Artifact of 2021: Social Justice Convening

I post this here as an artifact of the year America went mad. 

Imagining Society if the Covid 19 Pandemic Happened in the 90's

 Understanding Covid 19 as a Social Construct

Thoughts on Bari Weiss Interview with Dr. Vinay Prasad

"Social construct" is a term that I hear often but have not bothered to examine. I guess, in a way, that qualifies it as a cliché. Something you hear often, think you knew what it means, and then move on. 

In fact, I didn't quite know what it meant, so I looked it up. 

Warning: deep research dive ahead.

Here's a dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster) and a little explanation (yourdictionary.com): 

Social construct is an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.

Social constructs develop within a society or group. They don't represent objective reality but instead are meaningful only because people within the society or group accept that they have meaning. Simply put, social constructs do not have inherent meaning. The only meaning they have is the meaning given to them by people.

So I'm thinking about this term because it came up in a Bari Weiss podcast interview with Dr. Vinay Prasad (link below). During the interview. Dr. Prasad referred to the pandemic as a social construct. 

One thing I like about Bari Weiss is she does bother to examine things. Her interviews are often sprinkled with things like, "What do you mean by that?" or, "Here's what I hear you saying." 

True to form, Bari asked him to explain what he mean. After listening to the podcast twice, I think I get his point. Here's how I understood what he said.

Dr. Prasad said that we should try to imagine the exact same scenario happening in the 1990's. In the 90's, there could not have been an option of shutting down the economy in order to stay safe. There was no Zoom. There was barely an Internet. We would have had to figure out a way to carry on, keep going to work, regardless of what kind of occupation we had. White collar, blue collar—what was true for one was true for the other.

In 2021, technology has permitted the kind of class division we’re seeing. I think that’s what he means by a “social construct.” Not the virus itself, but the societal reaction, the class division, us. vs. them. Us—those of us who can still bring in a paycheck while working from home, can order food or groceries to be delivered to our doorstep. Them—those who work in the kitchens (wearing masks!), or deliver the food to the rest of us, who stock the shelves, take our money at the grocery store. Us—we can shelter in place, recover from the virus if we get it (and still get paid). Them—what happens if they get sick? Or small business owners whose businesses had to close?

I think this is what Dr. Prasad means when he talks about the virus being a “social construct.” In both cases, the (hypothetical) 90’s and the 2020’s—the actual virus is the same. It infects us individually exactly the same way. But it infects society differently: because we have different survival options (economically speaking), it creates a class schism. So when he refers to "the poor” and the role of the government helping them, I don’t think he’s talking about the idea of giving handouts. Rather, I think he's wondering what more could have been done to protect those who didn’t benefit from the advances in technology that shielded the white-collar worker during a time of pandemic and shut down.

************

Vaccine Hesitant? A Doctor Responds 

September 22, 2021

 

Masks are not Healthy (for children and other living things)

Masks are not Healthy . . . 

for children and other living things 

I agree with this article (below), which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (August 9, 2021).

I've actually been creating my own case against masks for children (not to mention vaccinated adults) which I'll copy after the article.

___________________

My Case Against Masks for Children

Reasons why kids (especially) and the rest of us
shouldn’t wear masks (regularly)

Oral Health (“Mask Mouth”)

Bad breath

Gum disease

Dehydrated (drink less)

Reference: "The Truth Behind Mask Mouth," by Jessica Fagan, RDH, BS, MA (Dimensions of Dental Hygiene, August 17, 2020).

Unsanitary Masks (especially at school)

No guarantee parents are obsessing over cleanliness

Teachers won’t be able to monitor this

Playground

Bathrooms

In class (taking on and off)

Where's the Data?

Remains Uncertain

Reference: "The Science of Masking Kids at School Remains Uncertain," by David Zweig (New York Magazine/Intelligencer)

Language Learning

We learn language by watching mouths shape the sounds

Masks muffle speech

Nonverbal communication deprivation

Small children especially need nonverbal cues

Reference: "Masking Emotions: Face Masks Impair How We Read Emotions" (Frontiers in Psychology May 25, 2021)  

Weakens immunity to normal pathogens

Children growing up masked may be less likely to develop strong immune systems if they’re not exposed to viruses/bacteria

Dirt is Good: Why Kids Need Exposure to Germs, by Jack Gilbert and Rob Knight 

Here's a link to an NPR interview with co-author Jack Gilbert.  

Emotional/Psychological

Emphasis on “safety” and hyper cleanliness creates children who are fearful, unwilling to take risks, less likely to touch and be touched.

School Supervision

Teachers should not be expected to have to monitor compliance

Noncompliance/resistance to masking may result in behavior problems, kids sent home, etc.

_______________

Agree?

Please feel free to send reasons, links, research studies.

There's more that could be added, particularly in the Emotional/Psychological section.

Disagree?

I'm interested in your reasons.

The Time for Panic is Behind Us

A response to the CDC's recommendation that fully vaccinated individuals now wear masks indoors.

I posted the following on Facebook: 

People who think we need to get down to 0% infections are the ones who will continue to advocate for masking and other types of social-isolation. But 0% is never going to happen. Like it or not, this virus is here to stay. The word I’m hearing now is “endemic,” which describes a disease that is "prevalent in or restricted to a particular location, region, or population."

Covid and all its variants is now endemic. It's not going away. It will be here in the fall, it will be here next year, and the years thereafter. The time for panic is behind us. Now we learn to co-exist. People who can get vaccinated should get vaccinated; doing so will lessen the likelihood of them being hospitalized or dying. People who have been vaccinated may also get the virus but apparently are less likely to end up in the hospital.

Some are now referring to Covid-19 as “the pandemic of the unvaccinated.” This, apparently, is a fact. Nearly all of the hospitalizations and deaths now seem to be among those who have not been vaccinated. This is a tragedy. But telling the vaccinated to wear masks to protect the unvaccinated, and to somehow prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, is, as John Podheretz of Commentary Magazine put it recently, a gut-punch. Businesses and restaurants and stores are just getting back to some kind of normal. Telling them to go back to a type of shut down is a body blow. As is telling those of us who “believed the science” and got the vaccine to put the masks back on two months after we were told they were no longer necessary.

We who took the time to get the vaccine (and it was a hassle, at least for me), who took the risk (this vaccine hasn't been approved officially), who "trusted the science," were finally "allowed" to get back to normal....are now being shunted back to our rooms like little kids.

There are those out there, mostly, I suspect, on the political left, who may be fine with this idea, but I smell a rat. Someone wants to keep us in a constant state of fear and dependence, but I’m not buying it.

Most of us willingly complied when this thing started back in 2020. 

Most of us are sensible and responsible. 

But there comes a point where we say, enough. 

We're adults. 

Leave us alone.

A response to one of my Facebook friends

I shared the above thoughts on Facebook, and one of my friends wrote, "Why is this virus any less serious than polio or smallpox? What substantiates a panic? How many deaths do we endure as a society before we make drastic efforts to eradicate a disease?" 

Here’s how I responded to these questions.

I think you could probably answer the first question yourself, particularly since, thanks to amazing progress in medical research, there is a vaccine for this particular coronavirus that seems to be effective.

Covid-19 seems to have mercifully spared children. It’s the older among us who are more likely to suffer more severe cases of Covid. And though tragic ("every man's death diminishes me"), we're more likely, as a society, to react viscerally to anything (like polio, like smallpox) that puts children at greatest risk. Drastic measures in those cases seem justified. Anyone who is a parent instinctively knows this.

Shutting down the economy was drastic. Some are arguing that the shutdown probably did more harm than the virus itself in terms of economic, social, emotional costs.

Universal masking didn’t seem “drastic” at first since we didn’t know what we were dealing with, and we didn’t have a vaccine. Masking a year and a half later, now that there’s a vaccine is drastic, primarily because I get the sense that we’ve stopped talking about Covid and seem to be talking more about “safety” in general. One argument that I’m hearing about schoolchildren being masked has to do with the fact that—surprise, surprise—there were fewer cases of regular seasonal flu due to shut downs and masking. Maybe masking is a good thing, period.

I predicted this would happen way back in March 2020, and everyone sort of laughed (“that will never happen, Elaine--you're overreacting"). Yet here we are talking about vaccinated people being masked. I have strong opinions about masking, but none so strong as the willingness of some people—especially parents—to put face masks on children for 8 hours a day in school. This is drastic, and here is where panic will do the most harm.

To be honest, I’m afraid for the current cohort of 5-year-olds. Small children adapt easily to pretty much anything. Masking to them will soon be second nature, maybe already is. But they’ll be subconsciously suspicious of the air they breathe, the pencils they touch, the teachers or classmates they interact with at school. Give these children five years of masking and they’ll be socially and emotionally crippled.

How many deaths do we endure as a society before we make drastic efforts to eradicate a disease? I don’t think this is a question that can be answered. We're living during a time of amazing medical advances, a time when people live longer than they did 100 years ago. But we'll never "eradicate" disease. Not in our lifetime, not in our children’s lifetime, maybe never. To think “eradication” is possible is to relegate ourselves to a lifetime of fear, of isolation, of suspicion.

What substantiates a panic? I guess my answer is forgetting that we’re mortal, forgetting that “all flesh is grass, and all its glory like the flowers in the field. The grass withers, and the flowers fall…” Forgetting to teach these things to our children. I don’t know if the next generation thinks like this, and I suspect even we ourselves tend to forget how to think like this. We get so caught up in “solving” problems or looking to government to solve our problems.

But we’d be remiss if we didn’t at least try to help our children navigate difficulties and not cower before them. If we’re unbelievers, we might teach them that there is no utopia on earth, that there are pitfalls and dangers and struggles, and that someday this life will end. If we’re believers, we might offer hope that there is life after death. Either way, we can teach them, and ourselves, to make the most out of this life in spite of the dangers.

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.” 

___________________

CDC Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People

Updated July 27, 2021

Conversation with a Facebook Friend on Biden's Economy

Conversation with a Facebook Friend

Topic: Joe Biden's Economy (Part I)

Preface

Every now and again, valuable interactions with real friends take place in public spaces like social media that turn out to be interesting and possibly productive. The following is one such conversation. 

The friend will remain anonymous until and unless that person gives me permission to identify them. (Note deliberate use of gender neutral plural pronoun).

I'll post the conversation in sequential installments since both of us tend to be rather long-winded. 

Below: Part I

Could This Get Any More Patronizing?

 End in Sight

President Biden, in an address given March 11, 2021, said that if we "do our part" (wash our hands, stay 6 feet apart, and wear our masks), there's a "good chance" we'll be able to get together with friends and family in small gatherings to celebrate Independence Day on July 4th. 

On my Facebook page, I asked: Could this get any more patronizing? 

Some of my friends, newly liberated from their four-year nightmare and still experiencing the afterglow of Biden's America, were not pleased. A few chided me. One thought me thin-skinned. Another said I was grandstanding and saw only good will in "our president's" encouragement to remain cautious. I wanted to ask this friend if he ever referred to Donald Trump as "our president," but I already knew the answer.

My Thoughts

I do not want my president telling me I might be allowed to visit with a few—but only a few—people—maybe—after I’ve been vaccinated. It feels very condescending. Some people apparently like this. Some people want their president to be a sort of daddy-figure. I do not. I find this deeply and truly insulting. I am an adult. I am able to determine what is right and safe for me and for my loved ones. 

A Friend's Response

One friend on Facebook pushed back when I said this. What about those that number many in our society that don’t act as adults? Those that still doubt the seriousness of the virus or that it really exists? Those who refuse to wear masks? Those who refuse to get vaccinated? Or the careless college students gathering during spring break? Perhaps his message is directed more toward them as opposed to a mature adult such as yourself? 

My Response

I guess that's the challenge, isn't it? We live in a free society. The government has its role, and it's been doing it, both in the previous and current administrations. I'm grateful for the rapidity of the vaccinations, thanks to Operation Warp Speed. I'm grateful for vaccines that have been made available by the current administration. However, I think the messaging has not been very good, particularly from the spokesman, Dr. Fauci, who has been inconsistent, and now, from Mr. Biden, regarding the efficacy of the vaccines. By saying, on the one hand, that vaccines are the answer, but on the other hand, don't change your behavior, people stop believing the message.

I think the American people have been extremely cooperative over the past year, and probably would have taken precautions regardless of what the government told them to do (I heard people had already stopped going to restaurants, etc. even before the official lockdowns began). Most of us are smart and will act in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones, indeed, towards their neighbors. That there may be some people who don’t act responsibly is simply a fact of life. And at a certain point, after it's done all that it can do, all the government can do is give guidance and then allow us to carry on. It can’t micromanage, it can’t tell us how to live our lives. It can’t “make” someone get a vaccine. It can’t “make” me wear a mask.

This may make some people nervous, but frankly, it makes me glad to be living in a free society. Free because I have choices. Free, even, to be irresponsible, or independent, or to make choices that I wouldn't make. Personally, I have chosen to get the vaccine. And I have cooperated with mask wearing out of respect for my neighbor, not because I was "told" I must (I suspect, if the government mandated mask wearing under penalty of arrest, I would violate the law). Mr. Biden has said that all adults will be “allowed” to get the vaccine by May.

That's good news. I see light at the end of the tunnel. Come May, and factoring in the weeks needed for the vaccine to be effective, I will live my life assuming that the people I’m around will have made their choice. Those that chose not to be vaccinated have chosen to take a risk of exposure. But their choice is their choice. I won’t wear a mask to protect them. The onus will be on them to protect themselves.

In time, I hope and trust we can go back to living normal lives, free of fear. The virus will still be out there, in the same way the flu is still out there. But fortunately, its impact on those who have been vaccinated will be minimal. It will have lost its power to terrorize us.

Creatures of our Time (Follow Up)

 Creatures of our Time (follow up discussion)

My previous post of March 4, 2021 (Creatures of our Time) was also posted on Facebook, and it generated a little bit of discussion among a few of my friends. I'm copying the most salient contributions below, slightly edited and anonymous.

Friend 1 But, as I understand the issue, the good Dr depicted Asian Americans with slanted eyes - as was the typical "norm" at that time. Any chance to correct or fix his work would basically ruin it. Time to walk away.

Me That's one thought. But what do we mean by walking away? Could re-issued books include new illustrations? Or introductory sections discussing the controversy? I don't know the answer. Similar to the idea of tearing down Confederate statues vs. relocating them in museums, I guess. One action is "erasing" while the other is acknowledging the problem while at the same time recognizing that these were historical figures, representing an era, or a moment, in history.

Me After I posted this, I went into the kitchen and opened the paper (we get the WSJ), and I noticed an op-ed on the subject. The author agrees that Geisel's early work did, indeed, depict stereotypically racist images but that later, during WWII, he changed. He (the author) concludes by making essentially the point I'm trying to make. "Our country's history is filled with imperfect people who nevertheless did remarkable things." 

 

Friend 1 Good article. But unlike the furor over the use of the "N word " in the classic To Kill A Mockingbird, which is set in the South in 1935 (there was a heated and unsuccessful push to ban the book), Dr Seuss' use of the drawings of slant eyed Asian-Americans is not critical to the storyline. 

Me: True. Speaking of Asian stereotypes, has there been similar banning of Breakfast at Tiffany’s? I get really uncomfortable watching Mickey Rooney’s character, Mr. Yunioshi. I know there has been general criticism. But no furor, as you put it.

Friend 1 Not that I know of. And Jerry Lewis portrayed Asian stereotypes (buck teeth, thick glasses, fake accents in "The Geisha Boy") for many years. Part of the "accepted" and intrinsic racism. 

Friend 2 As I understand it, moving forward, the publisher has decided to no longer print 6 of the 60 Seuss titles that had stereotypes that (I hope) we no longer condone. No one is attempting to crucify or “cancel” Dr. Seuss. And no one is asking any of us to throw away any books we cherish. This whole thing seems to be a brouhaha over little to nothing.

Me I'm surprised that you as an educator would minimize this story by calling it a brouhaha. Book banning used to be something liberals once condemned. Those days are gone, apparently. Your point about the decision being made by the Seuss Enterprises makes the story even more insidious. Self-censorship--anticipating the consequences of cultural judgment and acting proactively--is simply surrendering to cultural bullying.

Friend 2 It is not censorship when a company decides to change their products on their own to adapt to a changing marketplace. It is not bullying when a large portion of that market simply notes the product has some issues that are offensive to them. This is not surrender. It’s our capitalist system at work. How would you like the company to respond?

Me How about designing a whole curriculum around the concept of changing values over history through the prism of children’s literature? Teach, for instance. Educate. Don’t tear down (statues, literature, art, music), don’t erase history. Learn from it.  

Friend 3: So how do you depict Asians in painted pictures? Or any other culture? Should we all be the same? Sounds like the extinction of humanity.

Me: I'm not exactly sure I understand your question, but in the context of this conversation, I guess we have to agree that stereotyping people is always wrong. None of us belongs to a "category" that can be easily defined or portrayed. Artists and writers need to focus on authenticity--one person, in one moment, unique, individual. No pre-defined characteristics. That was the problem last century, which is what we're talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anything has changed. There was a brief moment in the mid sixties when it appeared we might free ourselves from categorizing and stereotyping. Dr. King offered a vision of a color-blind society which now is being jettisoned by the so-called antiracists. We're back to being defined by skin color, relegated, once again, to categories. While I don't think this presages the extinction of humanity, it probably presages the end of MLK's dream.

Creatures of our Times

We are creatures of our time.

Judging, condemning, and erasing people by "today's" standards is not only illogical, it's suicidal. Because 100 years from now, each of us stands a very good chance of being judged, condemned and erased by the things we said, did, or even posted during the time we lived.

Someday, in the not-too-distant future when all people eat are vegetables or "cultured" meat, someone will discover my social media posts of pulled pork sandwiches. Or they'll stumble on posts of you scarfing down an In-n-Out burger. Or that Instagram post of you getting on a plane or riding your motorcycle.

And even though these are things that most people did during the years we lived, the future "woke" will not approve of meat eating or carbon-based fuel.

And that will be the end of you and me.

To judge and "erase" people who lived during a different era is both arrogant and ignorant. The woke may feel smug, but they oughtn't. As Martin Niemöller famously wrote, "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Ironically, perhaps I shouldn't even be quoting Niemöller. Though he would later join the group of pastors (among them, Dietrich Boehoffer) who opposed the Nazis, he was an early supporter of der Führer. Cancel him!

But he learned. He changed.

Do we judge him, cancel him, for what he once believed, or accept him, flaws and all, for what he learned, for his growth, for his evolution?

I know what the woke would do.

Theodor Seuss "Ted" Geisel was born in 1902 and he died in 1991. Illustrations in his children's books reflect the era in which he lived, illustrations that were likely standard for the industry. I haven't heard anything about him being a racist. Have you?

The woke of 2021 will cancel Dr. Seuss.

Just as the woke of 2121 will cancel them for doing things most people did in 2021. Like eating a nice steak dinner or getting on an airplane.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

"The times change, and we change with them."

Here is the statement from Dr. Seuss Enterprises.

In the Name of God, Go--The Trump Era Ends in Shame

When you've lost the Wall Street Journal, it's time to go. 

The two main editorials are scathing and well-deserved rebukes. Unlike most publications, the Journal has always been fair in its analysis of this president, both critiquing and affirming, neither pandering nor posturing. Some describe it as "pro-Trump," but that's nonsense. 

Here, the editors say exactly what needs to be said. I particularly agree with the last sentence of their second editorial, about Trump erasing his legacy. Trump had the chance to burnish his legacy in these last weeks of his presidency, not only by conceding the election but by fighting for the Georgia Senate seats in order to leave mostly intact some of his accomplishments. Instead, with his month-long tantrum, he has left behind a unified Congress which will pull the country further left than a divided Congress would have allowed.

I believe the next two years will be ugly and can only hope the GOP can re-group and live to fight another day. The only silver lining I see is that, by leaving in this way, he has essentially ended his political career. Had he left with head held high and a functional Congress, there was a good chance he'd try to come back in 2024. Now I believe he has written his political obituary. He won't be back.  

"In the name of God, go." 

"Mr. Trump has erased much of his own legacy."