I know we don’t often make time to read ancient literature, but this won’t take long and you’ll be better for it.

And so, I present the Speech of Aristophanes:

Aristophanes professed to open another vein of discourse; he had a mind to praise Love in another way, unlike that of either Pausanias or Eryximachus. Mankind, he said, judging by their neglect of him, have never, as I think, at all understood the power of Love. For if they had understood him they would surely have built noble temples and altars, and offered solemn sacrifices in his honour; but this is not done, and most certainly ought to be done: since of all the gods he is the best friend of men, the helper and the healer of the ills which are the great impediment to the happiness of the race. I will try to describe his power to you, and you shall teach the rest of the world what I am teaching you.

In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it. The original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, of which the name survives but nothing else. Once it was a distinct kind, with a bodily shape and a name of its own, constituted by the union of the male and the female: but now only the word ‘androgynous’ is preserved, and that as a term of reproach.

In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and the same number of feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast.

Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three; and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round because they resembled their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, attempted to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods.

Doubt reigned in the celestial councils. Should they kill them and annihilate the race with thunderbolts, as they had done the giants, then there would be an end of the sacrifices and worship which men offered to them; but, on the other hand, the gods could not suffer their insolence to be unrestrained. At last, after a good deal of reflection, Zeus discovered a way.

He said: ‘Methinks I have a plan which will enfeeble their strength and so extinguish their turbulence; men shall continue to exist, but I will cut them in two and then they will be diminished in strength and increased in numbers; this will have the advantage of making them more profitable to us. They shall walk upright on two legs, and if they continue insolent and will not be quiet, I will split them again and they shall hop about on a single leg.’

He spoke and cut men in two, like a sorb-apple which is halved for pickling, or as you might divide an egg with a hair; and as he cut them one after another, he bade Apollo give the face and the half of the neck a turn in order that man might contemplate the section of himself: he would thus learn a lesson of humility. Apollo was also bidden to heal their wounds and compose their forms. So he gave a turn to the face and pulled the skin from the sides all over that which in our language is called the belly, like the purses which draw tight, and he made one mouth at the centre, which he fastened in a knot (the same which is called the navel); he also moulded the breast and took out most of the wrinkles, much as a shoemaker might smooth leather upon a last; he left a few, however, in the region of the belly and navel, as a memorial of the primeval state.

After the division the two parts of man, each desiring his other half, came together, and throwing their arms about one another, entwined in mutual embraces, longing to grow into one, they began to die from hunger and self-neglect, because they did not like to do anything apart; and when one of the halves died and the other survived, the survivor sought another mate, man or woman as we call them,–being the sections of entire men or women,–and clung to that.

Thus they were being destroyed, when Zeus in pity invented a new plan: he turned the parts of generation round to the front, for this had not been always their position, and they sowed the seed no longer as hitherto like grasshoppers in the ground, but in one another; and after the transposition the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue; or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life. So ancient is the desire of one another which is implanted in us, reuniting our original nature, seeking to make one of two, and to heal the state of man.

Each of us when separated, having one side only, like a flat fish, is but the tally-half of a man, and he is always looking for his other half. Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous are lovers of women; adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments; the female companions are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them, and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature.

Some indeed assert that they are shameless, but this is not true; for they do not act thus from any want of shame, but because they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only, which is a great proof of the truth of what I am saying. When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,–if at all, they do so only in obedience to custom; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;

And such a nature is prone to love and ready to return love, always embracing that which is akin to him. And when one of them meets with his other half, the actual half of himself, whether he be a lover of youth or a lover of another sort, the pair are lost in an amazement of love and friendship and intimacy, and one will not be out of the other’s sight, as I may say, even for a moment: these are the people who pass their whole lives together, and yet they could not explain what they desire of one another. For the intense yearning which each of them has towards the other does not appear to be the desire of lover’s intercourse, but of something else which the soul of either evidently desires and cannot tell, and of which she has only a dark and doubtful presentiment.

Suppose Hephaestus, with his instruments, to come to the pair who are lying side by side and to say to them, ‘What do you mortals want of one another?’

They would be unable to explain. And suppose further, that when he saw their perplexity he said: ‘Do you desire to be wholly one; always day and night in one another’s company? for if this is what you desire, I am ready to melt and fuse you together, so that being two you shall become one, and while you live live a common life as if you were a single man, and after your death in the world below still be one departed soul, instead of two–I ask whether this is what you lovingly desire and whether you are satisfied to attain this?’–

There is not a man of them who when he heard the proposal would deny or would not acknowledge that this meeting and melting into one another, this becoming one instead of two, was the very expression of his ancient need.

And the reason is that human nature was originally one and we were a whole, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love. There was a time, I say, when we were one, but now because of the wickedness of mankind God has dispersed us, as the Arcadians were dispersed into villages by the Lacedaemonians. And if we are not obedient to the gods, there is a danger that we shall be split up again and go about in basso-relievo, like the profile figures showing only one half the nose which are sculptured on monuments, and that we shall be like tallies. Wherefore let us exhort all men to piety in all things, that we may avoid evil and obtain the good, taking Love for our leader and commander.

Let no one oppose him–he is the enemy of the gods who opposes him. For if we are friends of God and at peace with him we shall find our own true loves, which rarely happens in this world at present. I am serious, and therefore I must beg Eryximachus not to make fun or to find any allusion in what I am saying to Pausanias and Agathon, who, as I suspect, are both of the manly nature, and belong to the class which I have been describing. But my words have a wider application–they include men and women everywhere; and I believe that if our loves were perfectly accomplished, and each one returning to his primeval nature had his original true love, then our race would be happy. And if this would be best of all, the best in the next degree must in present circumstances be the nearest approach to such a union; and that will be the attainment of a congenial love.

Wherefore, if we would praise him who has given to us the benefit, we must praise the god Love, who is our greatest benefactor, both leading us in this life back to our own nature, and giving us high hopes for the future, for he promises that if we are pious, he will restore us to our original state, and heal us and make us happy and blessed.

This, Eryximachus, is my discourse of love, which, although different to yours, I must beg you to leave unassailed by the shafts of your ridicule, in order that each may have his turn; each, or rather either, for Agathon and Socrates are the only ones left.

 

Which brings me to my motive for this post. Long gone are the days of the bouncing smiley face knocking off numbers from price stands among product racks. This fell to warm colored vignettes highlighting families or patriotism or puppies, and somehow relating that to a function and effect of Walmart stores. Ok, we get it, glittering generalities work when persuading the average passive consumer… until the recession came along. Then Wally execs figured out that the best way to sell Walmart’s products was to remind the general public that (rather inarguably) Walmart is cheap. About as cheap as it gets. And they sold it.

It kills me to shop at a store that’s major running ad campaign was based on the phrase “Christmas costs less at Walmart”. But that was the case. I mean, I’m sure Christmas, in a way, does cost less at Walmart. But Christmas (and later “Summer”, “Back-to-School”, “Halloween”, and “Thanksgiving” costs less campaigns) implied that these occasions were hurdles. It was as though these holidays/seasons were obligations that required monetary expense, and that you could get off the hook cheaper by visiting your local Walmart store. And that rubbed me the wrong way.

However, the ad guys won me over yesterday in a genius move. I saw a Walmart commercial that had a very strong statement: “We help families save an average of $2,800 a year, no matter where they shop, based on Walmart’s impact on the economy”

Let’s break that down, shall we? “We help families…” (Wow, that’s nice of them. I’d hate to think of those evil stores who didn’t help families. In fact, they can use the word families broadly here, because “family” does appeal to the all-american nuclear family ideal, with all of its Norman Rockwell connotations, while finding a loophole in that everyone technically has a biological family, so single people, homeless people, and hermits fit in as well) “save an average of $2,800 a year…” (That’s a lot of money, and annually?? — but wait for the kicker…)

“no matter where they shop…“

Um. Ok… Did I hear that right?

That wins.

Say you hate Walmart. You hate their sales tactics. You hate their crowds. You hate their dopey senior citizen greeters or sprawling parking lots or god-awful speckled linoleum floor tiles. Whatever. Despite all of this, according to Walmart, it still cares about you and wants you to save money! Think about that!

Ok, any rational thinking person who gives the matter two seconds’ thought knows that Walmart doesn’t really care about your bank account. They care about making a profit, and they do this by knowing how to convince you to buy things from them, which happens because of low sales prices. Low prices that inspire (inspire? Try mandate) competition amongst other merchants that bring the entire market’s price down enough to “save families” an average of $2,800 a year. What a nice way of saying “We’re putting all of your local independent stores out of business, but in exchange we’ll let you have slight discounts in the form of a few unnoticed-until-we-told-you-about-how-much-you-saved-annually dollars here and there”.

I don’t know what to think about this. I mean, yes, I love that the average family saves a lot of money. But I don’t necessarily like the idea that one corporate entity can have such an impact on consumers who have zero choice in the matter. It is saying ‘We, as benevolent Walmart, are taking care of you, the lowly consumer who knows nothing of business practices, regardless of what you do’. It’s like listening to a politician credit claim. Walmart assumes that you want to be taken care of and comes off like it knows best for the consumer, pretending that the wellbeing of the individual consumer is at its core mission as opposed to, say, profit margins.

But this is only what rational, thinking people notice. And most consumers, as we all know, are not rational, thinking people. Which is why I love this commercial and think it’s genius. Because who can deny it. Walmart isn’t going to change their sales tactics because of a negative impact on the economy at-large. It’s a tragedy of the commons type problem we have here. Everybody is getting some of the benefit, but nobody wants to answer to the price that has to be paid due to that benefit of low low prices being doled out. Consumers will continue, as will Walmart, with their low price trading, and as such Walmart’s moral duty is irrelevant. And as it’s not going to change, yeah, you might as well shop at Walmart.

But even if they don’t, you’re still saving money…

No but really. Anyway, had to get that out of my system. Back to Microsoft Word.

So David Sedaris, one of my favorite humorists, has a particularly enjoyable holiday vignette about regional differences in Christmas traditions titled Six to Eight Black Men. It came up on my ipod on shuffle today, I had a good time listening, and figured I should post it here.

Note: The video is shaky, poorly made, and headache inducing. I fully suggest you press play and switch tabs or minimize the window so you only hear the audio track, which is what is important. Parts 1-3 are embedded below.

I most recently watched a feature titled Facing Death, which discussed the consequences of having advanced medical life-sustaining technology in terminally ill patients. The producers describe it in their own words:

How far would you go to sustain the life of someone you love, or your own? With extraordinary access to one of America’s top hospitals, FRONTLINE intimately chronicles today’s complicated end-of-life decisions.

It’s interesting, because I know many people who have been faced with similar choices. I’ve seen how emotionally and physically draining it is to watch a person slowly deteriorate. It is brutal, and numbing, but the truth is more and more people are having to deal with it, and chances are at some point so will you. It’s a tough situation, and I think it’s worth taking a look at.

Movies portray love as something that is unchanging, unyielding, and immutable. There is now an expectation that the main character will always overcome the odds, and that a problem will go away if only one is willing to try and work hard enough. There becomes an association with romantic ‘acts’, such as flirting notes, or intense glances, or outlandish proposals that are associated with ‘true love’, or the idea of the knight in shining armor. The problem, though, is that we all find ourselves compelled to do these things – because of differential association we define them as good and react accordingly. Take kissing for example – it was once considered vulgar, but now it’s unavoidable.

These acts, however, lose their meaning when they are done for the sake of the act itself. I have discussed this in the past with friends. Often they will find themselves in situations where they are holding a hand or leaving a surprise note to a loved one not because they particularly wanted to, but rather that they saw it in a movie once, and they feel as though they want to emulate that style of relationship.

I see this causing problems in that people who fall into relationships that aren’t right for them may feel compelled to stay in that relationship because they don’t like the idea of the alternative. The good guys are always able to get the girl, and they don’t give up. Successful people have successful relationships. And they want to be the good guy, the successful person, the person whose life is like the movies. So they duke it out, often at their and their partner’s expense.

On the flipside, these idealized versions of love make break-ups even harder. People who are convinced they are in love fall hard. But there is an expectation to invest in a significant other, and it is easier to invest in someone who creates an illusion of perfection via emulating effects of ‘perfect’ movie characters in ‘perfect’ love stories.

I’m not saying that love isn’t real. I’m not saying I don’t like love stories. I just think we all need to be aware that we are receiving these influences, and that we know how to critically assess how they should relate to our own personal lives.

The more I though about it, the more it made me wonder why it is that some films are deemed ‘chick flicks’. It seems to me that the movie review should be based on the plot line, not the number of awkward male/female lovey-dovey one liners. Granted these give these movies a distinct character, but I feel that too many good movies are missed out on by males who don’t think twice about passing up on a movie that would insult their masculinity.

Take, for example, Love & Other Drugs. It’s a story about a pharmaceutical rep who falls in love with a Parkinson’s patient. Yes, it follows the typical love story plot, but it brings up unique ethical dilemmas, and forces the audience to assess their own hypothetical actions.

Of those I have polled, most people who have seen the movie have been female. It was marketed to a female audience, and I’m sure that had a lot to do with the demographic turnout for the movie. But the fact of the matter is that a good film doesn’t have to be (and sometimes shouldn’t) be marketed as a chick flick. It turns away too many people who dismiss it for what they expect it to be – a formula movie with a sappy love story. What some forget, though, is that some rather compelling life lessons can be hidden in unexpected places.

I was able to tune in last Friday, when the show staged an experiment where a gay teen was coming out to an angry, disapproving parent in a public cafe. The full episode can be viewed by clicking here. From ABC’s website:

This time we wanted to know how people would react to parental intolerance. Would people confront the parent? Try to comfort the teen or just stay silent? We hired actors to play parent and son and rigged Rockn’ Joe Café in Westfield, N.J., with our hidden cameras to find out.

Barring potential ethics on behalf of the show’s producers by purposefully putting people in unpleasant situations, I think the whole idea is fascinating, and have since watched many other of the episodes. The concept really pulls into play the concept of the generalized other. How is one expected to behave around total strangers? At what point is it an appropriate time to break that social norm to help another person? Watching this caused me to relive my own Deviance experiments regarding male urinal etiquette and personal dining space – there is something extremely interesting about forcing people to set their own social boundaries and watching them toe that line.

In addition to merely watching for reactions to a bad public coming out experience, the show adds an additional variable in testing public reactions to an intolerant father vs. an intolerant mother. This, I thought, was fascinating, especially in the context of a sociology of gender class. I couldn’t decide if I would expect the mother or father to have more of [if any] a public backlash [or support, for that matter]. The producers filled a restaurant with actors and made it so the restaurant patrons would be next to the table from which the conflict was originating, and periodically switched out the intolerant mother with the intolerant father.

As to be expected, there was a balance between those who showed signs of discomfort but chose not to act and those who took some action to either console the boy or rebuke the parent. Nearly all of the patrons, when being interviewed after the experiment, spoke of the dilemma of not wanting to get into another person’s business, which was no surprise. However, there was a good mix of those who assertively confronted the parent and those who passively comforted the boy without confronting the parent. Interestingly enough, the conclusion was that nearly the same proportion of restaurant-goers were compelled to act against the mother as were against the father. It turns out that (in this limited experiment) the gender of the parent did not have a significant effect on the willingness of strangers to intervene in the case of a public disowning of a gay son.

I did, however, sense a bit of bias on behalf of the producers. The terms “intolerant”, “bigoted”, and “homophobic”, were tossed around quite frequently, and though I agree that such behavior should not be considered acceptable, I know that some folks may find the terms a bit overbearing and exaggerated. Many American viewers (sadly) do not consider the actions of the parent to fit any of the above mentioned words, and would find their usage by a supposedly impartial news organization to be signs of sympathy towards one side of the issue. I think that ABC holds the correct viewpoint, personally, but I know that it could have the potential to alienate viewers who may disagree. Hopefully, though, it was able to change more minds than it estranged.