Posts Tagged ‘History Faculty’

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

Image

This year it was mulch.

It’s that time of year again.  The time when my wife orders a huge pile of compost and dirt, has it delivered to our front yard and then decides where this fresh earth is needed most.  Of course, all three cubic yards of this will be moved into the ever-expanding vegetable and fruit garden she is constructing.  It began a couple years ago with one raised-bed in our backyard, and now takes up our entire property.  Granted, we live in NE Oak Park, so it is not like we have a huge yard, but covering even such a moderate area in fresh compost/dirt can be quite a chore using only a shovel and a red children’s wagon (we don’t have a wheel-barrel).  It is a physical job; your hands get dirty, your fingers get calloused and your arms and back ache.  Though this doesn’t sound like an enjoyable task, it actually is quite fulfilling.

I think many people love the ‘good’ muscle pain of a hard day’s work. To me however, this job is enjoyable for another reason.  The question I have been asking myself the last week is why?  Why do I enjoy this seemingly mindless chore?  Well, I think I may have a reason.  It’s the ‘natural’ way to work.

In his brilliant 1967 essay “Work, Time-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism”, the English historian E.P. Thompson illustrated how pre-industrial, agricultural work was ‘task oriented’. This was very different from our modern way of working, in which any down time is usually thought to be ‘wasted’.  The modern notion of time really began with the industrial factory where time was to be ‘spent’ specifically and exclusively for production.  Any time ‘spent’ otherwise was time that was lost, and hence, profits. This was new. It was not called the Industrial Revolution for nothing. 

Obviously, most Americans don’t work in factories, but our modern style of labor still is based upon this industrialized ethic.  I learned this at 19 when I worked at a certain, infamous fast-food chain. It was constantly reiterated in that job if you had “time to lean, you had time to clean.” In other words, don’t rest (or think), just work.

As Thompson pointed out, this type of labor was “unnatural” in the sense that humans had never worked in such a structured manner.  Instead, people had always worked based upon ‘task orientation’, which had three major differences to the industrialized method: “First, there (was) a sense in which it (was) more humanly comprehensible than timed labor. The peasant or laborer appear(ed) to attend upon what was an observed necessity. Second, a community in which task-orientation (was) common appear(ed) to show least demarcation between “work” and “life”. Social intercourse and labor (were) intermingled – the working day lengthens or contracts according to the task – and there (was) no great sense of conflict between labor and “passing the time of day”. Third, to men accustomed to labor timed by the clock, this attitude to labor appears to be wasteful and lacking in urgency.”

It must be stated, I am a college professor, and am very lucky in the sense that I am one of the few who still work based largely upon this “task orientation”.  But still, I often don’t have that strangely ecstatic feeling of completing a manual task.  I rarely get the sensation that Stephen Duck wrote about in the eighteenth century:

At length in Rows stands up the well-dry’d Corn,
A grateful Scene, and ready for the Barn.
Our well-pleas’d Master views the Sight with joy,
And we for carrying all our Force employ.
Confusion soon o’er all the Field appears,
And stunning Clamours fill the Workmens Ears;
The Bells, and clashing Whips, alternate sound,
And rattling Waggons thunder o’er the Ground.
The Wheat got in, the Pease, and other Grain,
Share the same Fate, and soon leave bare the Plain:
In noisy Triumph the last Load moves on,
And loud Huzza’s proclaim the Harvest done.

My labor of moving dirt from one place to another in my small yard is of this nature.  I feel Imagelike proclaiming a “loud Huzza” as I finish this task. 

All this being said, let’s not get too romantic.  The thought of moving dirt from one place to another everyday instead of preparing for my history classes is not very appealing.  But, without such physical tasks I believe I would be missing something intensely human. Even in our labors, the immortal and wise words of the Oracle of Delphi ring true: “In all things moderation.” 

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty.

Image

Noah and Lane

I met Jen when we were both twenty years old.  We were half-way through college, and had plans to go to graduate school. We were instantly inseparable.  We wanted to move to the big city, experience independence and live our lives. In other words, we had no thought of having children.

In our early twenties, Chicago was the place to be and graduate school took up all our energy.  After graduation, Jen and I were both lucky enough to find jobs at Robert Morris.  Economically stable, we figured we might as well get married. We were 26, and we were Chicagoans through and through. Each weekend we hung out with friends, disposing all of our disposable income. Still, no plans for children.

At 29, things changed. Jen and I made a decision. We wanted a child.

Our first daughter, Noah, was born when we were 30 years old. Though both Jen and I had advanced degrees, and full time careers, we never knew hard-work until Noah arrived.  From Noah’s first three months, when she inconsolably cried every night from 6-9pm, to today when she has the attitude of a 16 year old in a 6 year old’s body, every day was, and has been a new challenge that continuously tests us physically and psychologically. We have come to the realization that our 9-5 jobs are relaxing in comparison to our grueling occupations as mom and dad.

But, we were not done.  Since one offspring didn’t break us, why not sire a second child?  Lane was born when we were 32 years of age, making us parents twice over.  The second is definitely easier than the first. However, the problem was Jen and I no longer had numerical superiority. It was 2 against 2 on the best days.  1 against 2 when Jen or I had an evening class. On those nights,mom or dad was outnumbered and outgunned.

I sometimes wonder: What would have happened if Jen and I had had these two kids when we first met? I shudder at the thought. At 20, both of us were still children ourselves.  We were self-centered and immature. Everything revolved around our needs and desires, and there is no doubt that emotionally and mentally we would not have been prepared for children. For us, the correct decision was to wait until our thirties. We needed the extra decade for psychological stability.

Yet, biologically, and physically, the opposite is true.  Women reach their peak of fertility at 19. Men around the same age. 19!  That is when nature intended for us to have Noah and Lane. At 19, my wife and I were in college, living on 4 hours of sleep, eating terrible food, and, yet, feeling indestructible. At that age, we would have physically been prepared for children much more than our 30 something selves.

The only thing I can figure is that Mother Nature must love a paradox.

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty.

One of my favorite scenes in the film Anchorman (and there are so many good ones) is when Ron Burgandy (Will Ferrill) and his group of goofy compatriots are walking through a park, eating fast food, dropping their garbage as they go.  I think it is one of the funniest scenes of the movie, though it is peripheral to the story. Coincidentally, one of my favorite moments from the critically acclaimed series Mad Men is similar. During the first season of the Emmy-winning drama, Don Draper (Jon Hamm) and his family are having a picnic at a park, enjoying a beautiful summer day.  As they get ready to leave, Don chucks his half-empty beer can off screen.  Below is the scene.

Anchorman and Mad Men are not usually mentioned in the same breath, but I think these two scenes point to a central correlating theme of both shows. One of the reasons Anchorman is funny, and Mad Men is dramatic, is because both exploit the absurdity of outdated social mores.  These two littering scenes have the same message: Times were different back then, and things that are unacceptable now were completely acceptable at one point.  Ron Burgundy and Don Draper were sexist, which was acceptable; if they wanted to throw their trash on the ground, that was fine too.

anchorman-jump There is no doubt that Ron Burgundy’s and Don Draper’s actions today would cost them harsh social, and legal ramifications.   Both characters would be fired for their sexism, and both would be fined for their littering.  And yet, both would find that one type of littering is still oddly acceptable in our contemporary world. The chain-smoking Don Draper would find that he could drop his  cigarette butts anywhere he liked, with nary a passerby’s glance.

Isn’t this acceptance of specific littering odd?  I would wager that smokers walking the street, hanging outside of bars and restaurants, standing by the doors of businesses believe that they are not litterers, and yet, they so often unthinkingly dump their butts. A mysterious double standard exists for cigarette litter:  If I was walking down the street, eating an apple, next to someone smoking a cigarette and at the same time that I dropped my apple core, he dropped his butt, who would get more nasty looks?  Who would be littering in the minds of people?  Most would not give a second glance to a smoker who did this, whereas raised eyebrows, glares, and disgusting muttering would most likely meet the apple dropper. But, how counter-intuitive is this?   Can there be any litter more dangerous than cigarette butts? Apple cores biodegrade; cigarette butts are sticks of fire. It really makes no sense.

So, why the different responses and understandings?  Why is dropping a cigarette butt on the ground not considered littering?  Honestly, I don’t have an answer.  What do you think?

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

Well, that’s over.  As I write this, I am watching NBC News coverage of the capture of “Suspect 2″ in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  This has been one of those events when you feel like history is being made, so I want to write a couple blogs in the coming weeks in response.  This blog is the first of those.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

One of the disturbingly enthralling aspects of today’s media coverage has been the interviews and reactions of those that knew “suspect #2″ before his apparent conversion to violence.  Over and over today, I have heard 19 and 20 year kids, high school teachers, and parents of friends describe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a extremely normal kid.  Most interviewees have been calling him quiet, athletic, friendly, helpful and kind.  The shock of those who knew him is telling.  No one foresaw this.

It seems the older Tsarnaev was more militant. Reports have depicted him as a loner; as ideological.  But, his younger brother doesn’t seem to fit that mold.  Now, this may be completely wrong.  Perhaps law enforcement will find loads of documents, and writings that prove that the younger Tsarnaev was the ring leader in this attack. I can’t say, though it seems unlikely at this point. We are left asking then, why would this seemingly normal kid commit this horrendous act?

Unfortunately, I know what many political figures, religious leaders, media spokespeople, and persons on the street will say.  It is Islam; violent, malicious Islam. I know this because such rhetoric has been making the rounds since hours after the attack.  But, even those who are not so inflammatory, or so prejudiced feel the need to simplify this situation for an angry, frightened viewing public.  As I heard Brian Williams, NBC head anchor say tonight, everything will be okay in the future “as long as we have more good guys, than bad guys.”

If the younger Tsarnaev had been killed tonight, such simplistic bombast and platitudes would most likely control all discourse. With him in custody, perhaps we can find out the truth of his motivations, and as the atrananthropologist Scott Atran has found, the motivations of terrorists can be surprisingly recognizable.   An incredibly brave scholar, Atran has spent the last decade interviewing members of terrorists groups, their families and their friends, compiling his conclusions in his 2008 book, Talking to the Enemy: Religion, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists.   His interviews  of young terrorists most often found that they “were campmates, school buddies, soccer pals, and the like, who became die hard bands of brothers in a tragic and misbegotten quest to save their imagined tribal community from…morally deformed” enemies. These youths join cells and organizations because they are intrigued by “the camaraderie of a cause, however admirable or abhorrent, and the courage and commitment that come from belonging to something larger.”  In other words, it is not necessarily ideology that makes these young men kill. They kill for their community. They kill to protect and strengthen their biological or social family.

Is this what happened here?  Is this how a ‘nice, kind kid’ became a murderer? Maybe.  Maybe not.  We should know soon enough. My one hope is that people pay attention to this young man’s motives, and don’t simply label him an Islamo-fascist, or a nut-job, or a bad-guy. Doing so only simplifies, and thus clouds, a complex phenomenon.

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty.

Like millions of Americans, I was saddened and shocked by what happened in Boston on Monday.  Three people, including an 8 year old boy, were killed, and over 170 were injured in the bombing at the Boston Marathon.  As we have seen so many times, American national bonds after such tragic events always seem to be strengthened.  Whether Democrat or Republican, the President inevitably leads the people in mourning. Public officials reassure citizens that justice will be served.  Psychologists remind us that we need to go on with our lives, and not be overtaken by fear. As with Oklahoma City, the Atlanta Olympics, and even 9-11, we will mourn, we will find justice, and we will keep living.  We hope that this will not happen again in America, but, unfortunately, we assume it will.

In other parts of the world, there is no assumption of a future bombing; only assurance. Two days removed from Boston, and I can’t stop thinking about the ubiquity of crude terrorism in other nations.  In Syria, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, explosions in public places are a weekly, sometimes daily occurrence.  Of course, I realized that before Boston.  But, how many times have you (and I know you have, because I do it to) simply shaken your head when you hear of 50 women and children killed by a car bomb in Kabul?  When such news comes across the wire, the radio, or the internet, most Americans turn the page, decrease the volume, or navigate to another site.  I accuse Americans of this because I am an American, and I am guilty.  Afghan, Iraqi, and Syrian children being killed by pressure cooker bombs doesn’t shock Americans any longer; but, it should.  After Monday, we need to appreciate that Boston and Kabul are not that far apart.

 

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

A few days ago, I ran across this classic Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:

Image

I think there could be two interpretations here: One, Calvin always has a bit of the restless genius about him, and he understands that graffiti is an art-form with theory and technique, though the square librarians don’t agree.  Or, two, Calvin loves to break the rules, and he is too young to understand why others don’t help him.  He is the epitome of a destructive kid who has no real respect for other peoples’ mindsets, mores or properties.  His open interest in graffiti, that purportedly most rebellious of destructive activities, proves the point.

banksy

Banksy is amazing.

The City of Chicago would likely view Calvin’s interest in graffiti as the first sign of juvenile delinquency. The official website of the city defines graffiti as “vandalism” that “scars the community, hurts property values and diminishes…quality of life.”  Though these are pretty harsh words, I believe that most people would agree with this statement.  The works of Banksy and Basquiat aside, few people see high art in everyday graffiti.  Graffiti is associated with youth; with urban culture; with spray-painting nihilists. Chicago leaders want to punish these kids, and perhaps even punish their parents.  Maybe that will solve the problem.

Maybe not. What ex-Mayor Richard Daley and Mayor Rahm Emanuel ignore is the historical ubiquity of graffiti.  This is not a Chicago problem.  This is not a modern problem.  Tagging is a human tradition, and if anything, it seems to be diminishing.  Look at the Ancient Romans. Their cities had graffiti everywhere.  Nowhere is this more memorable  than in the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum.  Both these Roman towns have been preserved in a time capsule of volcanic ash from Mount Vesuvius’ eruption of 79AD.  Under blankets of ash, archaeologists have discovered perfectly preserved physical artifacts: jewelry, statues, money, religious idols, and artwork.  Some of these artifacts are unforgettable for their beauty; some for their lewdness (Pompeiians seemed to have had a bit of an obsession with the male sexual organ.)

Graffiti in Pompeii

Graffiti in Pompeii

X-rated or not, the findings at Pompeii and Herculaneum are incredible windows into the past. Vesuvius entombed first century urban Roman culture, and graffiti was evidently central to that culture. Roman citizens enjoyed recording all sorts of graffiti wherever they saw fit, and much of it did not have any of the artistic intentions of today’s taggers.  Instead, it is closer to a running record of everyday events and average citizens’ thoughts. Some of it is mundane, as when someone simply scrawled in the gladiator barracks, “On April 19th, I made bread“.  Alternatively, some graffiti is poetic, as one message within a tavern proves: “Lovers are like bees in that they live a honeyed life“.  There are some bragging graffiti artists as well. One wrote, “If anyone does not believe in Venus, the should gaze at my girl friend“.  Then there are vulgar scribblings.   My favorite is the simple, “Secundus defecated here. Three times“. 

The vulgar graffiti is not just shocking; it is the most important graffiti for us to pay heed. Why?  Because, it provides 21st century people the opportunity to see Ancient Romans as they really were.  It illuminates that they were not all philosophers, or emperors, or senators.  They were living, breathing, defecating humans.

It may have been the Classical age, but not everything was classy.

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty.

On the first day of all my history courses, I attempt to dispel my students’  romanticization of the past. This may sound strange to people who assume that “kids today” don’t respect the past, but I don’t find that to be the case at all.  In fact, I think most Americans, college students included, respect the past, or at least the past that has been constructed for them by pop culture, the media, and politicians.  Most of the time, Hollywood, 24 hour news old-daysprograms, and US Senators portray history as romantic, simplified, and heroic. “The Good ol’ Days” are lionized as a simpler, more understandable time that has been lost.  Through this lens, history appears to move in a negative, regressive direction.  Though this stance is most often associated with conservatives, the idea that history is regressing touches all political sides.   Everyone can discover a past Golden Age that fits their modern ideologies.

Most of my students don’t necessarily think in these political terms when it comes to history, but  the vast majority believe that society is regressing.  To them, times are worst than they have ever been.  Social levels of violence are purportedly unique; human communication is disintegrating; Americans are lazier than ever.  Though young themselves, these students interestingly see historical regression most clearly in “kids these days”.   I have had 18 year old students tell me that their 12 year old siblings don’t know how to form relationships because of cell phones and video games.  Obviously, 30 somethings similarly complain about college kids.  60 somethings say the same about 30 somethings.  And on and on we go.

If history is regressing, then it only makes sense that the past must have been superior.  I believe this notion reached its apogee in the 1990′s, when the so-called baby-boomers lionized their own parents, dubbing them the  “Greatest Generation” in pop-culture and mass media outlets.  The narrative went like this: “The Greatest Generation” was superior to all who came after not only because they fought WWII, and survived the Depression, but that they did so with nary a complaint.   They were marked by determination, resilience, and stoicism. Of course, it became inevitable to ask, “What happened to those who came next?”  How could American society produce the WWII generation, and then spawn these “kids today”?  By painting with such a broad brush, the creators of the “Greatest Generation” ideal simplified and heroicized complex individuals who fought, died, and experienced WWII, while also smearing those who came after.

But, wait a minute!   My reader may be thinking, “the WWII generation was more stoic than people today.  They did face hardships, and endured them.  Plus, in many ways, the past is superior to the present.”  You are correct on all counts.  No one could believe that history has not regressed in some areas of life. That is indisputable.  But, the problem is that lionizing the past in order to compare it to a supposedly distasteful present spawns historical tunnel vision.  We miss two important truths when we do this: First, the complex continuity between the past and present events, ideas, and movements is censured by this tunnel vision.  Second, lionization spotlights regression, while ignoring progression (of course, this depends on how we define both terms).  To ignore one for the other is  disingenuous. “The Greatest Generation” was most definitely patriotic; perhaps more so than “kids these days”.  For many, this is regression. That being said, “The Greatest Generation” also largely accepted their society’s racial bigotry and misogyny with little critique.  It was up to their hippie children to fight these injustices. For most, this is progression.  Forgetting such complexities leads to the construction of a falsified past composed of simplified Utopian heroes.

“Golden Age, Schm-olden Age” then, will be a series of posts that I will come back to now and again to display the continuities of the past with the present, and to expose such wrongheaded romanticized history.  In doing so, I will not be judging the past so much as critiquing domineering attempts to gloss the past as something far superior than the present.  I don’t know how often I will write these posts, though I hope they will be entertaining.

(Next Monday, First Installment: Ancient Roman Graffiti)

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

Why do our food tastes change over time?  Is it culture or nature?  Just like all arguments regarding nature vs. nurture, it is actually a bit of both. Natural changes of taste are no big mystery, and not really surprising.  A person despises olives at 10 years old, but finds them irresistible at 30.  Tastes for food and drink transform; desires evolve. We’ve all been there.  More intriguing is when culture forces a change; when nurture is the cause of evolving tastes.  My gradual love of coffee is a perfect example.  

Image

When I was a kid, I remember my Grandpa Jocks would often have a post-meal coffee.   As it brewed, the aroma was wonderful!  Once ready, he poured just a little cream in the black, steaming drink, and stirred it around with the handle of his spoon (I don’t know why he liked to use the handle).   Anything that looked so creamy, and smelled so incredible must be delectable.  At 10 or 11, I finally asked for a taste. The family laughed. I took a sip.  God, it was nasty.

Image

My coffeehouse crew.

Fast forward five years.  I tried coffee again.  This time, I started to go with friends to local coffeehouses on the weekend.  I would order a latte, and it always came with these little, buttery cookies.  It was a good thing those cookies were included, because I needed something to eat before and after sipping the milk-laden espresso.  I used the cookies to hide the acrid coffee flavor. The Italian concoction tasted just as I remembered my grandpa’s brew: Burnt, sour, bitter, with a terrible aftertaste.  But, I kept ordering those lattes. I kept forcing them down.

Why would I drink something I didn’t like? Simple.  I wanted to be a coffee drinker.  Dare I dream it, perhaps I could even become a coffee aficionado.  When I started to frequent coffeehouses with my friends, coffee was going through a rebirth of cool.  It was the early to mid-1990′s, and the independent, local coffeehouse (no Starbucks please) was where young, fascinating, intelligent and, yes, pretentious kids went to converse, and be seen.  In our little town, this coffeehouse crowd was ‘alternative’ from the mainstream,  and drinking coffee at 17 was as important as understanding who was a sell-out in the world of music. Coffee identified you as a member of the group.  I wanted into the club.

Image

My 24 hour college haunt.

By the time I began college, I kept pushing the coffee.   Coffeehouses were still the place I went to be seen, but now for different reasons. In my mind, coffeehouses were ground zero for university intellectualism.  At the 24 hour coffee joint I frequented, graduate students would be working on their dissertations at 2AM; professors might show up between classes to order an espresso; college kids may sit for hours acting like they understood Heidegger or Derrida. Mocha lattes were no longer appropriate in this world. Those who ordered a drink that required a blender need not apply to the intellectual realm. To be a part of this culture, you drank straight coffee. And so I drank straight coffee. I felt like I belonged.

By graduate school, a taste switch had flipped. I loved coffee.  I needed coffee.  I was addicted to coffee….literally. I had physical symptoms of withdrawal if I did not drink my morning cup. No longer did I only drink coffee to be part of a scene.  The earlier desire to partake in a specific cultures started me on coffee. Now, there was no stamping out the desire.  Culture 1, nature 0.

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

Remember “The Cosby Show”?  If you are too young to answer in the affirmative, you better go check it out on Netflix or Youtube.  Go now, I will wait…..Okay, now that you realize what you were missing, did you see (or do you remember) the episode in which Theo and Cockroach need to read Shakespeare’s Macbeth for an English test?  The two boys talk about girls, clothes, sports, cars and music, but they have no desire to read the play.  So, they look for a supposedly easy out.  The slackers attempt to avoid reading Shakespeare by listening to a recorded version of the play instead.  They get the recorded album (it is the 80′s remember) of Macbeth from the library; they think listening to it will allow them to avert hard-work.  To their disappointment, they find it is not simple to listen to Shakespeare.  With the album of Macbeth out of the picture, the boys stumble upon “Cleland Notes” that provide a quick summary of the tragedy.   Have a look at a couple classic scenes:

“The Cosby Show” always had a lesson.  This episode obviously was attempting to tell kids that hard work (like reading Shakespeare) would pay off, and trying to get around it by doing something easier would come back to haunt you, like a ghostly blood-stained dagger. The show’s moral could be stated even more bluntly: Reading is good.  Don’t avoid it.  Just do it.  Cockroach and Theo need to learn this the hard way. They likely fail the English test.

Who would disagree with this moral? In our society, most parents stand with Cliff and Claire Huxtable, arguing that reading is an absolute good; always the best learning methodology.  But, these arguments don’t hold water. We don’t live in a world of absolutes, and reading is not always a complete good.  The two boys are right.  Reading ‘The Bard’ can be a chore. On the other hand, watching and listening to Shakespeare is unforgettable.

Dear reader, you must understand that I am a bibliophile extraordinaire.  If I have free time, I read books.  I read on the train; in between classes; before bed; with my morning coffee. I love reading.  It is my hobby; my passion.  I agree with Cliff and Claire Huxtable’s unstated moral: Reading provides enjoyment, intellectual stimulation and self-betterment. But, there are just certain things that should be heard, seen or experienced, and not read.  Sit down and read Sophocles to yourself; then listen to or watch Oedipus the King.  The difference is staggering.  Reading the words provides beauty, but watching the tragedy performed is incomparable.

51noqEetVvL._SL500_AA300_PIaudible,BottomRight,13,73_AA300_This topic is on my mind because I am teaching at a branch campus this quarter, and hence, I am in the car for a couple hours a day. When in the car, I listen to audiobooks to pass the time. I would initially grab audiobooks dealing with my preferred topics of study: History, psychology, philosophy.  I found that these books were good reading, but poor listening.  So, a couple weeks ago, I went with something more exciting. I grabbed the 11 CD audiobook of The Odyssey by Homer as read by Sir Ian McKellen.  Boom! Incredible.

homer

Homer?

This wasn’t my first run-in with Homer.  I read The Odyssey my Sophomore year in college for a Western Civilization course.  Our professor told us on Tuesday to read the 500-plus page epic by that Thursday.  This was ridiculous.  Of course, I read the book as fast as possible, skimming through the ‘unimportant’ parts.  My experience with Telemachus, Circe, Odysseus and the Cyclops was tainted.  Though it has so many recognizable moments, reading the work frantically felt repetitive, and truthfully, boring.

That was 15 years ago. I thought I would give it another go with the recorded version.  Listening to the words, not reading them to myself, clarified the absolute power of Homer’s masterpiece.  The beauty of the language and the psychological introspection of character was magnified ten-fold. Even the repetition (necessary since the work was orally relayed from bard to bard) started to become addictive and beautiful.  Listening to the reoccurring descriptions was a welcome occurrence,  not an annoyance.

The Greeks did not lionize the written word above other methods of pedagogy.  How could they with their cultural inheritance of Homer?  How could they when the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides were central to civic life?  How could they when Socrates was questioning Athenians in the Agora?  To be honest, Socrates thought quite negatively of the written word.  He was concerned that reading and writing may ruin the skills of conversation, argument and memory.  In this belief, Socrates was far too radical.  Reading is obviously wondrous.   But, the opposite belief that reading is the only correct way to learn is just as radical, and just as wrong.  Theo and Cockroach had the right idea about that, methinks.

By Michael Stelzer Jocks, History Faculty. 

Judge me if you wish, but I love using Hollywood films to teach history courses.  You want to know why I love it? Two reasons.  First,  movies provide students with an opportunity to empathize with figures of the past.  Lecture and textbooks rarely are able to bring raw human emotion into the classroom.  Films can do that. Second, movies often get history completely wrong….Wait, what?  How is this good, you might ask?  I find that analyzing the inaccuracies of historical films clarify historical reality since this reality is often more shocking and memorable once we compare it with Hollywood falsehoods.

“This IS SPARTA” from movie and graphic novel

Films dealing with the Ancient Greeks are particularly good for this, since the filmmakers often misrepresent Hellenic culture so blatantly. Two such films  are the 2007 flick ’300′, based on the Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the same name, recreating with much artistic liberty the Spartans’ sacrifice at the Battle of Thermopylae, and 2004′s “Troy”, which is loosely based upon the seminal work of Western literature, Homer’s “The Iliad”.   Neither of these movies would be considered ‘great’ films.  They are not award winning; critics generally panned them; and, quite honestly, they are a bit tedious.  But, I love to use clips from these movies because of how they represent, and misrepresent, a central tenet of Ancient Greek civilization:  Masculinity and sexuality. 

When it comes to masculinity, “300″ has the most disturbing inaccuracy.  One of the most memorable scenes of the 2007 film comes when a Persian messenger arrives at Sparta to threaten the Spartan king Leonidas (actually, there were two kings in Sparta), requesting submission to the invading Persian king, Xerxes.  Leonidas turns the messenger down, explaining why he can’t submit.  Leonidas needs to worry about the Spartan reputation.  He is especially concerned about this reputation since the Athenians have already rejected the Persian offer, and Sparta can’t be shown up by Athens.  Leonidas makes this clear to the Persian messenger by deriding the Athenians as ‘philosophers and boy-lovers’.   After poking fun at the weakness and perversity of Athens, Leonidas then provided a lesson for the Persian in noble Spartan toughness by yelling “THIS IS SPARTA” while kicking the man  down a bottomless pit. 

You can hear the disdain in Leonidas’ voice when he talks about those Athenians; those boy-lovers.  For a modern audience though, there is never any further dialogue to provide an explanation as to what the Spartan king means by this insult. Do the movie-makers believe their audience understands this reference? Or, were they simply using the words of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, since that line originates with it?  Perhaps the movie-makers and Miller think it is obvious; loving boys, and the evident Athenian propensity for it, clearly separates Athenians from the uber-masculine, uber-militant Spartans.  It is implied for the movie-goer that ‘boy loving’ is something strong, laconic, Spartan warriors just don’t do.  Leonidas loves his wife; end of story. WRONG!  As Professor Paul Cartledge has written, the Spartans were a bit notorious among fellow Greeks for loving boys. Reality is that ‘boy love’ was common within all the Greek world, and Sparta was no different.

Achilles mourns for Patroclus

Achilles mourns for Patroclus

Let’s break away for just a minute  for some clarification.  The love of ‘boys’ sounds extremely disturbing to our 21st century ears. ‘Boys’ usually mean children to modern English speakers. But, we need to understand that ‘boys’ in the Ancient Greek context would be understood as young men.  Were they all consensual adults?  No, they were not, though no concept of ‘legal age’ existed for either men or women during this time period.  Furthermore, ‘love’ in the Greek context does not necessarily mean physical acts of love (though that was a possibility).  Loving a young man could mean wanting to be near him; teach him; protect him.  For the Greeks, love of young men was natural, and noble since the highest level of beauty was found in the physical body of a young, athletic male.   This was the Greek world; the Spartans were as much a part of it as the Athenians.

Perhaps not surprisingly, “300″ is not the only film to misrepresent Greek culture when it comes to “Greek Love.” In the 2004 film “Troy”, the relationship between Achilles BradTroya_N(Brad Pitt), and his young ‘nephew’ Patroclus is central to the story.  As Achilles refuses to fight the Trojans because of his petulant anger at King Agamemnon, impatient Patroclus rushes into the battle wearing Achilles’ armor.  Patroclus dies at the hands of the Trojan hero Hector, and the killing of his ‘relative’ finally gets Achilles’ blood boiling.  Achilles desire for revenge, and his inevitable defeat of Hector is one of the central moments in Western literature.  Yet, the filmmakers of “Troy” completely misrepresent Homer’s vision. In the original epic, Patroclus and Achilles were not nephew and uncle. They were men who loved each other.   Perhaps not physically (or perhaps so), but they are as close as two men can be. The loss of his male love is what drives Achilles’ blood-lust. Family relations has nothing to do with it.

Our modern interpretations and misrepresentations of the past tell us a great deal about our own culture, but an analysis of why these films differ from Ancient Greek reality would be a whole other post.  However, when discussing this glossing over of ‘Greek Love’ in class the other week, one of my students made an astute comment.  She pointed out that the audience lining up to see ’300′ and ‘Troy’ are usually composed of young men, and they may not feel comfortable with heroes being in love with other heroes.  I think she is dead-on, and her statement proves that young male masculinity in our society is similar, and at the same time, dissimilar to masculinity in Ancient Greece.  Much like the Ancients, youthful masculinity today is based upon aggression, and these films speak to that.  No need to change Sparta’s love of violence; Leonida’s love of victory; Achilles’ love of glory. But, unlike Ancient Greece, modern masculinity is based upon stoicism towards other males. Dudes don’t embrace each other, much less express the love they feel for each other in words.  It is no wonder movie-makers would be concerned that Achilles’ real relationship with Patraclus would be discomfiting for many  21st century young movie-going males. Heck, many of these ‘brahs’  won’t even sit next to each other in a crowded theater, leaving one seat in-between each wannabe Leonidas.