Sunday, October 25, 2009

At Last

Good grief, perhaps there should be a health warning against mixing your media. I've spent the whole day (more or less), and the last few weeks since the end of September, doing reading for my Master's. Today's reading has been a mixture of First World War Poetry, Mrs. Dalloway and an essay by Michèle Barratt - all on the theme of shell-shock. Just now, as I waited for my NEW LAPTOP (hurrah!) to come to life, I ceded to temptation. Having put Etta James's Best Of on my IPod, I allowed myself to play At Last (super-awesome version with clips from Funny Face on it) on my speakers...

... but what was this? As the music filtered deliciously through, I stiffened, feeling a sudden wave of frigidity shoot up my spine, and seize my nipples. My whole body was soon subsumed in this tingling cold as the lyrics soaked deep into my thoughts. Every nuance of her voice, her sentiments - the hope, the barely-restrained pleasure mingling with the violins' plaintiveness, all bound in a rough, caustic tenderness - irrigated my brain. The melancholy beneath her long wait had become my own. As the song hit me, I dimly felt a memory of The Libertarian scroll across my mind -

My heart was wrapped up in clovers
The night I looked at you*

and I was shivering, almost rooted to the spot. As Etta lingered to the close of the song, I realised my eyes were filled with tears. The next song began, but my body was still in its heightened state of chilled distress. I put At Last back on, and freed the tears that had gathered. After that, I returned (mostly) to normal. My temperature still seems to be unstable, though, and whilst listening back to the song on Youtube (trying to pinpoint the exact effect certain phrases had on me), I wept further.

While it can be embarrassing to admit to reactions like that, I don't feel it too much. It was a uniquely transcendental experience - and ironic to boot. Earlier today, I read an interview with Bill Bailey, in which he responded to the question 'Attitude to drugs?' with:

People try them, and then most people realise life experiences exceed the experience drugs give you.

To which I thought: 'Y'know Bill, I agree - in fact, being a drug-free AND alky-hawl-free zone too, I HEARTILY AGREE. However, why do I seem to be having so few 'life experiences' at the moment?'

Well, you get what you wish for. I couldn't help wondering if many of the Modernist writers and artists I read about had a similar reaction to Wagner - and what they would think of my reaction to Etta James. Would Theodor Adorno approve of her, I wondered. I decided that he would probably be unsure at first and then, once I described to him the implicit sense of narrowly-averted heartbreak and tragedy, the hint of a death richly merited 'at last' ('And here we are in heaven/ For you are mine/At last') and the overriding, persuasive magic of Etta's voice, he would have NO CHOICE but to agree. (For anyone who doesn't know what 'Modernism' is, or who Adorno is, or simply doesn't care - don't worry, I'm just being a saddo literary nerd).

The reasons for that sudden moment are likely to be as follows:

a) TOM has 'come around.'
b) I'm in love.
c) I was really looking forward to that song, since yesterday! I love romantic songs that are truly universal, or sung with loads of soul.
d) It's freezing.

As the song hit me, I dimly saw images of The Libertarian scroll across my mind ('Oh, yeah when you smile, you smile/Oh, and then the spell was cast'). Yesterday, I spent a whole 7 hours with The Libertarian - it was incredible. We did virtually nothing. We never do anything much of interest; it's not like my ex who shepherded me to gigs and exhibitions (and vice-versa) constantly. We do go out together, but we're very happy to sleep beside each other as well, and hug (yes, I know - stop vomiting). Given my state, there's been a suggestion of tense fractiousness whenever we debate - and a week or so ago, we narrowly avoided a smackdown over the issue of experiences of racism. This has made me especially careful to appreciate him for all that he is; a shockingly generous and tender soul who somehow manages to be sensitive, pragmatic and adorable all at once.

So, at 7 p.m. I gave up all pretence of doing my reading (the reason for going to his house) and climbed into his chair with him, to spend a whole hour hugging, kissing and talking. My family have been getting on my nerves a fair bit recently. My parents (my dad in particular) have had to do a lot of refurbishment work and as they are both pretty close to retirement age, it tires them out. I've been doing a little housework, as always, but work and a desire not to get drawn into the web that snatched my second-eldest sister makes me hold back from trying to do lots. Essentially, I haven't been hugely helpful, but I haven't been that bad either, and when my parents asked me to come and do some hoovering and cleaning, I did it without too much fuss.

However, what happens in instances like this is: my mother will complain constantly about having loads of work and 'no support.' My dad will mention (separately) every now and then about how tired he gets. My mother will step up her complaints. I arrived back from university about 8.00 p.m. last week, and because I hadn't really slept, sat on the sofa with my eyes shut briefly. My mother arrived and began angrily lambasting me for being tired, saying that she and my father were doing all that work at their age. However, being my mother, she was neither complaining of her workload, nor asserting her right to ask our help, nor saying I shouldn't be tired. No, it was a confused mess of the three, which culminated largely in an attack on me for having the nerve to be tired, with a sort of jeering undertone. I got up and went upstairs, refusing to be subject to her vindictive resentfulness and resolving not to come down again in a hurry.

Normally, in a non-premenstrual state, my mother's rage-fest would be easier to cope with. This, however, came in the wake of weeks of fear and feelings of inadequacy, laced with a sense of bitter disappointment and cynicism, at my course. I've learnt by this point not to invest too much hope, but TL assured me that I would find the people at Master's level more to my liking; more serious and mature. Throughout undergrad English, I bitched many a time about how many of the students there didn't really understand or appreciate the money that they were spending to study.

He wasn't wrong. Week 1 of the core course left me reeling in terror; everyone else seemed to be either a) obsessively knowledgeable of Modernism, or b) derangedly devoted to becoming thus, especially if they were a mature student. I was really hoping that the mature students might come through for me! Guilt set in - was I unappreciative of the course because I hadn't had to pay? At the last moment, a long-hoped-for miracle came through and I was awarded a bursary to cover the full cost of my fees. I started to feel certain that I wasn't worthy of the money, and that maybe I didn't deserve to be there, as everyone else clearly knew much more than I ever could. What was worse, I realised, was that I didn't actually like Modernism all that much from my brief encounters with it last year. It had been terrifyingly knotty, all T.S. Eliot and James Joyce, 'breakdown of language and form,' and obscurity. Did I deserve to be there?

After having a short period of emotional alienation from TL as a result of being absolutely unable to talk - for some reason, I could not talk to him at all - we fought and the release brought tears and awareness. The realisation of what each of us had nearly lost in the other propelled me back to full sanity and I gave my course a bit more opportunity to 'stick.' I chatted to some of the other women on my course; yes, they were nice enough. That week and the next brought new understanding: it wasn't because of their knowledge that the other students put me off. It was because history was repeating itself. At undergrad, there had been the deadly-serious (like myself, I guess) and the rest, with a few 'nice enoughs.' Now, the deadly-serious and the 'nice-enoughs' had come together - and I had changed substantially.

I have always been the sort of person who, by virtue of shyness and a natural tendency towards solitude, never makes friends instantly. I often find myself befriending one person, who is attached to others who are much cooler towards me, and vice versa. This happened all over again with one woman who was genuinely warm and friendly (R), but who appeared to be fast palling up with a more aloof, intelligent-yet-overly-brisk breadstick. Yet I didn't care - and why not? Was this because I'd reached that stage where I was tired of making the effort, tired of having to fight to be liked and appreciated, tired of playing the clown? Ye-es. Listening to the two chatting though, watching their camaraderie, it hit me hard and sudden what the real issue was.

They were regular students. To them, the MA was one of the most important things they were doing, or would ever do. It was to me, but I was uncomfortable about the way we were being rather unsubtly shoe-horned into PhD-prep. I loved the subject, yes, but... Even in Week 1 as two students tussled over time in Marx, I watched them under a throbbing head, aghast. What the fuck were they on about? Why the fuck were they getting so worked up? Couldn't they both be right? What was the fucking point?

During the induction day, six days previously, I had discovered that I was Best of the Web on Cif and persuaded a lecturer to let me use his Internet and check, very quickly, because I thought it was going to be taken down the next day (by which point, I wouldn't be able to see it with my own eyes as I was going to be out till 9 and then bedding down early for work the next morning). I assumed he knew about the Terence Kealey thing. He didn't; I explained. He commented that he didn't really get involved with that kind of thing (blogging etc.) because he couldn't handle the abuse (someone had left me a very unpleasant comment).

At the time, I thought nothing of it. Yet as the first three weeks sloped along, I suddenly and starkly recalled this incident, lit up against my general observations of the seminars and conversations with some of my other lecturers - and then I saw that I had been very blind and stupid. The department (and by extension, the world of English academia) was not the dry, self-contained hive it (and others) used to be - no, it had expanded, all right. It had expanded as students demanded their money's worth, to this level of curricular and extracurricular mixing, this new world of blurred boundaries that Kealey's 'satire' was meant to address...

... and there it stopped. I had always assumed that my lecturers were avidly interested in the 'real world,' that somehow they found time to follow the general thrust of current affairs beyond reviews sections and TV biographies. For some reason, I thought that they, like I, were always reflecting on what they discussed, on how to apply it to the real world, on what it all meant and mattered outside of literature and the seminar room. I was wrong.

Not only were my lecturers perfectly 'white middle-class,' I realised, but now, so too were my fellow students, most overwhelmingly. In our particular MA group, there was myself, a black student, a Japanese international student and 'Roz' who appeared to probably be of Pakistani or Bangladeshi background, but certainly wasn't trying to own it. When I mentioned this and the fact of being the only ethnic minority student in my other seminar group, TL demanded a population count and then returned the verdict that anyone else non-white and 'ethnic minorities would be overrepresented,' spectacularly missing the point.

None of them were, or even remotely seemed, particularly political. They didn't really need to be, not like I do. I recalled a conversation in which my parents had (inevitably) surfaced with a group of my peers, and the absolute gulf it created as always. R and I ended up conversing afterwards, and she tried to relate to me by discussing an ex-boyfriend of hers who was from a strict Greek background. I could not really talk about my situation properly, and the whole conversation brought to mind a half-wet beach. Something was missing. I could not understand what, or why, but something made me feel fundamentally unable to relate to these people. Not only unable, but also unwilling - alongside the general tendency of people in London to rapidly form cliques, and my own immense antipathy towards groups, something else was at work.

A 'teachable moment' with TL - the row about racism - helped me make some sense of it, as did a conversation with a long-unencountered acquaintance. TL protested that he did not like the way that I called him 'white middle-class' sometimes, but that he put it down to my being angry and TOM. I asked him why he didn't like it. He spluttered that it was because he couldn't help being that way, that I made it sound like some kind of accusation. He then went so far as to say 'it's like racism, really.' I had maintained a position of amused detachment, an ironic curiosity, while my innards broiled at his remarks. At that point, a world of rage cracked about my shoulders. I felt like Kali-Ma, towering, ready to bring about the destruction of solar systems with a hard, little smile.

'I cannot believe you said that,' I whispered, hurrying downstairs out of earshot, 'that is fucking appalling.' I tried to explain to him that racial privilege was poisoning his brain and that the pang he felt was what ethnic minority people feel constantly once they realise that they live within a racist system. He tried again to assert that my remarks were a form of racism.
'Racism? How is this racism?' He tried to 'explain.' I cut right to the heart: 'Did I say that you were inferior because you are white?'
I'd got him there. I repeated myself, for emphasis and to get through fully to him. 'No...'
'Well, how the fuck is that racism? Is there a concerted campaign - a campaign stretching over YEARS AND YEARS to portray white people as inferior, savage, backwards or effeminate by virtue merely of being white?'
As a historian (a very fine one at that), he could not of course assert that there ever was, or had been.
'I did not mention that you were white and middle-class because I have anything against whites (I wouldn't be dating you) or middle-class people (I'm probably middle-class myself). Did I say, implicitly or explicitly, that you were inferior, because you are white middle-class? NO. I mentioned it because you ARE white middle-class; as you said, you were born that way and I was trying to show you that you are a product of that.'

'But,' he was almost supplicant now, and I could see this coming, just like I'd seen the rest coming but couldn't believe it, 'I campaign against racism. I write on it; I write about honour-based violence and things like that, you know -'
'Yes,' I said, 'but just because you are not racist and campaign against racism, it doesn't mean you know how racism feels. It does NOT mean you understand the experience of racism. That is what so many ethnic minorities wish that white liberals of all stripes would understand. Not being racist and campaigning against racism, does not mean that you fully understand the experience that we go through.'
He had the nerve to ask me how much racism I'd experienced - I responded in as dignified a manner as I could, but I was angry about that and I let him know later on. That whole thing put me in mind of how rape victims still have to demonstrate evidence of some sort of physical struggle to be taken entirely seriously.

THAT is the huge, great sinking realisation that I have so often been working towards in these last two years of my life. The discussions I've read about unconscious racism within in the feminist community and silencing behaviour on a whole range of American feminist blogs, has given me the key to a whole new kind of awareness. I saw the full, shattering rawness with which interracial relationships can be so easily soured and destroyed. I understood more than ever why so many ethnic minority parents feel less than delighted about their children entering into interracial relationships or marriages.

More importantly, I understood why anti-racist feminists (and other campaigners) despair of overcoming the final hurdles in combating racism. Those white people who are 'on our side' don't always realise the harm they do, when they appropriate our experiences by trying to empathise without fully understanding the need to STFU and LISTEN, and/or when they react childishly and thoughtlessly to the awareness of their complicity in the racist system that they've never had to face before. What with that AND the newer delusions of 'majority victimhood' perpetuated by the likes of the BNP and far too many of our daily papers (I'm looking at you, Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph and Standard... and London Lite and the Metro... and Sky News...), being able to reach full equality and acceptance seems painfully remote.

I was lucky in that I could predict my partner's responses and respond to him clearly - and lucky in that he's the type of guy who LISTENS when I need him to. (The type of guy whose love makes me cry to Etta James! Haha). I will probably post some more on this in time, but for now, my nose hurts and the memory of all this is greatly demoralising.


*Lyrics to At Last here.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Libel: science VS the law?

Well, this has been a week to burn and boil with sheer fucking rage. On Thursday, I attended a panel debate with TL and one of my best friends. It was titled 'Science Fact - science journalism and libel law' and it was taking place to inaugurate the new Science Journalism MA that has been launched at City University this year.

I have followed the case of Simon Singh and the BCA (British Chiropractic Association - they manipulate spines (and reality!)) for quite some time, and tried to tell whoever I can about it, to get people to do SOMETHING. Heresy Corner is one good source of information on the whole thing so far, but Googling 'Simon Singh BCA' should bring up links to many a blog, and Bad Science is also excellent.

Listening to Simon and Ben Goldacre discuss their respective cases, and explain the libel laws somewhat for young, clueless, sheltered types like me, was electrifying. I wanted to throw myself bodily before the House of Lords and shout about the lack of shame. All the panellists were excellent, although I noted with amusement that Duncan wasn't really able to cobble together a credible defense of our libel laws, beyond the fact that 'they're OUR libel laws' (erm, riiiight, Duncan).

Some of the things I learnt: damages rarely ever cover the full cost of having to defend yourself in the first place (which I knew, but had to be reminded of), cases are often dragged out so that they cost the defendant even more and effectively seek to crush their spirits and of course the rise of the use of 'super-injunctions' in conjunction with libel writs means that someone can sue you and NOBODY CAN KNOW. Any details about the trial can't be made public! Presumably the idea behind this is to stop the 'Streisand Effect', where a story explodes beyond previous expectations as a result of attempts to suppress it. It's one of the things I love about the Internet.

It cost BG and the Guardian 'in excess of' £500, 000 to fight his case against Matthias Rath (read all about it here! Tell everyone you know!). He won - but in the end, only about £363, 000 or so (or was it £336, 000? Damn tired brain!) was paid by Rath. Given that the Guardian had a lot of suits against it at the time (Elton John's one over Marina Hyde's column, Simon Singh's...) and is a loss-making paper anyway, it's a lot of money to put up. With the clarity and simplicity so characteristic of those who have to mediate between widespread public ignorance, and skilled academic expertise in science, Ben and Simon put the case against our libel laws very well.

Think about it - if someone sues you for what is increasingly turning out to be 'hurt feelings' rather than actual loss of reputation (consider the fucking Elton John case!), you have to PAY TO DEFEND YOURSELF. You have to pay for the right to establish that you are not a liar. In Ben's case particularly, this is like a hideous joke. He challenged a man who claimed that vitamin pills cure HIV and that anti-Aids medication doesn't! Surely, you think, there must be some 'public interest' defence available, right? FUCK, NO! I for one agree with them that there bloody well should be. I wish there was also some way to prosecute newspapers and media in general over 'endangering public health and safety' given cases such as the MMR hoax, the assertions that a teenager who died of an undiagnosed tumour died of the cervical cancer jab (yes, really!), the repeated claims that people who died of underlying health conditions actually died of swine flu and - lest we forget - the news that men are more likely to rape sober women, because women who drink 'ask for it.'

Duncan made a good point about how we need to beware of the growing pernicious influence of privacy and copyright law, but sadly that doesn't really detract from our libel tourism problems. Under English libel law, the burden of proof is on the person being sued. You are guilty till proven innocent. If we put this in the context of a company, or a magnate or an association suing an individual, how is that fair? The body of people will almost always have more money and access to the best legal counsel, than the individual will. In cases such as Ben's and Simon's, it undermines the very foundation of science to prevent criticism of your ideas by other people.

I don't believe that the law should be 'above all', especially when we have seen time and time again that it does NOT always work in the common interests of humanity, but in the interests of the richest motherfucker. It should certainly not be above science. Science might be influenced by humanity, and developed and enriched by humanity, but it exists independently of us and predates us. Cells will respire whether we realise it or not; evolution will slope slowly on and osmosis will regulate the water and ion content of our cells without our peering eyes' presence (whoo, A-level Biology! Yeah!).

The law, however, is man-made. It might be admirable and even sacred, but it is not inherent. It does not exist independently of human beings, unless we're thinking of 'natural law' (and we aren't. So there). The incredible thing about our attitudes to the law, is the mix of optimism and sheer fucking cluelessness. People really believe that laws are going to back them up, much of the time, that 'we are all equal before the law,' despite proof since time immemorial of a lil' mechanism called corruption. They assume that the law is something that will magically make itself understood to them, that they will be able to fight their own case or get a good lawyer cheap. Uh... nah? The law only works for us if we work to change it.

Our laws are certainly not terrible, but society changes very quickly and law doesn't necessarily always keep up with it. Just look at the battles that get fought about Internet content. There are people out there who want to be able to sue bloggers for remarks that may have been made totally independently of them, in comments threads. This is the 'taking offense' I mentioned earlier (and that somebody mentioned on Thursday) - and people should not be allowed to use libel laws - which seek to prevent lies from damaging a person's reputation - to silence all criticism of them. Especially not when the criticisms are actually TRUE, and when journalists are laid off right, left and centre and investigative journalism inevitably suffers. We NEED somebody to hold people like Rath to account.

Furthermore, free speech needs to be safeguarded. It's heavily ironic, because bigots often hijack the idea of free speech without, as TL remarked, actually understanding what it means. Free speech, even more ironically, is invoked by racists, misogynists and 'alternative' medicine-obsessed freaks, as exactly the opposite of what it is. They seem to think it is the right to make baseless assertions and morally and ethically unsound or abhorrent judgements, frequently without credible evidence - and have their tender feelings protected into the bargain. In short, they want to be lauded and patted for being thicker than is humanly tolerable. Whereas the whole notion of constructive free speech is that you say what you think, and if you're wrong, you get taken to task.

As I said, the astonishing hypocrisy of unpleasant people means that freedom of speech gets misunderstood a lot. I do love how bigots rail against religious ethnic minorities getting offended by anything, for example, but when their crap 'thoughts' get demolished, they go into offence overdrive. If you say what you think - rather than just saying what you feel - then hopefully you can live with what you say being rigorously challenged. And no, 'rigorously challenged' does not automatically involve rudeness and/or arrogance and sarcasm, as so many online seem to believe. Anyone who gets too offended to go on living as usual really shouldn't, in my opinion, be living in the first place. Unless, of course, we're dealing with a delightful individual like Matthias Rath, or the ever-charming Paul Dacre and his glorious goblin horde at the Daily (Hate) Mail.

Before I go to sleep (it's only Diwali tomorrow! I mean, today), I'll take up the cry that BG issued yesterday. SUPPORT DR. PETER WILMSHURST! It would also be awesome if you could: a) keep up to date with the Simon Singh campaign (he's been given leave to appeal, as his lawyer Jack of Kent reports, and may even have been defamed by the BCA!) and b) get people to sign up to Sense About Science. I have signed their petition; hell, I even donated a tenner to Simon's campaign before Justice Eady, that truckfucking privacy-law lover, turned the judgement on him.

I don't have a chequebook, or if I do, God knows where it is, so I will hunt it out this weekend/email Healthwatch UK, who are supporting Dr. Wilmshurst, and ask if I can send cash. I can't give much - poor student and all that - but I will try!

Just before I head off - read this for a warm, fuzzy feeling of love. Twitterers aren't twits after all, baby! Also, make sure you complain to the Press Complaints Commission about homophobic bee-yatch Jan Moir's Hate Mail article about the death of Stephen Gately. Charlie Brooker has all the details. Unity rides in on a pixellated white horse to suggest how we could reform our libel laws. P.S.: I just pulled this big metal spike - like about nearly two centimetres - out of my mattress when it nearly slashed my ankle. That's pretty scary, isn't it?!