Lessons from Italy

Everyone said Italy would be beautiful; and it was. When my wife and I visited this past summer, we were both in awe. The country looks like a Renaissance painting; utterly different from American landscapes. Partly this is because cypress trees and umbrella pines are everywhere. Partly it is because relics of the past abound.
One thing is plain however. Our civilization owes a great deal to the accomplishments of ancient Rome and Renaissance Florence. Their achievements are more than impressive; they are testimony to the durability of the human spirit. The plumbing system uncovered in Pompeii demonstrates that human ingenuity has a storied pedigree; while Michelangelo’s David proves that human artistic genius is not confined to one time period or nationality.
But there is another lesson to be learned; one that is not as sanguine. We nowadays are inclined to criticize the pedestrian ambiance in which we live. Commercialization is everywhere and we find it lacking in inspirational qualities. It does not have the panache of a Leonardo da Vinci or the gravitas of the Roman Coliseum. To us it seems ordinary and crass.
Looking upon the Roman Forum and the Pantheon, one cannot help but be impressed by the physical undertakings of our long dead ancestors. Nor can we deny the genius of those who invented the use of perspective in art. But there is more to be seen if we look closely.
Pompeii is a good place to begin. It is much larger and more technologically advanced than might be expected. But then there are the little touches; the ones that alert us to what life was like for the flesh and blood human beings who lived in Pompeii. For instance, there is the famous brothel. Most visitors are amused by its visual depictions of the sorts of sexual activity for sale. They listen to the tour guides explain how business was transacted, but they don’t pause at the observation that most of the working girls were slaves.
Nor do most tourists ponder the condition of the gladiators. When they walk through the town’s amphitheaters, they are impressed by their size and acoustics. Perhaps they also note that our term for “fornication” derives from the entrance halls where illicit sex occurred. What they probably neglect was that the gladiators were also slaves. They may have been the sports superstars of their times, but they were not free to live lives of their choosing.
We who are free take our circumstances for granted. We do not consider it special that we can—for the most part—do what we like when we like. Nevertheless, the fact that we do not have masters controlling our fate is an historical achievement of the first magnitude. It took millennia to accomplish and was won at the cost of countless lives.
Looking now at medieval Florence, one is impressed not merely by the ubiquitous sculptures, but by its domestic towers. The grandees of the Renaissance city lived in fear for their lives. Their homes were fortresses because they had to be. Families would literally attack one another in order to assert political precedence.
In some of these buildings the front entrance was a tiny crawl space accessed by climbing up a ladder. The goal was to prevent easy entrée by one’s enemies. But this meant that persons on noble stature had to scrunch themselves up every time they entered their own homes. Imagine how demeaning that must have been.
Even the art that we today admire was a tool in the internecine warfare of Renaissance cities. The Medici, for example, commissioned these works in order to elicit the good will of ordinary citizens. They wanted to make sure that they would come to their defense when folks like the Pazzi sought to assassinate them.
We, of course, don’t worry about such things. Yes, there are the occasional assassinations, but they are the exception. Poisoning people to get ahead is no longer a conventional means of achieving power. We instead resort to things like political spin and poisoning the airwaves against rivals.
The point is that our lives may seem boring compared with those of the generations that preceded us, but this monotony is an enormous boon. Our market economy is relatively predictable, and builds on the contributions of the millions who came before us, but it is also relatively safe and liberating.
The techno-commercial world in which we reside provides us with opportunities our ancestors did not have. We can make personal choices without having to worry that our master will put us in chains or that a rival will cut us down with a sword. We can innovate; we can grow rich; we can even take trips to Italy without asking anyone’s permission.
That’s not too bad.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Why I am Not a Feminist

As a sociologist, before I begin teaching most of my classes I make a confession. Because a majority of my students expect sociologists to be liberal, I explain that I am not. Moreover, because much of what I teach involves gender relations, I have to explain that I am not a feminist; that I am indeed an anti-feminist.
Before I continue, I must make something else very clear. I am not against women. I have no desire to see them returned to being “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.” If women wish to become the CEO’s of major corporations, that is perfectly okay with me. If they want to join the military, that is also fine.
No, I am not anti-feminist because I hate women, but because I love children. It is a desire to protect the young that initially impelled me to suffer the wrath of the politically correct. The problem, as I see it, it not the ambition of many women to be vocationally successful, but the implications of radical feminism per se.
Radical feminists paint a dire picture of heterosexual relationships. They regularly portray women has innocent victims and men as cruel exploiters. Although women are said to be every bit as powerful as men, they are simultaneously depicted as in need of protection from constant threats of rape.
Once upon a time, according to the feminists, the genders were on a par. If anything, women had more power than men. Then the advent of agriculture changed everything. The need for upper-body strength to propel a plow vaulted men into the lead. Subsequently, in order to maintain their advantage, men bullied women into submission.
Now, say the feminists, this male hegemony must be challenged. The rules have to be changed so that everything is fifty/fifty. Because the differences between men and women are sustained primarily by raising boys and girls differently, once this disparity is eliminated, the male advantage will disappear.
For the radical feminists, the ideal state is androgyny. All gender differences, except for the physiological ones, have to disappear. People must essentially become genderless. Individuals need to be judged as people, not men or women. The goal is thus absolute equality.
If this sounds fair, and perhaps democratic, it is anything but. It assumes that the differences between men and women are artificial. As a result, it demands that these be completely expunged. Women are required to become more like men and men more like women. Anything less is depicted as unfair.
Nevertheless, what is unfair is what has happened to many marriages. The voluntary intimacy necessary to sustain long-term heterosexual relationships is put in jeopardy when men and women are assumed to be the same. They are further endangered when women are regularly portrayed as the good guys and men the bad ones.
If men and women are to collaborate on developing strong relationships, they must be allowed to be who they are. More than this, if the parties to a marriage are to tolerate their inherent differences, they must accept these for what they are.
And there are differences, many of which are grounded in biology. Most men are more aggressive than most women, while most women are more emotionally sensitive than most men. There are, to be sure, exceptions but the trends are demonstrable in the different ways male and female brains function.
Mind you, these differences are not better or worse; they are merely different. If anything, they permit men and women to work together synergistically, so that the two can be stronger as a couple than they are individually.
Where children come in is that a strong relationship between their parents is to their advantage. It permits them to rely on two dependable parents who contribute different strengths to raising them. And this in turn makes them stronger and happier than they otherwise would be.
But the feminists interfere with this by turning men and women into enemies. They make marriages more fragile and therefore put children in jeopardy, for utterly imaginary purposes. There is no good reason men cannot be men and women, women, and the two still get along. As a result, I say, let them be themselves. In the end, everyone will be better off.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The New South Shall Rise Again

Times are tough. Unemployment is rampant and budget deficits stretch out as far as the eye can see. Here in Georgia the real estate market has been especially hard hit. Nevertheless, good times lie ahead.
What may be surprising to some people is that the New South is likely to lead the way out of our current recession. And what is more unexpected is that it will do so by combining the virtues of the Old South with the opportunities of modernity.
The Old South was an agricultural and economically isolated backwater. It was also poorer and less well educated than the North. Part of the reason was that southerners were stiff-necked individualists. They refused to relinquish the time-honored traditions that kept them down.
But times change. No one doubts that antebellum southerners, such as Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest, were courageous and innovative warriors. That they fought for one of the worst causes imaginable is also no longer in question. But now that overt racism has largely been put behind us, their former virtues have come to the fore.
What has emerged is a synergism between parts of the old with the possibilities of the new. It turns out that many of the moral commitments of the Old South are perfectly compatible with the requirements of a complex techno-commercial society. Instead of precluding success, they facilitate it.
Take the stiff-necked individualism that was a southern hallmark. Nowadays it translates into a stubborn sense of responsibility. A great many southerners take pride in living up to their duties. This includes a dedication to fiscal accountability. As a result, most southern states refused to sink into a debt comparable to that of states like New York and California.
As a result, Georgia and its neighbors are better places to do business than the Northeast or Rust Belt. This means they are likely to continue attracting business from areas where it is less secure.
The South is also more family friendly than other parts of the nation. In part, due to its religious heritage, its people continue to defend the traditional nuclear family. They believe it takes two committed parents to raise children to a happy adulthood.
In this, they are ahead of the social curve. Other parts of the nation have yet to realize that stable two-parent families are best at producing self-directed children. These support the emotional security needed to face the uncertainties of a volatile market economy.
To be sure, there have been challenges. Nevertheless, southerners have taken these in stride. They too realize that the modern family is not a male dominated dictatorship. They too understand that it is a partnership in which men and women cooperate to do what is best for everyone concerned.
All in all, southerners have learned from the past. Hungry for success in ways that complacent northerners are not, they are prepared to make adjustments their formerly more successful rivals are not.
The South is noted for its conservatism, but this is not a conservatism that resists change. To the contrary, southerners are much more likely to embrace innovation than northern liberals. They are ready to experiment and adopt practices that work. Tired of being second best, they are determined to do what is needed to win.
And this is why they are likely to be tomorrow’s winners. Many liberals, including Barack Obama, have become backward looking ideologues. This is the reason they favor Keynesian budget deficits and rigid unionism. They assume that what they have always done will continue to work into the indefinite future.
Southerners, however, make no such assumptions. They are therefore more flexible. Combine this with the dedication to morality that is a vital part of their heritage and their future looks bright.
And this comes from a Damn Yankee.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Racism Redux

Now that racism has been reintroduced into our political mainstream, it is time for a little perspective. To this end, let me begin with a personal story.
Way back during the Viet Nam War era, I was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood Missouri. As part of the process, I was assigned KP (kitchen patrol). The idea was to help the cooks with the physical aspects of meal preparation.
All went well until it was time to return to my barracks. At this point, with the other KP’s having been dismissed, it was only me and the lowest ranking cook left to finish up. He then turned to me and with a grin snarled, “Ok, Jew boy, your a** is mine.” Next he set me to work at the worst kitchen tasks such as dismantling the grease trap.
While I was so engaged, one of my squad’s acting sergeants happened by. What, he asked, was I still doing on KP? Didn’t I know it was supposed to be over? I then explained that the corporal wouldn’t let me go.
This fellow trainee immediately went to fetch one of the regular sergeants. Once he arrived, I was instantly dispatched back to my unit. The sergeant then stayed behind to give the corporal a few choice words of advice.
The question is, how should I have responded to this affair? Should the lesson learned have been that most Christians are fundamentally untrustworthy; that sooner or later their latent anti-Semitism will emerge?
I could have responded that way, but I did not. I could have concentrated on the bigotry of the corporal who sought to degrade me, but then I would have ignored the decency of the two Christians who saved me. Had I done so, this would have been as much of an injustice as the one visited on me.
Nowadays with the Obama administration under siege, there as been a tendency for Democrats to react in the manner I might have. From the president of the NAACP to representatives of the Obama’s Justice Department, there have been volleys of incendiary accusations. Those who disagree with the president about anything from immigration policy to the Gulf oil spill are said to be motivated by racism.
Members of the tea party movement, in particular, have been singled out for vehement denunciation. Despite incredibly little evidence of overt racist behavior, they are characterized as fire-breathing bigots. This alone is said to explain the intensity of their opposition to our chief executive.
This, however, is a serious mistake. It blatantly fails to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys. There are real racists in America. There are people who judge others solely by the color of their skin. Nevertheless, few of the tea party people are among their number.
The failure of many liberals to make this distinction is comparable to what I might have done when on KP. It is to tar everyone from whom one might differ with the same brush. As such, it is itself a form of prejudice.
Whatever the political motives of those so engaged, this sort of conduct perpetuates unfairness and discord. Instead of bringing people together, it fosters distrust and misunderstanding. In other words, it encourages exactly the sort of bias it allegedly seeks to prevent.
The real message should be this. The way to bring about fairness and equality is to treat people fairly and equally. This especially includes those with whom one might disagree. To do less is to invite their displeasure and ultimately opposition.
Back at Fort Leonard Wood I might have exhibited a similar lack of gratitude. But would this have been just? Would it have acknowledged the integrity of those who came to my rescue?
Shouldn’t liberals, who endlessly boast of their moral credentials, be at least as evenhanded? Shouldn’t they seek to lead by example rather than stir the social pot for a temporary political advantage?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University