Professor Van Dyke held a discussion tonight with the CD's about Lady Gaga and Madonna's identities as women in pop culture. What Lady Gaga is doing these days is stimulating to say the least- it's the most robust, assaulting artistic/cultural expression walking the line between executing precise control and being wholly reckless. Hearing what Van Dyke had to say about it all was great- she seems like a reasonable professor and is pretty insightful. What a discussion though- to be on the top of this wave of culture... consuming, gnoshing, chewing, pounding whatever is given to us
the moment it exists. "Paparazzi" emerges and we are all up in arms, trying to 'figure out' what Gaga is 'saying', hanging her every word in lyric and in gesture. Then in a matter of months "Telephone" comes out and we are again astounded, welcome to the new material (new culture) to 'discern' and obsess over. It enters out conversations in the ITC, over dinner, and at Founders Mondays.
As much as it is exciting to be here, now, with this happening, all we are doing is digesting what we're being [force] fed. We're not making it, and in that sense, I feel without freedom somehow. Culture. Whatever.
Then on the way back from this discussion, I was talking with Nathaniel in his car (with Tiesto exploding on the standard 2008 Toyota speakers). He is doing a research project with Van Dyke this summer about the emergence of feminism/masculinity theory among minorities (a completely under-researched field of study). All oppressive language until this point has necessarily been via the voice of white feminists, leaving no room for other oppressed voices using much the same language, but only because they have to. Basically, Nathaniel is researching a new field, where literature is published and studied within weeks of its emergence. It sounds so interesting and so enriching, I welled up with envy just thinking about it. What a remarkable experience- to study gender with a [reasonably] accomplished academic as foundational theories are being developed. As. Right now.
This leads me to my third experience that happened over the weekend. No, it's not blacking out and the Pamojapocalypse, although that was a first. I went to the premier showing of the Eating In Place documentary about West Michigan food systems. The movie basically was a West Michigan archive of current food producers, business people, organizations all caught up in this movement about FOOD. Trillium Haven, Local First, and other foodies to name a few were all there. The room that screened the film was in the Prince Center and hundreds of people were there. It was an intense realization for me that I was a part of some kind of cultural movement similar to the Lady Gaga discussion and Nathaniel's gender research. It seemed the epitome of zeitgeist. Here we all were in a single room discussing and making headway on an 'issue' we all agreed upon. But we're not the only ones who agree- the whole nation is making this move toward local food, and we're at the front of the parade. To be present at an event like that made me a culture-maker. It made me a participant.
It is interesting to think about whether me being a part of this movement necessarily entails a reached actualization. I was doing some research today for Jeff Bouman on Jim Bosscher. In going through old Prism year books, I found such a palpable difference in the spirit of the '48 yearbook, the '71 yearbook, and the '90 yearbook.
The oldest was full of formally-dressed opposite sexes. Clubs were gendered, study was gendered, and everyone seemed intent on being a part of a working system. The idea seemed to be that it was a chance to be an adult, and working together was the most pragmatic and peaceful option. Every person's face seemed so naive and blinded with culture (a culture I don't understand). Everyone was very content and thankful to be a man or woman going to college.
The '71 yearbook was fascinating. It was paperback and read like a narrative. The photos in the book were all so artistically intentional. Sometimes not having any pragmatic value, but aesthetic value. The poems, essays, and quotes throughout the yearbook were all about changing culture, war, peace, activism, power, and understanding. Some pretty powerful words speaking towards a spirit of the time that accessed creativity in visual art, prose, and song for the purpose of critiquing an evil system. An evil bureaucratic system, an evil academic system, an evil war system. Living in that time would have been wonderful, I think. Every student seemed to access this potential to be a voice of change. Knowledge broadened your understanding of the world, and when that happened you realize the injustices and are impassioned to change.
And the '90 yearbook was the biggest disappointment. Smiling, clueless consumers getting an education with their friends. The fonts were big and playful, the art in-between the covers was statistics about how many rolls of toilet paper Calvin students consume in one year, or how many thousands of gallons of ice cream Calvin students eat in a week. The change from '71 was stark. There were no messages empowering students to be agents of change, and the aesthetic of the time seemed to be one of prescribed low-tech graphics. Whatever was handed to them at the time. Professors weren't even documented.
Considering the spirit of the ideas pounding in my mind, what else am I to do with this? I may feel like I'm a part of my culture, a part of a movement to make the world a better place, but I'm likely not. I'm a part of a movement of young people disillusioned with empowerment and privilege. There is no reason to think that I am the future. Look at how things play out- even whole movements and generations of activists are forgotten and moved-on from.
