Notes on Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth"

At the start of the year, I challenged myself to become better read in leftist theory and ideology, and I was hoping others would maybe want to join me and chat about it.  So far in the FB group I've been mostly talking to myself, but nevertheless, I think it's a project worth undertaking.  (I also joined the Pittsburgh DSA reading group.)

I decided I'd collect all of my FB posts about the books I undertake into blog posts, for easy reference.  If you've read Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth," you might have thoughts about my thoughts, or if you haven't, you might enjoy this overview with my commentary?

I just finished the first chapter of Wolf's "The Beauty Myth" -- "Work". Here are some of my starting thoughts.

In the first place, of course, the statistics and numbers are outdated (in the original version, which I'm reading), but actually, we all know that specifics aside, it's all still true -- women's work is still unpaid, underpaid, and radically undervalued, and our literal worth is tied directly to our appearance, many or even most professions can dictate repressive standards for which. As an academic, I've been lucky to avoid the most direct versions of the demands from a woman's appearance that many occupations make, but like all women I've spent my life having my labor go un/undercompensated and un/undervalued. And by labor, I don't just mean direct labor for my employers (although that too), but of course all of the housework and emotional work that is expected of women -- and that's before we even get to child- and eldercare, which I witnessed in intimate detail, growing up with my single mother and my elderly grandmother, although some of the folks in this group have experienced or are experiencing those things directly now.

One thing that strikes me is the importance of thinking in *economic* terms, which is another way of saying that it's impossible to think about the system of patriarchy without thinking about the system of capitalism. I think we primarily consider the beauty myth -- the unreasonable demands placed on women's appearances -- in terms of self-esteem alone: "Oh, I'm not thin enough/young-enough looking/pretty enough/gender conforming enough, and people aren't attracted to me or they treat me badly, and it makes me feel bad." And I'm not saying that those bad feelings are not a problem in and of themselves. I spent the first ~28 years of my life in a state of perpetual anxious body shame because of my weight, worried not so much about my appearance per se (I basically didn't have any of my own private opinions about what I wanted my body to look like) but about the fact that -- I had been led to believe -- no man would ever love me because I was fat. This made me feel worthless. Breaking that down is tragic -- the idea that I was worthless without the love of a man, the idea that only thin women are loveable, and just the *primacy* I placed upon being loved by someone else ... I still shudder to think about it. So my point is that those bad feelings in and of themselves are worthy of concern. (And I now realize that as a fat woman, I've got much bigger problems than men wanting to fuck me; fat discrimination is real, repeatedly documented, and literally kills people when it works in the health professions, although it also robs fat people of money and opportunity in measurable degrees -- but we can put a pin in that, I'm sure I'll find a book for it eventually.)

Anyway, those bad feelings are only the very beginning of things! "Low female self-esteem may have a sexual value to some individual men, but it has a financial value to all of society. Women's poor physical self-image today is far less a result of sexual competition than it is of the needs of the marketplace." (49)

So let's break this down: by tying women's self-valuation to their appearance, and constantly critiquing that appearance as either substandard and thus a symptom of personal failure; or else superstandard and thus the only acknowledged reason for any success attained, women are set up to expect less and demand less economically. And so male-controlled economies prosper off of un/underpaid female labor. Killer Mike told us free labor was the cornerstone of U.S. economics, and he was right. Consider how much work women do in their occupations for cents on the dollar compared to men; now consider how much completely free labor they do in homes and communities that, if you paid someone fairly to do it, would cost a damn fortune. (24/7 childcare! Holy shit!) And we think, because of our general undervaluing by male economic structures (Cough! Capitalism! Cough!) that this, is if not appropriate, then inevitable. And that general undervaluing happens through a culture that insists our only value is as display objects and tools of male sexual gratification.

But there's more -- we also impose an enormous tax upon ourselves resultant all of this: the money we spend in the effort to conform to these beauty standards, which goes mostly into male pockets; and the *time* we spend on this "third-shift" of beauty maintenance activities, which we could either use literally productively, in the economic sense, or figuratively so, on ourselves, our own betterment, education, and especially on justice-oriented political projects. And it's not just money and time spent, but mental energy, which *is* a finite commodity; before giving up weight-loss dieting, I was, as Wolf describes near the end of the chapter, literally exhausted all the time from just ... THINKING about my body and my diet so much, just from FEELING ASHAMED itself.

And I can't get over *how much money* you can make making women feel bad about themselves. The diet industry alone is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. And that's not mere exercise products (exercise per se being good for everyone) -- that's like, Weight Watchers and shit. So basically, male dominated economies take our money on both ends by insisting that we're primarily good for looking sexy (on a male scale), and we're almost all failing at it.

Women's misery is good for business under capitalism.

So, let me ask: what are your responses to this first chapter? Do you have personal experiences you'd like to share about this kind of economic discrimination? How can we resist, given the real consequences of being the woman who bucks this system, and understanding that lots of women literally can't afford to challenge it when they have mouths to feed and house? How do we think, in general, about resistance that involves two axes -- here, sexual and economic? And also, how do we disentangle from this mess our own personal desires about our own appearances? As I said above, I spent most of my life having no actual personal preferences about the way my body looked, or the way I dressed. It wasn't until I began to practice body acceptance that I also began to develop a sense of what I wanted from my body (mostly not in terms of appearance but in terms of functioning and ability), as well as a sense of personal style. And a big propeller down my own feminist path away from all of this was renouncing any fucks given about how men felt about me at all -- but then, easy for me to say, I've already nailed down an adorable hobbit. In other words, how do we navigate legitimate desires about our own appearance and our own ability to attract a mate (if we're heterosexual especially) and this mess? And speaking of ability -- boy howdy, is this shit wrapped up in ableism. My own tiny experience is that, because of my tiny leg be-cripplement, I can't wear heels, which is an automatic Femininity Points Deduction. But imagine that times a million, depending on one's disability.

Finished the second chapter of Wolf's "The Beauty Myth" -- although Ted just finished the first and commented on that post, so feel free to jump in wherever.

It discusses women's magazines at length, and I admit, I'm not sure how relevant women's magazines are in 2017 -- literally, I don't know. I read such magazines when I was much younger, and I certainly recognize the combination of degradation and exaltation Wolf describes and that makes reading them so complicated. On one hand, they're chief peddlers of the expensive, exhausting, unobtainable beauty standards that oppress women so completely economically and psychologically. But on the other hand, they're practically the only forum where a mostly female editorial and writing staff writes almost exclusively about women's issues. My sense is that the internet has opened up other, better venues than things like Cosmopolitan for women -- sites like Jezebel are problematic for a variety of reasons, but they're not pushing diets on you every other page. But I sincerely don't know what the penetration of either magazines or their online alternatives are in the general population -- I know that *I* as an old millennial self-select online feminist publications, and no longer engage traditional women's magazines, but that might put me far outside of the mainstream. I literally don't know what constitutes mainstream women's media anymore, and would be interested to hear others' opinions on what it might be.

But the overarching thing that stands out for me from the chapter is just the term, "women's culture" -- Wolf maintains, probably entirely accurately for the early 1990s -- that women's magazines constitute basically the only widespread, mainstream women's culture: cultural production made by and for women focusing on at least some version or subset of women's concerns. And now, twenty-five years later, I'm left wondering if even that still exists -- cultural production by and for women that focuses on at least a subset of women's concerns that is shared by a large and diverse cross-section of women (at least in the Western world). What, today, would constitute a broadly shared "women's culture"? And how -- HOW -- is it that in a seething ocean of 24/7, completely saturated media of every conceivable form, there's practically nothing identifiable as (widely available, broadly and diversely shared) "women's culture"??? What should "women's culture" be? How could we create it? It's literally impossible that there's no market for it, if we're constrained by capitalist considerations -- and yet, women, the majority of consumers, are left being considered a niche demographic, rarely exclusively catered to by media, and almost never catered to with media generated by women.

What the hell? Seriously.

Chapter Three: "Religion".

So, I'm a little dubious about part of Wolf's analysis in this chapter, for two reasons. The first is that her discussion seems to assume that American women are no longer directly under the influence and constraints of Judeo-Christian religion, which is an assumption that is probably true of Wolf's presumed audience, but which is, I think, emphatically not true for perhaps ... what, 25% of American women? Particularly in, but not limited to, rural areas, I think there is a goodly percentage of American women who are actively religious, or who are actively hampered by religion; the former being (more or less) voluntary practitioners, the latter being the children and trapped wives of practitioners. And so an analysis of the ways in which the rituals, rites, and scriptures of a consumerist American beauty cult parody and supplant traditional religious practice seems incomplete to me if it doesn't acknowledge that many American women are still directly involved with -- and to varying degrees, oppressed by -- traditional religious practice itself. That alone is a topic worth consideration.

On the other hand, my sense is that women who are NOT directly involved with traditional religious practice are probably much less familiar with its traditions than Wolf seems to suggest: is any secular woman out there really thinking about her position as the derivative of Adam's rib, consciously or unconsciously? I don't deny that as a residual formation in the secular subcultural superstructure of modern America, religion might still provide touchstones and influences; but I seriously doubt that it's even a tertiary driving force in women's motivations for participating in consumerist patriarchal beauty rituals.

Those criticisms on the table, I DO appreciate the parallels Wolf draws between the language, ideology, and practice of beauty product consumption and the enactment of beauty routines and traditional religious beliefs and rites. The element of faith in both -- in religion that sacrifice and submission will lead to salvation, in beauty practice that it will lead to satisfaction and status -- is compelling, and her her points about skepticism are pretty on-the-nose: "The skepticism of the modern age evaporates where the subject is women's beauty. It is still -- indeed, more than ever -- described not as if it is determined by mortal beings, shaped by politics, history, and the marketplace, but as if there is a divine authority of makes deathless scripture about what it is that makes a woman good to look at." (87) And, of course, about what practices will give a woman those traits that make her good to look at.

Of course, it makes sense that, with God dying in the West (at least in the communities not still under the sway of traditional patriarchal religions), a patriarchal society would need a new way to oppress women, just as changes in society's production that pushed women out of home-making roles required reactions to oppress them in new economic ways. "Original sin left us sexual guilt. When the sexual revolution joined with consumerism to create the new supply of sexually available women, a physical relocation of female guilt was needed at once. The Rites of Beauty supplant virtually every Judeo-Christian prohibition against sexual appetite with a parallel taboo against oral appetite. The whole oral scenario of longing, temptation, capitulation, terror that 'it will show,' desperate efforts to purge the 'evidence' from the body, and ultimate self-loathing can be imagined almost unchanged ..." (97)

I notice that this religious sense of sin, guilt, sacrifice, and ritual sanctity seems to have expanded and mutated since Wolf was writing. While it's definitely still the case that women are indoctrinated into a cult that requires their constant self-monitoring and effort to be "good" -- thin and beautiful -- it seems to me that there is a new valence to what it is that generates sanctity; in response to feminist push-back on the rites of beauty Wolf describes, which seem to pretty directly reference male opinion on what women should look like, there's a new reactionary sanctification of the concept of "health" and the purity that attains to women who practice good "health" -- coincidentally, these things are touted as also keeping you thin and beautiful. I think you know what I'm talking about: the endless "lifestyle blogs" and everything else, including innumerable advertising campaigns, that encourage people, in particular women, to "take care of themselves" -- organic, supposedly detoxifying smoothies; endless yoga; raw food diets; meditation; "decluttering"; living your "best life" and etc. All of this is a purity test: can women deny themselves sufficiently, can they follow a thoroughly elaborate list of restrictions, can they flagellate themselves sufficiently, can they spend enough to achieve this new ideal, which is sold as not being anything so sexist and crass as mere sex appeal, heavens no!, but rather as being a kind of state of zen, in which women are thin, perpetually young, lithe, strong, "fit," but also, miraculously after following all of the rigorous rules of diet and exercise and presentation and consumption, relaxed and self-actualized. "Good" women are "healthy," bad women are too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves, and the emphasis on "health" masks the fact that everything Wolf describes in terms of the oppressively expensive, time-consuming, self-sacrificing, self-loathing, unobtainable demands of this new form of female sanctity are basically exactly the same as the old demands predicated on male sexual desire. Except this time it's supposedly about "you," woman, and not men. Or something. I guess. (NB: I'm not saying that in a vacuum, there's anything at all wrong with yoga, meditation, organic kale -- which I love! -- or any other individual element of "health" trends; rather I'm saying that in combination this "lifestyle" is just a new set of extremely expensive and challenging rituals and purchases to suck up women's time, money, energy, and confidence when they inevitably fail to attain perfect Gwyneth Paltrow cleansed and limber enlightenment.)

So anyway, those are my initial thoughts on women's capitalist beauty rites -- both the practices themselves and the beliefs that support them, as well as the required consumption -- insofar as they recapitulate religious demands and oppressions, as Wolf claims they do. Something that remains to be asked, I think, is if there is something about this kind of ritualism and faith that women -- or people in general -- *like* and find satisfying, such that when ritualism and faith are removed from the spiritual realm, there's a tendency to recreate them in another realm. It's not that I don't see how such demands are instrumental for patriarchy in enacting women's oppression, and for capitalism in exploiting women as consumers; but I also wonder if there's a need that's being fulfilled by these bad actors which could be fulfilled in positive ways, but in any case needs fulfilled in the absence of literal spiritual practice.

Chapter Four: "Sex"

I had this immediate, visceral recognition of the points made in this chapter ... and then felt guilty for agreeing with her. So let's parse those two reactions, which is what I then set about doing.

In the first place, her description of the depiction of women in media as brutalized objects just felt so spot-on to me. Even in ads that target *women,* women are depicted as they are in pornography: beauty objects -- where the "beauty" is according to the standard used by conventional patriarchy -- whose sexuality has been rendered as both extremely rarefied and as being almost completely passive to a man, or the product that stands in for the man. Moreover, the pornographic representation isn't even that of a soft-core, soft-focus romance -- it's a capitalist parody of sadomasochism, where women, sometimes rendered literally as objects -- robots, mannequins, unmoving (dead?) bodies -- are subjected to male dominance and abuse, to the point where any other kind of sexualized depiction is marginalized as timid, boring, and not worth the name "sex." "The woman learns from these images that no matter how assertive she may be in the world, her private submission to control is what makes her desirable." (133) And I think Wolf's interpretation of the role of the rapid ascendancy in visual culture of this particular depiction of women's sexuality -- passive, impossibly "beautiful" according to very narrow standards, and violently subjugated -- as being one of oppression is a good one: "The feminine sexual style of the 1960s was abandoned in popular culture, because for women to be sexual in that way -- cheerfully, sensually, playfully, without violence or shame, without dread of consequences -- would break down completely institutions that were tottering crazily enough since women had changed merely their *public* roles." (134) In a sense, this recapitulates the political motivations behind previous chapters' subjects as well: since women had achieved a radical new freedom in terms of politics and economics, there was an immediate reaction in cultural spheres to intensity the oppression women experienced there to make up for the new freedom elsewhere. The pressure on women got released, to an extent, in some areas, and so new pressures got applied in others to compensate and maintain the patriarchal status quo. And here the new pressure is the depiction of women's sexuality as limited to only a very small group of women who meet certain appearance standards, and even then that sexuality can only be channeled into violent, submissive forms.

What makes this particular form of pressure more intense than, say, the demands of the market for beauty products and services, is that Wolf makes the assertion -- which I think is convincing -- that the saturation of these depictions of women's sexuality is actually *conditioning* men AND women to normalize violent, nonconsensual sex. "But what is happening now is that men and women whose private psychosexual history would not lead them to eroticize sexual violence are *learning* from such scenes to be interested in it. In other words, our culture is depicting sex as rape *so that* men and women will become interested in it." (138) The statistics she quotes on rape and sexual assault are horrifying, and we know they're no better now than they were when Wolf was first published. We now call what she's describing Rape Culture -- a culture that normalizes sexual violence against women in media and real-life gender relations, and excuses and ignores it in judicial institutions. Part of that normalization is the RELENTLESS depiction of women's sexuality in media -- entertainment and advertisements -- as objectifying, subjugating, and sadomasochistic. And this pressure works to maintain patriarchy in a two-fold way: one, it literally terrorizes women with the threat of or actual sexual violence, which limits us or leads us to self-limit out of fear. Two, it suppresses a healthier, more liberatory sexuality that supports and even constitutes political radicalization: "... sexual satisfaction eases the stranglehold of materialism, since status symbols no longer look sexual, but irrelevant. Product lust weakens where emotional and sexual lust intensifies ... Consumer culture is best supported by markets made up of sexual clones, men who want objects and women who want to be objects, and the object desired ever-changing, disposable, and dictated by the market. The beautiful object of consumer pornography has a built-in obsolescence, to ensure that as few men as possible will form a bond with one women for years or for a lifetime, and to ensure that women's dissatisfaction with themselves will grow rather than diminish over time. Emotionally unstable relationships, high divorce rates, and a large population cast out of the sexual marketplace are good for business in the sexual economy. Beauty pornography is intent on making modern sex brutal and boring and only as deep as a mirror's mercury, anti-erotic for both men and women ... (But) an erotic life based on nonviolent mutuality rather than domination and pain teaches firsthand its appeal beyond the bedroom. A consequence of female self-love is that a woman grows convinced of social worth ... If a woman loves her own body, she doesn't grudge what other women do with theirs; if she loves femaleness, she champions its rights ... if we believed we could get away with it, we *would* ask for more love, more sex, more money, more commitment to children, more food, more care." (144-5)

So why did I react so guiltily to agreeing with this? I think it's because, upon a shallow reading, it appears to condemn alternative sexualities per se: its use of the term "sadomasochism" can read as nonliteral, but rather referring to the actual practice of kink. In general, feminism teaches us that sexual freedom is paramount: people should be free to fuck how they want, and suggesting that some sexual expressions are categorically unhealthy or "off-limits" or "anti-feminist" is contrary to the sexual freedom feminism should encourage. But I think this concern is easily resolved. REAL kink -- the actual practice of S & M by actual people, in a deliberate, intentional way -- is, ideally and even usually, and as articulated by the main kink community, deeply mutually respectful and preoccupied with total consent between partners. "Sadomasochism" as a lived and deliberate practice is understood, by all respectable practitioners, as a mutually concerned and satisfying sexual practice between men and women (when it's between men and women). What Wolf describes is merely the appropriation of S & M by patriarchy and capitalism to do the work of oppression; that's a sick parody of real sexual expression, put to bad ends by bad people, and shouldn't reflect on good people expressing their marginal sexuality in mutually respectful ways. Furthermore, feminism that just shallowly declares "I choose my choice!" without investigating whether a given depiction of women and women's sexuality is overall harmful or not is actually a tool of patriarchy: patriarchy *encourages* this thoughtless "everything done by or to women is ok as long as you can find at least one woman to defend it, even the things that are obviously not ok" style of "feminism," since it's a tool to silence real feminist discourse. So Wolf isn't actually attacking REAL sexual freedom or any authentic marginalized sexual practice; she's attacking their weaponized parodies, which are much more prevalent in culture at large, and used to oppress women in general and silence the healthy things they've misappropriated for ill use.

So! Any thoughts on women's sex and its depictions in America?

(Also: this chapter is sort of relentlessly concerned with heterosexuality, BUT I think this is just because one, mass culture is grossly heteronormative, and two, it kind of goes without saying that lesbian sexuality is free of many of the oppressions of heterosexuality as wielded by patriarchy and capitalism.)

Chapter Five: "Hunger"

So, in a way, this is the chapter about which I should have, naturally, the most to say. As a fat woman, I've lived my life directly chained and bludgeoned by this particular subsection of patriarchy: fat hate. Diet culture. Literally starting when I was a tiny child, I was daily bullied by peers, caretakers, other adults, and the culture at large. It was conveyed to me directly and explicitly that my body was ugly, wrong, bad, an inconvenience and an imposition, unloveable and disgusting. The background chorus to these direct statements of my body's worthlessness was a million daily implicit messages about how irresponsible, lazy, slovenly, and stupid I must be to have "let" my body be the way it is: fat. I don't think I should have to explain in detail what this does to a person -- how painful it is, how it destroys your sense of self-worth, how it perverts your relationship to yourself and others, to food, to exercise, to other women, to men (particularly if you're straight or bi), to wearing clothes, to being in public at all.

So, let's just get get the facts on the table. All of this is easily verifiable by casual google searches; since it's the day of the women's strike, I'm not going to do free research. I'm going to say, "Trust women," and to take my word for it.

1) There is no scientifically demonstrated method to reliably keep a fat adult thin. In approximately 90% of cases of adult weight loss of more than 10% of body weight, the weight returns by the end of five years. So to begin with: the vast majority of fat people cannot currently, through *any* method, become and remain thin.

2) Fat *does* correlate to some health conditions. It is unclear in which direction the correlations run, and it is unclear how many of them are confused or even generated by stress -- the stress of living in a stigmatized, abused, discriminated-against body every day. Further, there is a great deal of well-documented discrimination against fat people within healthcare itself, which damages fat peoples' health and even kills them through neglect. Knowing this first-hand, many fat people delay or avoid seeking healthcare entirely. All of this makes it extremely difficult to determine how much of their unhealth might actually be the result of fat alone.

2a) When people talk about fat shaming as being about health, they are universally lying, possibly to themselves as well. If health were a concern in our culture we would:

- Make whole, nutritious food universally accessible for free or cheap, subsidizing it at both the consumer and producer levels, as opposed to what we do now, which is the literal opposite, giving out corporate welfare to industrial producers of heavily processed, unhealthy food and providing practically no assistance to hungry families.

-Make leisure time a priority for all people with caps on hours worked per week, paid vacation time, and prohibitions on employers contacting employees after work hours so that people have adequate time to both rest and exercise within their ability, as well as to relax to combat the scientifically confirmed negative health impacts of stress.

-Make pleasurable, healthful movement universally accessible, both by subsidizing access to gym facilities and prioritizing the safety and infrastructural soundness of public spaces for the use of people to recreate and exercise in.

-Provide whole, nutritious foods in schools, for free.

-Provide universal, high-quality healthcare to all people within our borders, for free.

We do none of these things. This is not a culture concerned with health. When it claims to be concerned with fat people's health as an excuse for shame and discrimination, it is lying. Period. Full stop.

3) Fat people are discriminated against in many ways: in hiring and salary, admission to academic programs, and in doctors' offices. Fat women are discriminated against to a greater degree than fat men. All of this has been repeatedly proven in studies.

4) Fat bodies are stigmatized by capitalism to drive consumption of weight-loss products. The American diet industry is a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry. It is not just fat people who are coerced by the stigmatization of fat bodies into buying these products (which do not work). Rather, by making the fat body a bogey man that might strike anyone at any time, and by making the beauty standard constantly thinner and thinner, until almost no one naturally conforms to its weight requirement, ALL consumers are drawn into the diet industry.

Besides this last point -- the profit motive of capitalism -- fat stigma also serves the goals of patriarchy. Wolf notes that thinness became a preoccupation of American culture in the 1920s -- at precisely the emergence of the significant success of first-wave feminism, and not, contrary to a different mythological narrative, as a new marker of prosperity: the subsequent Depression and world war eras were not times in which skinny bodies would have naturally been seen as symbols of prosperity. No, the requirement of unnatural (for most women) thinness was imposed at the moment of first-wave feminism's big gains, as a new way to sap women's energy and time. "This great weight-shift bestowed on women, just as we were free to begin to forget them, new versions of low self-esteem, loss of control, and sexual shame. It is a genuinely elegant fulfillment of a collective wish: by simply dropping the official weight one stone [~14 lbs] below most women's natural level, and redefining a woman's womanly shape as by definition 'too fat,' a wave of self-hatred swept over first world women, a reactionary psychology was perfected, and a major industry was born. It suavely countered a historical groundswell of female success with a mass conviction of female failure, a failure defined as implicit in womanhood itself." (186)

What are the consequences of the perpetual quest to be thinner than your body is physically capable of being? "A cultural fixation on female thinness is not a fixation about female beauty but an obsession about female obedience ... Researchers ... confirmed what most women know too well -- that that concern with weight leads to 'a virtual collapse in self-esteem and sense of effectiveness.' Researchers ... found that 'prolonged and periodic caloric restriction' resulted in a distinctive personality whose traits are 'passivity, anxiety, and emotionality.' *It is those traits, and not thinness for its own sake, that the dominant culture wants to create in the private sense of self of recently liberated women in order to cancel out the dangers of their liberation.*" (187-8)

Let me quote at length, to describe the effects of prolonged semi-starvation as described by Wolf, bearing in mind that the human body *cannot tell the difference between a diet and a death camp* -- less food than it needs is taken by the body as starvation, period.

"The range of repulsive and pathetic behaviors exhibited by women touched by food diseases is portrayed as quintessentially feminine, proof positive of women's irrationality (replacing the conviction of menstrual irrationality that had to be abandoned when women were needed for the full-time work force). In a classic study done at the University of Minnesota, thirty-six volunteers were placed on an extended low-calorie diet and 'the psychological, behavioral and physical effects were carefully documented.' The subjects were young and healthy, showing 'high levels of ego strength, emotional stability, and good intellectual ability.' They 'began a six-month period ... in which their food intake was reduced by half -- a typical weigh reduction technique for women.

"'After losing approximately 25% of their original body weight, pervasive effects of semistarvation were seen.' The subjects 'became increasingly preoccupied with food and eating, to the extent that they ruminated obsessively about meals and food, collected recipes and cookbooks, and showed abnormal food rituals, such as excessively slow eating and hoarding of food related objects.' Then, the majority 'suffered some form of emotional disturbance as a result of semistarvation, including depression, hypochondriasis, hysteria, angry outbursts, and, in some cases, psychotic levels of disorganization.' Then, they 'lost their ability to function in work and social contexts, due to apathy, reduced energy and alertness, social isolation, and decreased sexual interest.' Finally, 'within weeks of reducing their food intake,' they 'reported relentless hunger, as well as powerful urges to break dietary rules. Some succumbed to eating binges, followed by vomiting and feelings of self-reproach. Ravenous hunger persisted, even following large meals during refeeding.' Some of the subjects 'found themselves eating continuously, while others engaged in uncontrollable cycles of gorging and vomiting.' The volunteers 'became terrified of going outside the experiment environment where they would be tempted by the foods they had agreed not to eat .. when they did succumb, they made hysterical, half-crazed confessions.' They became irritable, tense, fatigued, and full of vague complaints. 'Like fugitives, [they] could not shed the feeling they were being shadowed by a sinister force.' For some, doctors eventually had to prescribed tranquilizers.

"The subjects were a group of completely normal healthy college men." (193-4)

Here's the point: patriarchy doesn't want women to be healthy. It doesn't even want them to be thin. It wants them to be hungry. It wants them to be starving. Because a starving person is distracted, exhausted, incapable of focus, incapable of striving and ambition, incapable of normal self-esteem, desperate, irrational, half-hysterical, and sick. And anyone in that state is compliant. She is no threat. She does not think she deserves fair treatment, she does not organize, she does not resist, she does not challenge those in power. She counts calories and runs in circles to nowhere and hates herself, no matter what she weighs.

Hating fat people, stigmatizing them as ugly and disgusting, as lazy and stupid, as slovenly and unhealthy (which we erroneously tie to moral failure), is how patriarchy convinces every woman she must be thinner than she naturally is -- thinner than she can ever be. It is how patriarchy convinces her to starve herself into weakness and compliance. It is how it neutralizes the threat of women's resistance.

Don't fall for it. Fuck diets.

Chapter Six: "Violence"

First off: Wolf does not, although she should, make mention of the fact that for some women, particularly many trans women, cosmetic surgery is life-saving, in a physical and emotional sense. I think it is not her intention to bring the weight of judgment down on women who require surgery to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender, or to rebuke women who require corrective surgeries to feel whole again after disfiguring accidents or medical treatments. Nevertheless, let me make explicit what she does not: the analysis of the patriarchal oppression of women through the pathologization of womanhood and its processes and appearances, and the medical intervention upon these processes and appearances, is directed at whole, healthy women being acted upon as though they were diseased, not women who require surgery to be whole and healthy.

My first impression of this chapter, discussing the rise of plastic surgery among women, was that this was a pretty rarefied subject to treat. Not that Wolf's points about the violence of plastic surgery and the absurdity of its use to pursue a patriarchal beauty standard aren't well-taken; just that, how many women can even afford plastic surgery, let alone pursue it?

However, I think there are two larger points in the chapter that apply to all women, whether they ever could or ever would seek plastic surgery for the purposes of attempting to achieve patriarchy-defined "Beauty." The first is the history of the pathologization of womanhood: turning the natural state of being a woman into a medical condition. The West has, for many centuries, defined women's reproductive processes less as neutral biological systems and more as a source of disease, both physical and mental. "Hysteria" doesn't come from the word for "womb" by mistake. Beginning with the advent of relative modernity in medicine -- roughly the 1700s, and intensifying significantly in the 1800s -- woman's reproductive systems were seen as practically terminal conditions. (Elaine Showalter's work on this subject, particularly the book The Female Malady, which I assign portions of in my Madness course, describes the Victorian tendency to pathologize women's sexual function very well.) At every stage of a woman's life, but particularly puberty, pregnancy and immediately after childbirth, and menopause, her reproductive organs were thought to be the cause of actual physical invalidity and severe mental and emotional dysfunction. To counter these supposed negative health conditions, which were considered to be universal and essentially unavoidable as an essential element of possessing a middle- or upper-class woman's body, women were confined -- oftentimes literally -- and strictly policed in their behaviors, including being forbidden to acquire an education, work outside the home, or even undertake any strenuous activities within the home. They were subjected to bizarre "medical" procedures, including forced bedrest for months and extreme forced feeding, or being locked in dark rooms for months at a time, or even genital mutilation in the form of clitoridectomies.

Of course, the *result* was all middle- and upper-class women relegated to, essentially, physical and emotional invalidism. They were hopelessly restricted in every sphere of life, relegated to social if not legal prisons (although women were also often committed to mental wards, where they were subjected to a variety of tortures, including lobotomies, because women were literally thought not to need their minds, since they didn't use them anyway). The justification for this was that the essential biological processes of womanhood were actually a disease that required strict medical intervention.

After women's middle-class labor was needed outside the home, the medical myth that their reproductive systems caused them physical and mental disease that required almost complete physical and mental inactivity was suddenly erased. But women's bodies remained pathologized. As Wolf demonstrates, it is now a woman's *appearance* and her natural aging process that are described in the medicalized terms of disease and disfigurement, and are said to require extensive (expensive) violent intervention by doctors and other experts in this supposed pathology that arises from the essential physical nature of womahood itself. FUN.

"WIth the advent of the Victorian women's doctor, the earlier religious rationale for calling women *morally* sick was changed into a biomedical one. That in turn has changed into an aesthetic one, bringing us full circle. Our rationale is even more subjective than the 'vital lie' of the Victorians. While their medical terminology had at least to gesture at 'objectivity,' today's aesthetic judgments about who is sick and who is well are as impossible to prove, as easy to manipulate, as a belief about the stain on a woman's soul. And the modern reclassification makes more money: A woman who thought she was sick with femaleness couldn't buy an ultimate cure for her gender. But a woman who thinks she is sick with female ugliness is now being persuaded she can.

"The nineteenth-century version of medical coercion looks quaint to us: How could women have been made to believe that menstruation, masturbation, pregnancy, and menopause were diseases? But as modern women are being asked to believe that parts of our normal, healthy bodies are diseased, we have entered a new phase of medical coercion that is so horrific that no one wants to look at it all.

"The reclassification of well and beautiful women as sick and ugly women is taking place without hindrance. Since the nineteenth-century, society has tacitly supported efforts of the medical profession to confine women's lives through versions of this reclassification. Since it is socially necessary work, now as in the last century, fewer reality checks apply to this than are applied to medical practices in general; the media is tolerant or supportive; and the main functionaries, whose work benefits the social order, are unusually highly compensated.

"The purpose of the Victorian cult of female invalidism was social control." (223-4)

So too social control is the purpose of the newly medicalized beauty standard.

The second point made by Wolf that is relevant to all women is that all of this affects, by proxy, even women who cannot or (think they) would not have plastic surgery. As Wolf says, "We have entered a terrifying new age with cosmetic surgery. All limits have broken down. No amount of suffering or threat of disfigurement can serve as a deterrent ... We are affected by the Bomb whether or not it goes undetonated. Whether or not a woman ever undergoes cosmetic surgery, her mind is now being shaped by its existence. The *expectation* of surgery will continue to rise. SInce the beauty myth works in a mapable balance system, as soon as enough women are altered and critical mass is reached so that too many women look like the "ideal," the "ideal" will always shift. Ever-different cutting and stitching will be required of women if we are to keep our sexuality and our livelihood." (252-3)

It is a bleak world indeed for women when absolutely no amount of pain or risk of injury and death is considered too much to justify forgoing the pursuit of an unnatural beauty standard that we did not set, but we will be punished in every sphere of life for not conforming to.

Capitalism and Racism in Hitler's Germany and Trump's America

In his book The Nazis, Capitalism, and the Working Class (Haymarket, 2012), Donny Gluckstein provides in his conclusion the following list of relevant points, which I will recreate here in full:

"(1) Fascism is not some 'third way'.  Its ideas are a grotesque and exaggerated expression of capitalist ideology, with its elitism and contempt for ordinary human beings.  Its most pernicious expression is racism.

"(2) It works within the context of capitalism to preserve, by the most brutal methods, the dominance of the system and to secure it from internal threats.

"(3) Yet fascism is not a ruling class conspiracy.  It seeks to create a mass movement out of the misery and despair that capitalism engenders, directing that energy down paths harmless to the ruling class.

"(4) The Nazi leadership uses democratic structures in order to build up support; but unlike other parties, its fundamental purpose is to destroy any form of democracy.  Therefore, it cannot be treated in the same way as other democratic parties.  There must be no platform for fascists.

"(5) Constitutional safeguards and parliamentary rules are no defense against fascism.  If the crisis is deep enough, and the ruling class sees no other way out, it will allow the Nazis free reign. 

"(6) Since fascism is rooted in class society, the most effective resistance comes from that class which has the most to lose -- the working class.  Its life experience and position in society tend to engender forms of solidarity and collective action that are the very opposite of Nazism.

"(7) While political differences exist within the working class, the different currents within the movement need to unite in combating the common deadly enemy.  An active united front to oppose Nazism is a vital tactic." (222)

Some brief historical context: Gluckstein traces the path between the failed revolution in Germany in 1918 and the eventual installment of Hitler and his Nazi party to power as the outcome of the compromises and anxieties of the German capitalist class.  Germany had the strongest labor movement in the Western world in the early 20th century, and, in the wake of the disastrous First World War, they attempted a revolution against economic oppression in 1918.  In November, the Kaiser was overthrown and the war was brought to an end, although months earlier desertions had brought about the unification of revolutionary soldiers' councils and workers' councils following the same pattern as Russia.  Strikes ground industry to a halt.  Unfortunately, compromise won the day: capitalists made significant concessions to labor, and the moderate-left, reformist SPD party led the way.  As Gluckstein writes, "With the army in tatters, direct military collision with workers on a broad scale was not an immediate option.  The relation of forces was clearly in labor's favor so a compromise strategy predominated.  Its progress was smoothed by the influence of reformism in the working class.  No doubt the mass of German workers wanted a better standard of living, plus freedom from exploitation and war; however, only a small minority regarded revolution as the necessary means to achieve it." (16)  Leftists, mainly communists, continued insurrection into 1919, but where violently put down by the Freikorps, an independent remnant of the shattered German army financed by big business.

Despite this success in forestalling revolution, German capitalism never felt secure in its exploitation of labor, and eventually set upon a strategy of helping to take over the government politically, with the purpose of then ceding that control and destroying that government in return for the means to completely oppress the labor force.  German capitalism backed the rise of the Nazi party throughout the late '20s and thereafter, endorsing the Nazi's determination to use legitimate political processes to gain sufficient power to then destroy those processes.  Quoting Adolf Hitler, Gluckstein writes:

"'… pursue a new line of action … Instead of working to achieve power by armed conspiracy, we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies.  If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own constitution.' [Emphasis mine.]

"This did not mean he had altered his hatred for democracy which 'must be defeated with the weapons of democracy.'  Goering put it equally crudely: 'We are fighting this state and the present system because we wish to destroy it utterly, but in a legal manner … we said we hated this state, [now] we say we love it -- and still everyone we knows what we mean.'  This tactic has been well learnt by present day Nazi groups.  Their public face can be respectable but their policies are still as dangerous, and those who believe that Nazis should be allowed free use of democratic rights to destroy them have not learnt from the past." (50) [Emphasis mine.]

To be successful within legitimate political structures, the Nazis had to appeal to at least a reasonably large sector of the German public, and they developed strategies to make themselves appealing to a post-war, post-depression populace.  Again, quoting Gluckstein, who quotes Hitler:

"'In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility, because the broad masses of a nation … more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.  It would never come into their head to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously … The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down.'

"There were two opposite trends in Nazi propaganda which at first sight appeared mutually exclusive, but in fact were complementary.  On the one hand there was the attempt to divert attention away from social reality and any rational thought which might lead to a questioning of capitalist ideology … On the other hand there was the reverse approach -- 'the differentiation of target groups,' using carefully judged appeals which, despite all protestations to the contrary, addressed economic interest and class.  All sorts of promises were made to a range of groups.  The army would throw off the shackles of Versailles, students would have their educational efforts rewarded by well paid jobs, the young would see a dynamic new party in action while the old would witness a return to traditional values.  Unmarried women would find a husband and be accorded high status, while men were told women would be put in their place -- Kirche, Kuche, Kinder -- at church, in the kitchen, and with the children.  Civil servants' jobs would be secured yet taxpayers would pay less through reduction of state officialdom.  Farmers would be able to charge higher prices, while consumers would get cheap food." (70)

Finally, there was the Nazi use of racism, both before and after they finally gained power in 1933.  Although anti-semitism had certainly been a part of German culture and German politics prior to Nazi power, in general people disapproved of and defied Hitler's initial extreme repressions of Jews, including resounding resistance to the Nazi-orchestrated Kristallnacht.  But as Gluckstein writes, "Once Kristallnacht was launched, more conventional capitalist considerations came in to play.  The political costs could be offset by plunder.  Since 1933, anti-semitism had walked hand-in-hand with sound business principles … the seizure of Jewish assets … gathered pace when Goering sought funding for the armaments program. Due to the November 1938 pogrom 35,000 Jews were bundled into concentration camps as a lever to force emigration and expropriation.  They were released if they promised to abandon their wealth and emigrate."  (174)  Lest a false division be made between governmental and private capitalist expropriation of Jewish wealth, the takeover of the Kreditanstalt bank and associated chemical plants is illustrative: "In the days before the annexation [of Austria] the commercial negotiations were conducted from the Austrian end by two Jews -- Rothenberg and Pollack.  When Austria was incorporated into Germany, Rothenberg 'was taken for a ride by uniformed Brownshirts … and thrown out of a moving automobile' while Pollack 'was trampled to death.  The Kreditanstalt was gobbled up by the giant Deutsche Bank, and its subsidiary, the Pulverfabrik, fell to IG Farben.'  With its heart set on the giant Petschek Group in Czechoslovakia, the Flick Concern encouraged Goering to pass an Aryanization Law and picked up its rival, valued at 16 million dollars, for a mere six million." (174)  And so it is clear that German capitalism had a strong interest in Nazi racism.

It is worth drawing a distinction between this kind of capitalist racist violence and the racism present in regular people,  Writes Gluckstein: 

"[R]acism at the base of society, while influenced by ideology from above, tends to be driven by fear, anger, and frustration generated within society.  To the extent that these emotions fail to find an outlet in challenging their real cause, capitalism, they can be channeled against scapegoats, an 'out-group' (such as the Jews).  Although this is utterly misguided and ultimately self-defeating, such racism is conceived as a defense of the 'in-group'...

"Ruling class racism is different.  Whether deliberate or not it is used to divide and weaken opposition forces, justifying the contemptuous treatment by the upper class of all other human groups in a hierarchy running from the 'superior' boss, to the 'inferior' worker, and the still more 'inferior' minority 'race'.  Ruling class racism is thus a component in the broader notion of superiority and inferiority.  It is not motivated by deluded defense of an 'in-group' as a whole, but defense of the ruling class interest.  A society that sees human beings as factors of production, commodities to be bought and sold, used or thrown on the unemployment scrapheap, produced the Holocaust.  Today the same driving force can take less violent forms, such as the destruction of food while millions starve, or the rationing of the poor's survival chances (through healthcare) while the rich enjoy maximum life potential." (176) [Emphasis mine]

And so both kinds of racism -- the racism of common people and the racism of the ownership class -- can be understood in the context of capitalist exploitation.  The first is the product of misdirected frustrations and anxieties resulting from the lived experience of exploitation and perpetual economic jeopardy, which can be exploited to perpetuate the very marginalization that causes it; the second is a natural extension of a hierarchical ideology that sees humans as units of production of surplus value rather than people, and therefore more or less deserving of life based on their capacity for production for a small ruling elite. The Nazi fostered and exploited the former and actuated the latter to terrifying extremes.

And so now we can think through a comparison between the capitalism and racism of Hitler's Germany and the capitalism and racism of Trump's America, including the operations of the Nazi political machine and the GOP political machine.  To begin with, there are important similarities between their political operations.

The campaign strategy of Donald Trump, and the policy goals of the GOP generally, are strikingly akin to the methods and goals of the Nazis.  Trump's campaign deployed the same tactics described by Hitler and implemented by the Nazi party.  Trump's "big lie" took several forms, perhaps the most stunning of which, in the immensity of its obvious falsehood, was the Wall and the notion that Mexico was going to pay for it.  The MIT Technology Review calculates that a wall such as the one proposed by Trump would cost between $27 and $40 billion, with the higher figure the more likely one.  It will have to cover more than 1,500 miles of isolated terrain.  And the Mexican government has flatly refused to contribute to its construction, calling it "racist."  Trump has declared that the Wall is going forward, and Paul Ryan has promised $8ish billion from congress for its construction, nowhere near enough for the project, but enough to hand out large contracts to cronies and Trump's own companies.

Likewise, Trump has promised a deportation force to immediately round up almost 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants and deport them.  From The New York Times:

"'I can't even begin to picture how we would deport 11 million people in a few years where we don't have a police state, where the police can't break down your door at will and take you away without a warrant,' said Michael Chertoff, who led a significant increase in immigration enforcement as the secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush.

"Finding those immigrants would be difficult, experts said.  Police officers across the country would need to ask people for proof of residency or citizenship during traffic stops and street encounters.  The Border Patrol would need highway checkpoints across the Southwest and near the Canadian border.  To avoid racial profiling, any American could expect to be stopped and asked for papers …

"To prevent flight after arrest, the  authorities would have to detain most immigrants awaiting deportation.  Existing facilities, with about 34,000 beds, would have to be expanded to hold at least 300,000, Mr. Sandweg estimated, perhaps with tens of thousands of people in detention camps, similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II ...

"The millions of immigrants from Central American countries, China, the Philippines, India, and other noncontiguous nations would have to be flown home at the federal government's expense.  Arranging flights would in itself be a huge and very costly task …

"By any tally, the costs would be enormous.  The American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning research group, calculated the federal outlay to be at least $400 billion, and then only if the deportations were stretched over 20 years.

"But the proposals' main flaw, former officials said, is that they are unrealistic.  'Unless you suspend the Constitution and instruct the police to behave as if we live in North Korea,' Mr. Chertoff said, 'it ain't happening.'"

While it is entirely possible that Trump could intend to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law while he spends hundreds of billions of expropriated dollars to violently round people up, ship them to camps in cattle cars, and then fly them abroad, his deportation plan as promised is impossible, and proposing it as a feasible immigration policy is, along with its complementary Wall, an outlandish lie -- of exactly the sort Hitler calculated would pass muster with the masses.

In general, Trump's strategy of promising everything to everyone closely matched the Nazis's throughout his campaign.  In Pittsburgh alone, he promised to return steel-making jobs that have been largely lost to irreversible automation, coal jobs that were lost to natural market forces with the advent of gas fracking and necessary environmental regulations, and even to resurrect a statue of the pedophile-abetting Joe Paterno in State College.  In general the Republican Party has long promised a return to "traditional values," by which they mean a roll-back of LGBT rights and women's healthcare access, and the bolstering of police practices that jeopardize and infringe on the rights of black and brown Americans, most notably support for a return to the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" practice.

These promises made Trump particularly popular with white Americans, although the claims that he found his base of support in the "working class" were exaggerated; according to New York Times exit polling, Trump won majorities in income groups only over $50,000, and it was clear since the primaries that Trump's base voters, like the GOP base in general, have incomes well over the national median.  In the first 23 primaries, Trump voters' median income was $72,000, well over the national median of $51,000, per Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight.

More worrisome than these campaign practices, though, are the similarities between Trump and the GOP's intentions for government after having been elected.  The Nazi party was explicit among itself that its goal was to legitimately obtain power within the extant German system for the purpose of then dismantling that system, which is exactly what it then did.  The GOP has made it equally clear that its objective once in power is to erode democratic systems and dismantle the government from within.

This first goal it has pursued through gerrymandering, and voter disenfranchisement efforts that largely target voters by race.  By manipulating voting districts to make opposition victory all but impossible, and throwing up unnecessary legal barriers to voting, the Republican Party has systematically undermined democracy with the powers it initially gained by obtaining legitimately elected offices.  Trump has announced a plan to "investigate" his wild lie that 3 million people voted illegally, only in Democratic states; this is nakedly an announcement of his intent to purge voter rolls of opposition voters.  (This, too, is reminiscent of Hitler's practices: proclaim the lie that would need to be true to justify what you are about to do, as a way of announcing what you are about to do.)

Furthermore, it has long been the stated agenda of the GOP to reduce the reach and function of government.  This is well-illustrated by Trump's cabinet picks.  Trump's pick for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is Ben Carson, who will oversee a $47 billion agency with no experience with any of its programs or any experience in government whatsoever.  Alex Schwartz, professor of Urban Policy at the New School and author of Housing Policy in the United States said in The American Prospect, "With a Republican-controlled Congress and presidency, subsidized housing and fair housing would be under threat no matter who is HUD Secretary.  But unlike previous HUD secretaries under Republican presidents, Carson is entirely lacking in qualifications, and is unlikely to champion any aspect of HUD's mission."  In his confirmation hearing, Carson repeatedly repudiated the role of government and expressed a desire to reduce or eliminate its footprint.  (Although his lack of general knowledge of the functioning of the department made specifics impossible for him to give and any one agenda impossible for him to commit to.)

Trump's appointment to be Secretary of Education is Betsy DeVos, who, like Carson, has no qualifications for the position whatsoever.  In her confirmation hearings, she asserted that she thought states should not have to comply with a federal law requiring public schools to provide free and appropriate education to students with disabilities, although she also seemed not to understand the law at all.  She refused to agree that federally funded schools should be held to the universal standards of accountability.  She refused to support regulations that protect students from extreme private school debt.  She supports charter schools that do not outperform public schools but do drain money away from public education.  She supports a voucher system that would gut public schools but provide no adequate educational pathway for most students, and has generally campaigned for the privatization of all education.  She has said that she wants schools to "advance God's Kingdom."

These and appointments like them have only one purpose -- to erode and eventually destroy government.  Appointing people to lead government departments who have no ability to run those departments, and who have openly stated their opposition to those departments' programs and government spending and functioning generally, is an explicit tactic of destruction.  The most succinct example of this is Trump's appointment of Rick Perry to be the Secretary of Energy, after Perry campaigned on eliminating the Department of Energy.  (Although he now claims he no longer holds this view.)  He has also shown no real understanding of the department he has been appointed to head or what it does.

Besides Trump's appointments, the GOP has campaigned for years to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, and Paul Ryan with much Republican support has pushed for the "privatization" of both Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which, in practice, dismantles and ultimately paves the way for the complete destruction of all three programs.  Trump's appointment to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, also supports the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  

This is a multi-pronged, party-wide agenda of destruction-from-within.  Having reached government office through the legitimate political system beneath the veneer of respectability, Republicans immediately and consistently eroded and continue to erode democratic systems and the functioning of government itself.  It is a program stunningly in line with the Nazis' prior to 1933.

Now that the similarity between the tactics and agenda of Trump's Republican Party and the Nazis has been established, we can examine the roles of capitalism and racism in the current American situation, in light of their roles in Hitler's Germany.

The dissimilarities between pre-1933 Germany and modern America reside in the relative strength of Labor.  Whereas in Germany labor and trade unionism were the strongest in the world in the first part of the 20th century, American labor and its union movement has been at a seemingly endless disadvantage for years, with the working class beset by falling wages while union membership continues to decline.  German capitalism felt so threatened by labor's economic power that it was ultimately willing to concede its own political power to fascism in return for fascism's promise to permanently and completely subjugate workers.  Although recent activism like the Fight for Fifteen indicates a possible way forward for American labor, it's obvious that the working class in modern America enjoys nothing like the power German labor did in the '20s and early '30s.

Nevertheless, capitalism's agenda has always been the same, in all times and places: extract as much surplus value as possible from its workforce by any means available.  The lower the worker's wage, the less she enjoys in terms of benefits that operate in any sense as a cost to the capitalist, including a safer and more pleasant working environment, the less value the owner extracts.  Therefore any opposition to this extraction is seen negatively by capitalism's ownership class; anything that stands in the way of the ever more-complete exploitation of the worker is seen as a barrier to be demolished.  And so modern American labor's relative weakness compared to German labor's strength in the '20s does not alter the feelings and goals of modern American capitalists per se; even the token resistance of American labor, even the below-subsistence modern minimum wage is still a barrier to capitalist exploitation, and that will impel American capitalists to align themselves with the political entity most dedicated to the disruption of any and all protections for American workers.  This has been the Republican Party for decades: their willingness to oppose minimum wage increases, safety and environmental regulations, healthcare and childcare assistance, and even education assistance that would elevate workers' class consciousness as well as increase their bargaining power with improved skill sets has earned them the financial and cultural backing of the ownership class.  

The political arrangements of modern America are different than pre-WWII Germany.  Whereas a greater number of parties in Weimar Germany made power more diffuse, which therefore made capitalists' support more diffuse, the American two-party system produces a greater concentration of capitalist political support.  (This is not to say that business does not spread its political coercion across both parties; it certainly does.  But it is also certainly the case that business works with Democrats when it has to, or as a hedge on its bets, as opposed to the Republican Party, which it openly aligns with.)  Nevertheless, the general goals of capitalists are the same in both times and places, and so the general principles with which capitalists approach politics are the same: support the political party or parties that will aid and abet the greatest exploitation of the working class.  

Throughout the '20s and even into the '30s, German owners found Hitler distasteful and offensive; he lacked the veneer of respectability, he was course and nakedly racist in his public statements, he had a history of illegality and violence.  But ultimately, they backed his Nazi party when it was clear that it would be their route to complete worker oppression -- they were even willing to cede their own direct power in government by abetting the destruction of democracy and the installation of a fascist regime in return for that regime's promise and obvious pattern of the subjugation of labor.  American capitalism has come halfway down this path: Donald Trump was obviously an embarrassment to a capitalist establishment that throughout the GOP primary tried to elevate any and every available alternative candidate to this vulgar, racist man with a history of illegality and violence.  But when other options failed, they did not oppose him, and began to line up behind him; they were already behind his party.  

Of course, many average men lined up behind Trump as well, including working (white) people.  To repeat Gluckstein: "... fascism is not a ruling class conspiracy.  It seeks to create a mass movement out of the misery and despair that capitalism engenders, directing that energy down paths harmless to the ruling class."

In the wake of Trump's election, there were many "think pieces" on his support in "white working-class" America.  Almost all of them focused on the so-called "economic anxiety" of this class, and its attendant calamities like the heroin crisis.  Taking these analyses on their faces, they point directly to what Gluckstein cites as the source of mass support for fascism.  Capitalism has finally left the white American worker in a shambles.  First, capitalism simplified labor through its division into routines any person could perform; as Marx said in Wage Labor and Capital, "the more simple and easily learned the labor is, the lower the cost of production needed to master it, the lower do wages sink, for, like the price of every other commodity, they are determined by the cost of production." (214, The Marx-Engels reader, Tucker, 2nd Ed., Norton, 1978)  Secondly, capitalism used automation not only as Marx described it in 1847, to replace "skilled labors with unskilled, men with women, adults by children." (215)  (This last we have not yet returned to, thankfully.)  Capitalism by the late 20th and early 21st centuries used automation to replace workers completely with machines -- 85% of job losses between 2000 and 2010 in America were due to automation.  American industrial productivity has been steadily on the rise -- industry just no longer employs human workers.  And so, out of work, (white) American workers have been driven to "misery and despair," as Gluckstein puts it.

But what allows fascism to activate this misery and despair for political purposes?  Racism.  The differences in America's racist heritage and Germany's are too many to outline here.  But the underlying functioning of racism as a driver of white alignment with Trump and the GOP is much the same as the "in-group" defense that Hitler mobilized with anti-Semitism -- and the most avid anti-Semites among Hitler's early supporters were the SA, or Storm Troopers, who were also the most economically marginalized, largely unemployed in the post-depression years.  Trump spent his campaign repeating a narrative of Central American, and particularly Mexican, immigrants coming to America to "steal jobs" as well as to commit violent crimes; and China further manipulating and destroying the American labor market.  These two foreign racial forces were used to erroneously explain the real sufferings of working people, which were really caused by the exploitation of American capitalism itself.  At the same time, general racist fear was added to with narratives of "Islamic extremism" targeting America through, among other peaceful Muslim groups, war refugees.  And finally, Trump drew on the unique, long-standing racist resentments of white Americans in relation to Black Americans.  Painting all Black American neighborhoods as hellscapes of violence, poverty, and unemployment, and openly courting racism and racist support, Trump signaled over and over again that he would help his white supporters "take America back," and make it "great" again.  Any retreat to a past-tense America requires the undoing of civil rights protections and gains of equality by minority Americans; Trump's supporters were explicitly racist (as was Trump), and racist incidents have only increased since his election.  

Ironically, the sufferings of white American workers under capitalism since the Depression came very late in the round.  Black and brown Americans have already gone through the depredations of a America's racialized capitalism, which only came last for whites; having already subjugated "inferior" workers, it turned its attention to those workers who, according to America's distinct capitalist hierarchy, were "better than" their Black and brown counterparts, but still "inferior" to their capitalist bosses.  The hierarchy of American racism runs from the capitalist ownership class, down to white male workers, and then down further to those held in less esteem, white women and men and women of color.  But it is just this racialization of capitalism's economic hierarchy that intensifies white working resentment.  For the post-war decades of American middle-class ascendancy, what prosperity there was to be attained under capitalism accrued almost exclusively to white Americans.  They were cognizant of this disparity, but in general believed it was acceptable, having ideologically aligned themselves with the inherent hierarchy of American racist capitalism -- they thought themselves better than workers of color, but also, dangerously, failed to reckon themselves as also occupying an "inferior" relative position to the capitalists themselves; working-class whites made common cause with capitalists and defended racist capitalist exploitation because they wrongly assumed they were the equals of the white ownership class by virtue of race alone.  The subsequent depredations upon the white working class were therefore not only economically traumatic; they were psychologically traumatic.  Exploited, after all, as had been the workers of color they had held themselves superior to, white workers were confronted with the proof that they had always been "inferior" themselves -- in fact, their bosses thought them no better, in the end, than their Black and brown coworkers.  Within the capitalist hierarchy, this inferior position was always obvious, although the capitalist culture industry worked hard and successfully to obscure that fact.  But within the racial hierarchy, this sudden leveling out was not only surprising but humiliating and enraging to racist whites.  

Gluckstein maintains that racism is not only an expression of "in-group" defense among workers, but also a tool wielded by capitalists to channel the rage and despair generated by capitalist exploitation safely away from the actual villains toward racialized scapegoats.  Although written in 2012, this is a precise description of Trump's tactic with white working-class voters.  Suffering from capitalist exploitation, but already filled with resentment from having had to confront the falsity of their self-presumed racial superiority, it was easy for the GOP over many years (starting with Nixon's "Silent Majority" and accelerating after Reagan's implementation of deregulation, globalization, and imposition of neoliberalism, but reaching its apotheosis with Donald Trump) to use racism to channel white working-class rage away from the actual culprits behind their suffering to the racist scapegoats of Black Americans, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, and the Chinese.

And so we see that a quick comparison of Hitler's Germany and his Nazi party with Trump's America and the GOP is not only warranted, but alarming in its findings.  Going forward, we must remember Gluckstein's warning: to give no platform to fascists, and to resist the urge to allow them the tools of democracy, since they will only use them to destroy democracy from within.  Furthermore, although there are legitimate and important differences on the American political left, it cannot allow itself to fall into the traps that the German communist KPD and reformist moderate-left SPD did -- the KPD denouncing the SPD as no better than the fascists, the SPD vastly underestimating the threat of Hitler and his Nazis, normalizing and even attempting to compromise with them.  The American left must present a united front against Trump and the GOP, and it must allow working Americans to lead the way, as it is ultimately most in their interests to thwart the capitalist class and its political right hand.  This requires the raising of consciousness through outreach and education -- but it must also include a complete and unrelenting purge of racism among the white working class, which is not only morally repugnant, but completely counterproductive to a unified struggle for all workers' rights, including theirs, against capitalism and fascism.

A Walk in the Park

In the last year I have noticed that it has become trendy to out oneself as an Introvert, as though it were an identity along the lines of one's ethnicity or sexuality, or at least one's political ideology. Such declarations are usually accompanied on social media by memes asserting that Introverts Are Like Such-and-Such.  The more neutral statements are about how Introverts "recharge" via time alone rather than time spent with friends, or some other essentially attributionless assertion; the less neutral statements charge the Introvert's apparent nemesis -- the Extrovert -- with being shallow and insensitive, while the Introvert's withdrawal from the world is evidence of deep contemplation and the spiritual superiority I suppose the West has always associated with hermits.  In any case, I find this mostly silly: like all online personality type assessments, it is based on scanty or no evidence.  But more to the point, it strikes me as a pre-fabricated categorization of the Self, and such can only be inadequate, especially as a way of announcing your essential nature to the world.  This latter urge I understand well: curating the documentation of one's life -- through social media or otherwise -- is a declaration that one's life is worthy of being recorded carefully.  I think this is an essentially positive inclination: all human lives are worthy of respect and attention (unless some Donald Trump-type character demonstrates decisively that they are an outlier worthy of no such things), and a healthy self-esteem regards oneself as a person whose life matters.  A life that matters requires examination and record-keeping, even if finding an audience for that project is not guaranteed.  But while broadly understood descriptors can be useful as short-hand -- "I am a socialist" -- they rarely suffice.

All of that being said, I don't much like spending time around other people.  I have a collection of loved ones whom I am happy to see from time to time, but otherwise I prefer to be alone, and even when it comes to those loved ones, I prefer to be alone the majority of the time, give or take the fact that I live with my husband.  This is a rather new phenomenon, increasing in intensity as I have aged, although I don't think it's an effect of aging per se.  Rather, I think that when I was younger I took being constantly surrounded by people as an indication that I was popular with others, and I took that as an indication that I was a Good and Worthy person.  My self-esteem was more fragile then, and this kind of external buttressing made sense; I don't regret it, and it was a useful formulation for me at the time.  But over time, my self-esteem has become less fragile, and so I no longer require so much validation from others.  This has allowed me to foreground all of the things that feel off-putting about other human beings -- which can mostly be summarized by saying that many of them are not very smart, but they are very loud.  And so random other people are no longer of much use to me, but they do feel like a small burden.  Thus I keep to myself more.  This makes sense, I think.

But how to keep to oneself?  There's always the living room.  But I have also found as I have gotten older that I am not only less enamored with humans, but I am also less enamored with their works.  This marks a decisive change in my attitudes.  I grew up in a benighted small town and longed to move to the city, which, I assumed correctly, would be a more diverse and cosmopolitan place.  I did this at 18, and was enthralled for many years by the urban environment.  The physical mass of human construction was a demonstration of command and will that was nowhere in evidence in Hometown; the scale of things bespoke a competency and artistry that I felt I had been deprived of in my environment growing up. The sheer quantity and variety of Things to Do was a beautiful remedy to the effects of many emotionally frustrated years of confinement in a very provincial place.  And I am still happy to live in the city because of all of the options and amenities it provides.  In the same week I can go to the symphony and a pizza festival along the same three-ish mile stretch of road; go to a banjo night or a punk show; see a classic Japanese film, attend a beer festival, visit a modern art museum, try Nepalese food, and take a hike in an enormous wooded park.  I'm not inclined to do some of these things, but I CAN.  These things are available to me, and this is very comforting to someone who grew up with no escape from a stultifying rural culture of anti-intellectualism, even after many years.

But those many years HAVE passed, and feeling secure now that I am not going to have these amenities and opportunities stripped from me, I am more inclined to see the urban environment more realistically.  It is dirty, it is crowded, and it is often crumbling.  It is noisy and frenetic.  In other words, it is STRESSFUL.  I'm already an anxious person by nature; miles of broken sidewalks and a never-ending, jackhammering sewer line infrastructure project doesn't help that.

This year and last I've been retreating to Frick Park as a remedy to the stress of the urban environment.  This is also a new inclination in me.  I have never been an outdoorsy person, I think for two reasons.  The first is that I spent the first half of my life having my physical capacity constantly denigrated, such that I thought I was a physically incompetent person.  The origins of this message were both systemic and individual.  Systemic because I was fat, and the world at large communicated constantly, starting at a very young age, that my body was WRONG, and BAD.  Media, popular culture, family members, doctors, teachers, peers -- all of them contributed to this message.  It is very difficult to be told repeatedly and in innumerable ways that your body is Wrong and Bad without concluding that it is those things, and not merely in terms of appearance, but also in terms of its functioning.  If my body functioned correctly, it wouldn't' be so Wrong and Bad, right?  If I wasn't so incompetent at having a body, it wouldn't be so Wrong and Bad, right?  (Never mind that I had been fat since I was an extremely young child.)  Clearly, I had a body that either didn't work right, or I couldn't operate correctly.  This was a message that was and still is widely abroad in American culture: fat people's bodies are Bad, fat people are incapable of having a body in the Right way, fat people do not deserve to have their bodies and use them freely.  

But I also received more individualized messages about my physical inadequacy.  In the first place, I did and do have poor health: my body has produced several major catastrophes starting in adolescence, such that I have come to think of myself as what they used to call "sickly."  As an endocrinologist put it recently, "You've got bad genes -- it's bad luck."  But I was also an only child raised by a single mother who was herself an extremely anxious person.  Every day of my young life, I heard about what wasn't safe to do.  Spoiler alert: basically everything wasn't safe.  The world wasn't safe.  And it was difficult to translate this into anything other than an indictment of my own competency, because many of the things my mother declared unsafe I knew were, in fact, objectively, much safer than she claimed. This was not adolescent hubris: my mother's anxiety skewed her ability to accurately estimate risk.  As a child, upon being told that I was not allowed to do X because X wasn't safe, but also knowing that in general X was safe, I was left to assume that I was the problem -- X was not safe for me, apparently because I was incompetent in some important way.  Since I was already routinely told that I was physically incompetent, I thought that this conclusion was confirmed.  To this day, my mother discourages me from doing regular and even actively healthful things because she deems them unsafe -- "You'll hurt yourself."  Maybe.  But the opposite side of the sickly coin is that I no longer expect not to hurt myself: Hurt is no longer particularly threatening. 

Having been convinced of my physical incompetency from a young age, it was difficult to imagine a place for myself in the outdoors, which I discerned was a more physically challenging place to be than indoors.  But there was a second reason for my antipathy to the natural world, and this still plagues me: my own anxiety involves a lot of hypochondria.  (The previous paragraph should shed some light on why that might be.)  And the natural world is full of unknown threats to one's health -- is that plant poisonous?  Can you get the Hanta virus from falling in the dirt?  Do these mosquitoes have Zika?  Is this water even clean enough to allow on my skin?  Could something with rabies bite me without me realizing it?  On and on.

And so I am still slightly at cross purposes: the built environment is stressful, the natural environment is stressful.  But only the former is often ugly and full of strangers, and so over time I'm tipping more towards nature.

Frick Park is the first step out the door, so to speak, for a Pittsburgher.  At 644 acres, it was the city's largest park until only recently, when the Hays gift was announced.  Henry Clay Frick, who was a true capitalist ratfucker, gifted 151 acres adjacent to his East End mansion to the city, along with a trust to support its maintenance.  Henry, being a capitalist ratfucker, didn't provide this gift voluntarily -- his daughter Helen made him do it.  Over time, the city acquired more land and expanded the park, which now reaches into Squirrel Hill and through Regent Square to the Parkway East.

The topography of the park is characteristic of the western Pennsylvania woods generally.  The hills of this portion of Appalachia are not a mountain range but rather a plateau: an upland, 1200 - 1300 feet above sea level, that has been riven by water erosion from many many streams and rivers over time.  Thus it's less accurate to say that Pittsburgh has hills than it is to say that Pittsburgh has valleys.  And so Frick Park is shaped by the Nine Mile Run watershed; Nine Mile runs along the southern edge of the park, and streams that feed it flow down from Squirrel Hill and along the main flatland of the park, running south from Frick's mansion to the Run.  Nine Mile Run is filthy, as one might expect of an urban stream, particularly one in a city whose history is marked chiefly by coal mining and iron and steel manufacture -- and now fracking.  The Nine Mile Run Watershed Association, however, has made progress in its uphill battle; Nine Mile underwent the largest urban stream restoration in American history in 2006.  But sewage overflows, storm water runoff, and non-point source pollution generated by the third of the watershed that's covered in concrete (imagine the winter road "salt" alone) still leave its water unsafe to touch.

It looks nice, though.  There's nothing I find quite as nice as being around water.  The ultimate water one hopes to sit near and recreate in is the sea, of course.  Failing that, lakes, streams, cricks, and fountains serve the purpose, although not for recreation, because look, brain-eating amoebas are real.  I even enjoy sitting and staring at the swimming pool in the summer; I often listen to the soundtrack of Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou while I do so.  Needless to say, I also love to swim (in salt or chlorinated water, ahem).

But the West Anderson soundtrack for a walk in Frick Park is Moonrise Kingdom.  I'm not so drawn to the open areas of the park -- the field and wetlands surrounding Nine Mile are important to the Run's restoration, but leave me feeling exposed.  To the sun, which is its own consideration on a hot day, but also in a more existential sense -- imagine yourself on an open plain, vulnerable in high grass that masks predators but allows no place to hide.  My brain goes back to the stage of evolution when my ancestors were little things ducking dinosaurs.  Ironically, although dense urban spaces like Downtown leave me feeling claustrophobic, the woods closing in on me makes me feel safe.

My favorite part of the park is Falls Ravine.  In the spring and autumn a crick trickles down about a mile of little waterfalls, finding its way towards the Run.  The path is broad, a bit uphill, and the sides of the valley rise up on either side of you, populated with leafy, skinny trees reaching up and up, surrounded by open space that seems to give each tree trunk its own stage; more little rivulets run down between these into the ravine.  There is a constant trickle, if there are no other people to make noise and drown it out.  In the spring and summer, this little strip of the world is bright green and clothed in variegated light; the ascent isn't overwhelming, but it reminds you that life is work.  When I am there by myself, I feel like I am discovering something, despite the fact that the path has obviously been made by human hands.

This relationship between man and nature takes on different shades in the park than in the city itself.  Pittsburgh has recently, as part of its third Renaissance, been building this and that to be Green -- we have a number of Green Certified ("Certified"!) buildings.  I gather that Green, here, largely means "energy efficient," and this is not for nothing, since it's very clear that climate change is going to kill us all sooner rather than later without some action on our part.  But buildings are not Green in the true sense of the world -- they are not plants.  They do not grow.  They do not invite things to live in and use them, except insofar as some of the benighted creatures on this planet prefer a good hard, cold, enclosed space in which to operate, among them pigeons, cockroaches, raccoons, and human beings.  The chief experience of the urban environment is of domination -- Western humans do not seem to be able to interact with their environment other than by subduing it, and not in part, but rather in vicious totality.  We only feel comfortable with and think we understand a part of the natural world when we have completely conquered it.  At which point, out of necessity because of the negative consequences of this conquest, and a kind of spiritual malaise that we mostly refuse to name, let alone describe, we go back and begin to try to re-Green what it is we have paved over.  But this is not real greenness, it is a simulacrum.  Parks are the best simulacra of nature available to us now.

In a way, Pittsburgh's topography prevented the full and total conquest many other cities managed to procure over the nature they arose on.  I live in a dense neighborhood of mostly row houses, with very few street trees and very few yards of any proper size (my own being an exception).  And yet there is also a hillside adjacent to my lot that is too steep and unstable to build upon; it has never been built upon, and its trees and undergrowth shelter rabbits, groundhogs, raccoons, cats, turkeys, squirrels, deer, snakes, a plethora of insects, I am sure, and a variety of homely little birds.  Turned into an island by the concrete around it, of course, this hillside does not represent any kind of original, untrammeled wildness -- which has not existed in Pennsylvania for many thousands of years, as indigenous, pre-contact peoples managed their environments extensively, if somewhat less obviously, than we colonizers do.  And, anyway -- humans are a part of nature; our works are "natural" too, at least up to a point.  What that point is changes depending on whom you talk to, but I think industrial capitalism definitely falls after it.

This is the irony of the Pittsburgh landscape: on one hand, compared to many major American cities, the land here has resisted complete conquest by virtue of its physical difficulty: Pittsburgh does not sprawl, and there are many hillsides like the one adjacent to my house, too steep to build upon, too steep for a road or a sidewalk … many of these hillsides are surmounted by stairs, which are now too numerous and costly to maintain, such that many of them are being reclaimed by the hillsides they burrow into, and using them is more like a climb into the canopy than a walk up the street.  The city is very Green, in the real sense of the word, when seen from above or on Google Maps, compared to many others.

And yet very few American cities have seen such complete environmental annihilation as Pittsburgh.  Between the 1780s -- when settlers had mostly killed or relocated the area's native population -- and the 1830s, Pittsburgh was chiefly a gathering of scattered settlers working small farms wherever enough moderately sloped land could be found for the purpose.  Their first cash crops were wheat and rye for whiskey.  Over time the Monongahela Wharf became a busy spot for river transport, and a frontier city began to grow up.  But even in the early years of the 19th century, Pittsburgh was choked by smoke.  By 1850 there were 80,000 people in the area -- first digging out clay (for bricks), sand (for glass), and iron, but then digging out coal.  Tons and tons of coal, which was put to the tons and tons of iron to turn it into pig iron.  The "unmatched urban-industrial landscape" of the city created an aesthetic unique to industrial capitalism: enormous complexes of mills, eventually for making steel, and the railroads that attended them, sprawled over hundreds of acres lining all three rivers.  They dominated the landscape and were integrated directly into the city's main population centers.  People at the time chiefly responded positively to these structures, in a manner not unlike the way I received the city at 18: as a monument to human enterprise, power, and invention.  Pittsburgh proudly trumpeted its built environment throughout its industrial age.*  

The rivers were practically obliterated, visually and otherwise, by mills, railroads, wires, and barges.  The city's impressive waterways were completely subsumed into the built, industrial environment.  The many flowing streams that had characterized the landscape the city came to subsume were culverted into the sewage system. Water, water everywhere, and somehow none to stare at.  It is still startlingly difficult to access Pittsburgh's waterways throughout most of the city.*

Tastes change over time, of course.  For example, living in a hideous industrial landscape of filth and pollution eventually seems less like a tribute to human ingenuity and more like a way to contract disease.  The public-private partnership of the Pittsburgh Renaissance after World War II created parks but also highways ("parkways"), skyscrapers, and a new stadium. 1960's-style "urban renewal" destroyed several city neighborhoods, but air and water quality was also targeted for improvement, relatively successfully.  The second Renaissance preserved historic structures and, as Pittsburgh deindustrialized, cleared brownfields and more or less entirely dismantled the industrial structures left vacant by the shifting economy.  Pittsburgh continues to "green" through its third renaissance -- in spite of its river fronts being largely blocked by railroad tracks, its air being continually polluted by the region's coal power plants, and its waterways now being used as sewers for mostly unregulated fracking waste.  The Green simulacrum is difficult to maintain, but better than the alternative.*

Living in conflict with nature also means striving for accommodation with it; but it's easy to lose sight, in a city, of the ways we're constantly shaping and being shaped by the natural world.  The park looks like a mostly "wild" space, set aside from the city -- but it is very much a human-made space, and we make choices in developing it.  Frick Park has very little access for disabled people -- many of the flat trails are inaccessible without first descending stairs or very steep inclines.  There are very few bathrooms within the park.  And so we choose to make it difficult for disabled folk to access the "wild" -- we make it easier for men than for women to spend time in "nature."  Meanwhile, the city itself looks like a space of conquest over nature -- but floods and overgrowth threaten every spring and summer, and every winter we grind to a halt because of the difficulty removing snow and ice from all of our ravines covered over in cracking asphalt.  The deer come out of the cemeteries and parks to eat our tulips.  We pump hexavalent chromium into the water supply in fracking waste.  We do a much better job of spiting us than the deer do.

But even knowing it's not the real wild, I retreat to the park, to the "woods" to "hike." (What is the difference between a hike and a walk but setting?)  And I pretend the wild world still exists for me to encounter -- which is also pretending I am something apart from and different from the wild world. The division between the Human -- which frustrates and exhausts me -- and Nature -- which is now only a museum display -- strikes me chiefly as a question of dharma: people violate the cosmic order, the right-way-of-living, routinely; nothing else does.  And yet our museum-piece, dramatically moderated and altered Nature is itself perhaps a violation of dharma -- or more accurately, a simulacrum of it.  And our own cruel and dominating natures are apparently just that -- nature, built-in, universal to our species, evolved in this cosmos right out of the same dust as everything else.  All of our radical difference and radical similarity to that which we destroy and then struggle to resurrect and preserve is flattened into a map like Borges's -- it covers the territory completely, then, as Baudrillard says, replaces it.

So I visit the place on the map where the fewest people are in evidence, and pretend briefly to have escaped into the woods. X marks the spot of my imaginary world. Terebithia ended tragically, but I suspect I'll just float on mundanely through the simulated woods, unless and until someday I retire to the sea, with my incompetent and sickly body that will seem very moot in the comparison.

*Devastation and Renewal: An Environmental History of Pittsburgh and Its Region, by Joel A. Tarr