As Luck Would Have It

Why do we feel lucky when we find money in unexpected places? I got to thinking about this yesterday because I never find money. I mean, the ubiquitous penny on the ground here or there and every once in a while I've forgotten a fiver in the pocket of my coat or something. I have a friend in NYC who regularly finds like $20 bills on the sidewalk, for example, or random useful things. I never seem to find stuff like that. I know part of it is that I am often walking with such purpose that I'm not usually as observant as I could be. I also immediately think about the person who lost the money and feel bad about the fact that s/he lost it.

Anyway, yesterday I found $2 on the ground. I was so thrilled! It was rolled up, laying in the middle of the sidewalk on a side street and no one was around to ask if it was theirs, so I pocketed it. And I felt like it was a good omen for the day! I must say that overall, nothing was different about yesterday. In fact, a lot of unfortunate things happened in my day yesterday that left me in poor spirits. In general, I've just been pretty down lately about work stuff that I've mentioned here and feeling in general that I am in a time of significant transition yet without anything actually changing right now. There was no change at all.

My spirits today, though, are much better, and I wonder if my minor stroke of luck in finding that $2 yesterday has anything to do with it. Perhaps it was some kind of symbol of better times ahead. To be honest, I don't really believe in luck, and I really kind of wish that I did. You know, like it would be cool if I had some kind of good luck charm or something like that. I wonder if I don't believe in luck for the same reason that I don't enjoy gambling or high risk games. According to the OED, the word luck comes from the low German 'luk," which is a shortened version of "geluk" and "probably it came into English as a gambling term."

Taking it to heart...

My blog doesn't usually get many comments, and so, I am always pleasantly surprised when I do get comments. Most of them are funny commentary and opinions. However, a comment on my recent post about arrogance struck me a bit deep. I definitely open myself up to commentary and invite it by having a blog in the first place. It is interesting to see what kind of post will provoke a comment and which kinds won't. This comment is obviously written by a friend and I do believe it is meant to be helpful. I suppose that is why it upsets me so much.

It's the first time I'm hearing it -- just like the case with my boss last week -- is not in a personal face-to-face meeting that is sincere in its intention to help me to see something about myself that I haven't been able to see. That would be the appropriate and meaningful way to approach such a topic and pulling me aside to have a sincere talk about the retreat and my response to it would have been the appropriate way to discuss this and offer an insight into my attitude and my relationships with my colleagues. When it comes in public -- the comment from my boss was in a group meeting and the blog comment is obviously public -- as a form of shaming me, it is hard to appreciate the commentary and take it sincerely.

Suggesting that I can't learn anything new by not participating is not why I didn't participate (and I guess haven't participated in the past). I love to learn and am always seeking opportunities to learn in the workplace. People are all different and learn in many different ways. Some people learn through repetition and some people learn from doing something that falls far out of the daily routine that makes them think about their daily work different. To suggest that I'm arrogant at work and don't believe I can learn anything new contradicts all that I do to try to learn from other people and from new opportunities on a daily basis. I think one way that the workplace fails many people like me is by not offering a variety of ways to learn new skills. And then, making the assumption that if one way doesn't work for me, I'm arrogant or unwilling to learn.

I guess one thing this experience is teaching me is how deeply I'm misunderstood in the workplace even by people who are my friends and actively try to understand me.

Arrogance

I've been called a lot of "names" before, and a lot of them I'd like to think are not true because they are only half-truths at best and totally wrong at worst.  Yesterday at work, however, I was taken aback because my boss called me arrogant.  Yep, arrogant.  I'm still thinking about it because it stung...not necessarily a deep sting, but a surprising sting.  Like, you know when you itch all day from a little tiny red ant or something and it surprises you because you know that the little sucker has the capacity to sting, but you don't necessarily realize that it is possible for it to itch so badly for so long?  It was that kind of sting. 

Of course, I looked up the word because I thought that perhaps I misunderstood the full meaning of arrogant and thus, maybe I am arrogant without realizing it.  At the least I should know full well what word I'm so upset about.  No surprises were found in the dictionary: "arrogant (adj), having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."  Well, one word rings true, which is exaggerated.  I do have a habit of exaggerating.  But...of exaggerating my own sense of my importance or abilities?  I just don't know about that.  I actually pretty much thrive on self-deprecation a lot.

So, now I turn to context to deconstruct this accusation.  I was called arrogant because I refused to participate in one particular exercise during a work retreat a few weeks ago.  It was a role play of meeting a donor and asking questions.  We were in a large group of 8+ people interviewing one supposed donor.  I said that "I do this every day, I don't really have anything to contribute to this."  I feel justified in that response since the whole premise of a retreat is to RETREAT -- to take a break, to withdraw from the day-to-day, to get some perspective.  It isn't, in fact, meant to beat a dead horse by having someone role play the very thing they do every single day.  I really think that perhaps it was insubordinate of me to say I wouldn't participate.  It was definitely undiplomatic...perhaps tactless.  But arrogant?  I really don't think so.  It's not like I looked around the room and said I'm too smart or talented to be here, I have a million dollar donor waiting to have coffee with me, so I can't participate in this activity.  I simply said, in my own tactless way, that I'm tired of doing this in real life, I definitely do not have the energy to do this in pretend work life.

Is that really so bad?  Why is my boss so cruel as to call me arrogant and hurl an accusation at me rather than perhaps ask me if I'm tired or if she can help freshen my perspective on my work?  Is it just me, or is this one of those ridiculous moments of workplace politics when an employee is bullied into making something her problem that really isn't even a problem at all? 

Philanthropy

I do know that I shouldn't bite the hand that feeds me, but can I at least nibble a bit? Most of you know that I'm over fundraising. As a professor, I will have to fundraise to support my research and whatnot, but it won't be anything like the level of fundraising I do as a Development Director. I must say that there is not a lot of humor in philanthropy, which is part of the reason it isn't rewarding for me. Relationships are sensitive and cautious when money is the reason for the relationship, so emotions are high, but the language of philanthropy is "joy of giving," "stewardship," "generosity," etc. It is really not ever humorous because humor takes a certain perspective that is rare to find in philanthropic transactions.

So, given all of my mixed feelings on this video and how it manages to celebrate white privilege and employs minority students to do so, I have to appreciate this video on some level for bringing out the humorous side of major gifts and the steps people like me have to take to properly steward those gifts once they are made:

Sleep Strike

Sleep deprivation is no good. One thing that I've learned about myself while managing full-time work and full-time school is that when I'm sleep deprived, I'm a total mess. Everything I say has some kind of Jerry Seinfeld-like screaming involved, and although I might be funnier than usual (or rather think that I'm funnier than usual), I'm also really ridiculous. As the end of this insane chapter of my life comes to a close in the coming months, I've made a concerted effort to not go bad sh*t crazy. Sleep is the number one necessity in this effort.

So, when I learned today about the Occupy DC protestors depriving themselves of sleep by going on a sleep strike, I had mixed feelings. It seems like a good response to a rule of no sleeping in the park. Yet, all it will probably do is make them seem crazier than people already think they are. And the truth is, they will be crazier. One only needs to watch Fight Club to see the potential repurcussions.

Maybe the Occupy Movement can get Mike D and the boys to write a metal mantra for the moment? Something like "no sleep 'till Wall Street"...

　

Newt Gingrich's Guest Appearance in My Thesis

After completing my introduction and outline of the structure for my thesis last week, I'm just beginning to sink my teeth into the meat of my thesis. Right now I'm focused on teasing out the connection between Olamina's hyperempathy syndrome and her religious belief system, which includes space travel. And for that reason, I can't stop thinking about Newt Gingrich as I'm working on my thesis. I'm considering an extended footnote to address this.

What's cool about Octavia Butler's vision of space as a new spiritual frontier and a place of hopefulness for the future is rooted in the fact that space is not colonized. Thus, it offers a kind of blank slate that isn't possible on Earth. Newt Gingrich wants to privatize space exploration (90% he says would be private industry) for the most part and expand American power into space. Privatized space missions and potential colonies is a really terrifying prospect in my opinion. Because, um, privatization has not exactly been the best thing for the majority, ya know.

The funny thing about this is that for all of the criticism and jokes (warranted, I do believe) that Gingrich is enduring for his space commentary, the thing that strikes me as odd is that people seem to be more outraged over the very idea of investing in space than the method to his madness. The method is where I think the problem is! I actually think space travel is a useful way to spend taxpayer money, and I think it helps us to learn more about our universe, etc. What I have serious issues with is the notion of colonizing the moon or any other entities in space (I'm sure Mars would be next on the agenda). In Butler's Parable series, increased privatization has led to companies overtaking schools, food outlets, etc. to such an extent that workers become indentured servants within the companies they work for (and this also resonates with old mining towns in Appalachia, no?). Except for the 1% of course.

Gingrich's opponents suggest that we have too many political issues here on Earth to deal with that preclude an investment in space exploration. However, how can we continue to progress as a nation in terms of science or in other ways as well without looking forward and beyond the day-to-day (or more like election-to-election) need?  Privatization is certainly not the answer.

Hunger is a Political Condition

I've just turned in the first 10 (really 12) pages of my thesis, and I'm feeling excited about this work for the next few months!  I think that I outlined my argument pretty well, stated why this project is important, and even managed to define and not-define affect to my liking at this stage in the game.

So, now that I've been able to put words around my general ideas and make the necessary connections between subjectivity, technology, and citizenship, I'm about to delve into these issues more deeply.  One thing that I came across this week is this statement by James McGovern, representative from Massachusetts (and American University alumnus): "I believe hunger is a political condition. We have the means to solve hunger in America once and for all, but we haven’t mustered the political will to do so. Shame on us for not doing more to end this terrible scourge."  I came across this as I was confirming my graduation date and time because James McGovern is meant to be one of our commencement speakers.  So, I checked out his website to see what he is all about and found this statement in response to the current debates around Food Stamps. Of course, I found an immediate connection with my thesis because this is what I think about 90% of the time nowadays.

Basically, the argument that I am trying to progress in my thesis is that human needs and desires -- physical and bodily needs as well as spiritual and metaphysical needs -- are not separate mind/body needs, but holistic human needs and they are bound up in issues of citizenship.  The issue of hunger in this country, especially poignant as the country is also plagued by severe obesity, is only one example of this relationship.  By looking to address hunger as a singular issue, I believe that politics will continue to fail American citizens because hunger, for me, is not a singular issue and cannot be addressed simply with food stamps.  Obviously, food stamps is a necessary program that will alleviate some of that -- providing food stamps is an essential program, in my opinion, and I fail to understand how people who claim to have values can debate against this program.  But what I mean is that we all know that hunger stems from much more than just lack of food.  I think it stems from all sorts of structural inequalities from unemployment to racism.  Anyway, I guess my point that I'm working out right now is something about how addressing poverty as a purely bodily need and not as a bigger issue perpetuates the structural inequalities that lead to hunger in the first place.

And Science Fiction as a genre is eerily spot on about this assessment.  It's crazy to look at Sci Fi novels from the 1990's that warn against the increased use and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs, for example, and to see how many of those fears are playing out today.  So, I'm taking my cues from Octavia Butler here to learn more about this connection as opposed to the history of political theory or whatever its called.