngrishams and tomclancys. If you don't read The
King, then start a whisper campaign against his latest one. ("Bag
of Bones"? That's not a horror novel; it's actually Gwyneth
Paltrow's autobiography.)
Save your bucks. And spend your time with creators searching for an
audience out here in the Wild Frontier of cyberspace. Check out a
backwater ezine. Visit a Web Site in the outback. Sure, there's a
lot of crap out here, but it's NEW&DIFFERENT crap.
***********************************************************************
The United States versus the World at the United Nations
submitted by Paul Laurendeau
***********************************************************************
Below is an exceprt from the document compiled by William Blum, author
of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War
II. This information was submitted to TAF by Paul Laurendeau.
America, we have all been taught for half a century, is the leader of
"The Free World". If this is so, it's proper to ask: Where are the
followers? where is the evidence that Washington's world view sways the
multitude of nations? To enlist support for its wars in Korea, Vietnam
and the Persian Gulf, the United States had to resort to bribery and
threats. At the United Nations, the US has, with noteworthy regularity,
been on the minority side in voting on resolutions. The table below
shows a portion of this pattern. It cover and edited, arbittary period
in the 1970's and 1980's broken down as follows:
1978-1981: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those
resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote or were joined
by one or two other nations are listed.
1982-1983: All voting in the General Assembly examined; only those
resolutions for which the US cast a solitary "no" vote are listed.
The number of abstentions is not shown. There were many resolutions
where Israel cast a solitary "no" vote and the US was the sole
abstainer. Voting on resolutions of the Security Council and the
Economic and Social Council are not included here, but these votes show
a very similar pattern. In the Council -- where its solitary "no" vote
is enough to defeat a measure -- the United States is free to play its
role of international school bully.
We were all also taught that the Communists had no respect for world
opinion.
"... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind ..."
-The Declaration of Independence
Date/Issue Resolution Yes-No vote
1978 Number
Dec. 15 33/75 119-2 (US, Israel)
Urges the Security Council, especially its permanent
members, to take all necessary measures for insuring UN
decisions on the maintenance of international peace and
security.
Dec. 18 33/110 110-2 (US, Israel)
Living conditions of the Palestinian people
Dec. 18 33/113C 97-3 (US, Israel, Guatemala)
Condemnation of Israeli human rights record in occupied territories
Dec. 19 33/136 119-1 (US)
Calls upon developed countries to increase quantity and quality of
development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979
Jan. 24 33/183M 114-3 (US, France, UK)
To end all military and nuclear collaboration with South Africa
Jan. 29 33/196 111-1 (US)
Protectionism of developing countries' exports
Nov. 23 34/46 136-1 (US)
Alternate approaches within the UN system for improving the enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Nov. 23 34/52E 121-3 (US, Israel, Australia)
Return of inhabitants expelled by Israel.
Dec. 11 34/83J 120-3 (US, UK, France)
Negotiations on disarmament and cessation of nuclear arms race.
Dec. 12 34/90A 111-2 (US, Israel)
Demand that Israel desist from certain human rights violations
Dec. 12 34/93D 132-3 (US, UK, France)
Strengthening arms embargo against South Africa
Dec. 12 34/93I 134-3 (US, UK, France)
Assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation
movement.
Dec. 14 34/100 104-2 (US, Israel)
Against support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of
States.
Dec. 14 34/113 120-2 (US, Israel)
Request for report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied
Arab countries.
Dec. 14 34/133 112-3 (US, Israel, Canada)
Assistance to Palestinian people.
Dec. 14 34/136 118-2 (US, Israel)
Sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
Dec. 17 34/158 121-2 (US, Israel)
Prepare and carry out the UN Conference on Women
Dec. 17 34/160 122-2 (US, Israel)
Include Palestinian women in agenda of UN Conference on Women
Dec. 19 34/199 112-1 (US)
Safeguarding rights of developing countries in multinational trade
negotiations
1980
Nov. 3 35/13E 96-3 (US, Israel, Canada)
Requests Israel to return displace persons.
Dec. 5 35/57 134-1 (US)
Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the
growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic
co-operation.
Dec. 5 35/75 118-2 (US, Israel)
Condemns Israeli policy re the living conditions of Palestinian people.
Dec. 11 35/119 134-3 (US, UK, France)
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples.
Dec. 11 35/122C 118-2 (US, Israel)
Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories.
[Same day, similar resolutions, 35/122E -- 119-2 vote, and 35/122F --
117-2]
Dec. 11 35/136 132-3 (US, Israel, Canada)
Endorse Program of Action for Second Half of UN Decade for Women
Dec. 12 35/145A 111-2 (US, UK)
Cessation of all nuclear test explosions
Dec. 12 35/154 110-2 (US, Albania)
Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
Dec. 15 35/169C 120-3 (US, Israel, Australia)
Rights of Palestinians
Dec. 15 35/174 120-1 (US)
Emphasising that the development of nations and individuals is a human
right.
Dec. 16 35/206J 137-3 (US, UK, France)
Assistance to oppressed people of South Africa and their national
liberation movement.
1981
Oct. 28 36/12 145-1 (US)
Anti-racism; condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia
Oct. 28 36/13 124-1 (US)
Condemns collaboration of certain States and transnational corporations
with the South African regime
Oct. 28 36/15 114-2 (US, Israel)
Demand that Israel cease excavations of certain sites in E. Jerusalem
Nov. 9 36/18 123-1 (US)
To promote co-operative movements in developing countries (agricultural,
savings and credits, housing, consumer protection, social services,
etc.)
Nov. 9 36/19 126-1 (US)
The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in
accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in
whatever form it takes
Nov. 13 36/27 109-2 (US, Israel)
Condemns Israel for its bombing of an Iraqi nuclear installation
Dec. 1 36/68 133-3 (US, UK, Guatemala)
Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial
territories
Dec. 4 36/73 109-2 (US, Israel)
Condemns Israeli policy re living conditions of the Palestinian people
Dec. 9 36/84 118-2 (US, UK)
Cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons
Dec. 9 36/87B 107-2 (US, Israel)
Establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East
Dec. 9 36/92J 78-3 (US, Canada, Brazil)
World-wide action for collecting signatures in support of measures to
prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament
Dec. 9 36/96B 109-1 (US)
Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons
Dec. 9 36/98 101-2 (US, Israel)
Demands Israelis renounce possession of nuclear weapons
Dec. 10 36/120A 121-2 (US, Israel)
Rights of the Palestinian people
Dec. 10 36/120B 119-3 (US, Israel, Canada)
Palestinian rights
Dec. 10 36/120E 139-2 (US, Israel)
Status of Jerusalem
Dec. 14 36/133 135-1 (US)
Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment,
national development, etc. are human rights
Dec. 16 36/146A 141-2 (US, Israel)
Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip
Dec. 16 36/146B 121-3 (US, Israel, Canada)
Rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes
Dec. 16 36/146C 117-2 (US, Israel)
Revenues derived from Palestinian refugees' properties
Dec.16 36/146G 119-2(US, Israel)
Establishment of University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees
Dec. 16 36/147C 111-2 (US,Israel)
Israeli violations of human rights in occupied territories
Dec. 16 36/147F 114-2 (US,Israel)
Condemns Israeli closing of universities in occupied territories
Dec. 16 36/149B 147-2 (US,Israel)
Calls for the establishment of a new and more just world information
and communications order
Dec. 16 36/150 139-2 (US,Israel)
Opposes Israel's decision to build a canal linking the Mediterranean
Sea to the Dead Sea
Dec. 17 36/172C 136-1 (US)
Condemns aggression by South Africa against Angola and other African
states.
Dec. 17 36/172H 129-2 (US, UK)
To organize an international conference of trade unions on sanctions
against South Africa
Dec. 17 36/172L 126-2 (US, UK)
To encourage various international actions against South Africa
Dec. 17 36/172N 139-1(US)
Support of sanctions and other measures against South Africa
Dec. 17 36/172O 138-1 (US)
Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa
Dec. 17 36/173 115-2 (US,Israel)
Permanent sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and
other Arab territories
Dec. 17 36/226B 121-2 (US,Israel)
Non-applicability of Israeli law over the Golan Heights
Dec. 18 36/234B 127-1 (US)
UN accounting changes for 1980-1 1982
[only solitary US Oct. 28 37/7 111-1 votes]
World Charter for protection of the ecology
Nov. 15 37/11 136-1
Setting up UN conference on succession of states in respect to state
property, archives, and debts
Dec. 3 37/47 124-1
Appeal for universal ratification of the convention on the suppression
and punishment of apartheid
Dec. 9 37/69E 141-1
Promoting international mobilization against apartheid
Dec. 9 37/69G 138-1
Drafting of international convention against apartheid in sports
Dec. 9 37/69H 134-1
Cessation of further foreign investments and loans for South Africa
Dec. 9 37/73 111-1
Need for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty
Dec. 9 37/78A 114-1
Request to US and USSR to transmit a status report on their nuclear
arms negotiations [USSR abstained]
Dec. 9 37/83 138-1
Prevention of arms race in outer space
Dec. 10 37/94B 131-1
Support of UNESCO's efforts to promote a new world information and
communications order
Dec. 13 37/98A 95-1
Necessity of a convention on the prohibition of chemical and
bacteriological weapons
********************************************************************
YES, WILLIAM, YOU CAN BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT
by Ron Callari
********************************************************************
On the heels of the House of Representatives' Judiciary case of
impeachment against the President and the President's State of the
Union address, I am presenting a response to William P. Summers' (the
Chicago 3rd grader's) letter to Representative Henry J. Hyde.
Similaritiy to Virginia O'Hanlon's letter to the New York Sun, 1897 is
purely intentional:
Yes, William, you can believe the President
In answer to William P. Summers' letter to Senator Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman of the House Judiciary committee, who as a third-grader in
Room 304 at Chase Elementary School in Chicago asked: "If you cannot
believe the President, who can you believe?"
William, your inclinations are wrong. They have been affected by a
world less idealized, or as Francis P. Church so markedly pointed out,
over a 100 years ago: "they have been affected by the skepticism of a
skeptical age."
Truth lies in our constant striving to reach beyond the confines of the
every day; it lies beyond personal gratification and self-serving
rhetoric. And although it thrives within our reach, it sometimes
alludes us. We get it mixed up with shame and guilt and it looks much
better sometimes if we color it with the mask of falsehood. The 'whole
truth' is more than just an oath. It is the peeling away of life's
protective shields; it exposes our naked souls. And on some days, it is
too difficult to be caught in its' blinding light. We face
allegorically the Adam and Eve syndrome of disgrace, and potential
exclusion.
Yes, William, there is a reason to believe the President. Because he is
a compliment of all the Presidents that came before- some more trust
worthy than others- some more willing to face the truth head on. But
when they fell short, William, we should not question our belief so
much, as we should examine the knowledge that we are just men. Men with
all the flaws, foibles and uncertainties that are part and parcel of
the human condition. Our salvation is however, in the fact that we are
part of a greater whole- and if we fall short today - we will be
bolstered up tomorrow by a better example. William Jefferson Clinton is
limited by his human-ness. But in his weakness, he has done us a great
service - he has reminded us that we need to be more strident in our
search for the truth. His fall from grace is a moral signpost warning
us they we may have dipped into another valley of forgetfulness. Without
him, we might not have taken the time or the care to acknowledge our
departure from the truth. But this William is just another temporary
detour from the high road to moral character.
It is not so much that our political parties are at odds with each
other over the fate of this one man. It is more important that they are
taking the time to ask the questions. Because questions unanswered make
truth unobtainable. Partisan discourse is necessary to shake the good
and bad apples from the tree. If we just pull in one direction, we
sometimes get only what we want, not the bounty that we can share with
others.
So William, " Can we believe the President?" A resounding yes. Will he
sometimes be more Machiavellian than Jeffersonian? - yes! Will he hurt
others when he strays from the truth? - yes! Will he never reach a
state of grace that is commendable? - probably not! Will he be lost
because of his inability to define the truth in a noble and ideal
manner? - probably not! But will today's President's humanity blend
into the higher purpose of the office for which it stands? Will the
founding fathers that came before him and those that will follow help
us all to share some of this burden and when we view the total
compliment of the Presidential body - will we not say that they strove
to do good, in spite of being human? - absolutely yes!
Do not believe the President? William, that would be like not believing
in Santa Claus. And as Mr. Church most poignantly pointed out to your
19th Century compatriot, Virginia O Hanlon, those 100 years ago; "Thank
God! He lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, nay 10
times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of
childhood
Rest easy, dear William, we are of strong stock. It is a question like
yours that helps us all to crystallize our thinking, as we approach the
dawn of a new century, a new millennium- in our quest for truth in our
highest of offices. Thank you William for joining us in this most
important quest!
***********************************************************************
CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE
***********************************************************************
Anti-Press
Bio
We came. We saw. We kick ass.
::
Ronald Warunek was born in Detroit Michigan on January 16, 1951. He did
his early studies in Dearborn Heights Michigan; and in 1988 he received
his Master of Fine Arts degree from Wayne State University, Detroit
Michigan. He is a Painter, Sculptor, Print Maker as well as a maker of
Photo Montage. He believes in the unification of art, science, and
technology, and works within the direction of complexity. For a detail
study of his exhibitions, media reviews, and awards see his resume at
www.warunek.com
::
Michael Moreth is an artist and photographer who lives in Chicago with
his wife Helene and five birds. He has exhibited films, videos,
photography, and computer art in galleries throughout the United States
and has exhibited photographs around the world over the internet.
Michael is an amateur radio operator with the callsign N9OGC.
::
Ron Callari is a freelance writer, publisher and self-proclaimed
futurist who has an office overlooking the Hudson River, the Big Apple
and the Statue of Liberty. When he isn't daydreaming about palm trees
and hammocks, he spends the bulk of his time writing articles
pertaining to business, the Internet, trends, travel and humour. His
online credits include articles in Career Magazine, iAgora, WebCentral
and FolksOnline.
Ron has also been a consultant to the travel industry for the past 20
years. He has held marketing posts with Marriott International, Adam's
Mark Hotels and MeriStar Hotels and Resorts. In 1987, he founded
innovations, a sales and marketing firm. He feels that his corporate
upbringing has prepared him for being able to debate on any issue: pro,
con and/or vice-versa; sometimes, simultaneously.
He has been interviewed by print and electronic media, nation-wide and
appeared on network television (CBS This Morning Show) in a 1991
feature detailing the growing popularity of B&Bs for business travel.
This 15 minutes of fame amounted to a couple free lunches and one
autograph seeker (thanks Mom).
Ron received his B.A. from Kent State University and his Masters degree
from Cornell University (go Big Red!). He lives with his significant-
other, has two sons and resides in Jersey City, NJ (for no other
apparent reason than to have an office overlooking the Hudson River,
the Big Apple and the Statue of Liberty, allowing him to daydream about
palm trees and hammocks).
Ron is currently the publisher and editor of his own online webzine,
entitled: y-two-k.com, which features articles pertaining to Y2K and
the changes in our lifestyles as we approach the millennium. Ron also
partners with Chris Moujaes to produce the comic strip kidd millennium(tm),
spotlighting the life and times of a narcissistic rugrat who thinks he
is a spokesperson for the next generation. "While kidd is currently in
the womb and won't be visible until January 1, 2000, his voice is heard
regularly in a recurring zany comic strip, online."
Ron appreciates the fact that the Big Guy put him on the planet at this
point in time, and enjoys communicating with anyone who will answer his
e-mails.
::
Paul Laurendeau is an associate professor in linguistics at the
department of French Studies, York University. Influenced by the thought
of Spinoza, Diderot, and Marx, he is currently working on a book titled
MATERIALISM AND RATIONALITY (PHILOSOPHY FOR THE SOCIAL ACTIVIST).
Describing himself as a materialist rationalist atheist, Laurendeau
formulates the religious debate in philosophical terms in the tradition
of the progressive struggle against the mystical and irrationalist
tendencies of philosophical idealism. His previous contributions to TAF
include:
On a Philosophical Implication of the Astronomical Big Bang Theory;
The Doom Of Religion;
I Stink, Therefore I Am;
An Email Debate;
and
An Inquiry into a Sample of Vernacular Philosophy: The Aphorisms of
Yogi Berra
He recently cut all his hair off.
::
Mary Stasiuk is a mother of 3. She is completing a Bachelor of Social
Work at York University, Toronto where she has already completed a
Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts - Health Studies.
As always, Thanks Gary 03/09/96 RIP
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
The Annihilation Fountain & TAF Copyright 1997-99 Neil MacKay
http://www.capnasty.org/taf/
the_annihilation_fountain@iname.com
