wandering apricot

February 28, 2007

on being “fashionably poor”

Filed under: books, life — apricot @ 7:20 pm

When I was just beginning to think about grad school, one of my professors warned me that I would be poor throughout. On the other hand, she rhapsodized about it as “fashionable poverty,” or a strain of what Sandra Tsing Loh calls being a part of the “bohemoisie.”

Now that I’m here, I can’t say that being poor is all that fashionable, especially being in LA; but it is far more bearable than one might expect. To refer again to Sandra Tsing Loh, she wrote a fantastic review of Money: a Memoir, which considers our obsession with women’s economic status. It got me thinking. Liz Perle’s “Memoir” concerns women and money. Rather than the well-trodden road of the evils of Walmart or the 50 cents to a dollar argument, Memoir takes a professional/middle class view:

Craving not just the convenience but the metaphorical stability of a double oven, Perle admits to being a member of “the emotional middle class,” to experiencing downward mobility as a kind of “egocide,” to caving in professionally to her own acquiescent “inner stewardess” (who’s too polite to protest a bad job assignment or lobby for a raise). It’s fertile, relatable territory — what woman, feeling blue, hasn’t practiced retail therapy (during PMS, how often have I fondled aromatherapy candles named “Tranquility,” rosemary soaplets startlingly named “Refresh!”)? What XX-chromosomed human hasn’t hoped her dreadlocked spoken-word barista may one day transform into a (still soulful) stockbroker with a bulging portfolio? (For one singletess in Perle’s book, saving money is actually painful — it’s an admission that “no one is coming to take care of her.”)

Then Loh makes a suggestion:

What if, instead of trying to change the still-male-dominated worlds of government and business and contemporary work culture from the top down, we American Women in Financial Jeopardy went the other way? To fill our womanly coffers with the cash we need, what if — in a group strike à la Lysistrata — we all just said no to … buying stuff we don’t need?

She has a thorny indictment of the depths of our consumeristic void:

I can’t name one female self-help book that urges you, now that you’re forty, to simply accept … the extra seven pounds (talk about egocide). If we were all wearing sarongs, no one would know the difference — that’s why we need skinny jeans. When it comes to oppression, jeans are our burka, our religion, our god. We labor for the jeans, we starve for the jeans, we pray to the jeans that they’ll close … The fact that we’re paying $300 is only good news. Female emancipation is always defined in terms of expanding our economic presence. Our personal power is defined by our earning, our cultural power by purchasing, how we vote with our dollars.

Which is to say, conversely, the woman who buys nothing is nothing.

Nothing … nothing … nothing.

I resent it bitterly, and I am in revolt.

I highly recommend the whole review. I got a lot out of it. Now, as a woman who really has very little (about $1,000/month for rent; my stipend pays pretty much just for rent and food), what am I to make of finally being fashionably poor? A member of the bohemoisie?

To tell you the truth I like it a great deal. But I am not a member of the bohemoisie, and I am far from fashionable. I am just…a poor, dumpy (happy) intellectual. No dazzling Sontag am I.

There are definitely intellectuals–definitely quite a few graduate students among them–who ARE a definite part of the bohemoisie. They know how to be stunners, somehow, on our shitty budgets. But even that takes money and effort and attention to consumer culture. I lack that. Not from an initial want of such adeptness, I guess, but just from unfamiliarity with it. And that initial want faded into apathy.

Sweet, sweet apathy. It gets slammed far too often. One can care only so much, you know? And what capacity one has for caring really ought to be devoted to certain things, or people. And being that my particular brand of apathy is enforced by the iron hand of my stipend, it gives me a good vantage point for reflection.

I don’t have a car; I ride the bus ($.25 with student ID!). I use the student gym. I eat out once or twice a week, on the tab of my loving boyfriend. I have bought exactly 2 pieces of clothing since September. I saved the nifty plastic containers from Indian takeout to serve as tupperware. I haven’t bought a single piece of fiction since the summer. I purchase gifts through the year when they’re on sale to save for the holidays. I buy housewares from Ross and Ikea if I’m feeling extravagant.

Speaking of extravagance, I admit to having some major, major expenditures this year. I bought a new computer after my old one crashed, and Word and Endnote to go with it. I also pay for ballet classes. After my 6-yr old (read: ancient) iPod crashed last week, I invested in a new iPod nano. I guess for me, these things don’t seem to be extravagances: I need a computer for day-to-day academic work, and without an iPod I won’t exercise. As for dance, there is a deadline. Once I hit middle/old age, my body will simply not respond as it does now. So it’s now or never, and I will deeply regret it if I don’t, so my choice is clear.

As Loh says, “Truly cheap people are, in their secret hearts, individuals. Iconoclasts. Rebels.” Hear, hear. But I’m no individual/iconoclast/rebel by choice. Such is the state of the unfashionable low-income grad student. Somehow I’ve become the lowest common denominator of all these categories; still, like Loh, I’m pretty content.

February 20, 2007

i know about your constipation

Filed under: life — apricot @ 6:52 pm

the wisdom of cleaning out your cabinets & forwarding your mail.

Dear former inhabitant of my apartment: I know your name, your interest in musical theater, your fear of ants, and your constipation (a package of exlax with half the pills gone). You seem like an interesting person.

Gave a presentation on early genetics today; it went well, but it’s not as much fun when no one else cares much about your topic. It’s SO interesting! How could you not love a little Lysenko in your day? Soviet science is fun!!

More to say soon.

February 15, 2007

humans desecrate only themselves

Filed under: academics — apricot @ 3:33 pm

Been reading about the nature vs. nurture debate, i.e. biological vs. cultural determinism. I like the proposition put forth by Richard Lewontin that says the debate is pretty much moot; yes, humans are biological creatures, but a distinctive fact of our biology–our consciousness–allows us to transcend our biology. For example: biologically speaking, humans cannot fly. However, our culture–which has created the social practice of science–comes up with airplanes. Our culture masters biology.

Another example: some may argue that biologically we are attracted to faces (blemish free, young) for sexual purposes. But our culture comes up with makeup, cosmetic surgery. Hence the issue transfers to an arena of cultural as opposed to biological discourse.

A movement in biological anthropology, represented by Richerson and Boyd (I forget their first names), argue in favor of bringing the scientific study of culture back to biology. Culture, they argue, co-evolved with humans. Humans who practiced a culturally healthy practice (like, for example, eating bitter herbs despite our biological distaste for them) would go on to pass those cultural practices on to other humans and/or their offspring.

Fair enough, I say, but there certainly is a limit to what they can say about this. I do not think you can apply the study of “cultural evolution” to modern cultures without simplification and stereotyping them. It’s not clear that Richerson and Boyd want to do this, but should their ideas translate to popular thought, that’s probably what it’s going to be. (i.e. Islam and Christianity; which is the fitter culture/religion?)  On another level, it appears to me that the discussion of cultural evolution is not falsifiable, which questions its scientific nature.

I also wonder if they would be willing to accept the fact that science is a social activity. Science is deeply cultural. And if they’re saying that there is not ultimate “truth” about culture–it’s only a matter of what cultural practice endows the most fitness–then doesn’t this self-reflexive gaze destroy the credibility of what they’re doing? It’s the snake swallowing its own tail. If my culture of science tells me that culture is true only in a relative sense, then science must also be true only in a relative sense.

I’d also be curious about whether they’d attempt to apply cladistics to cultural evolution.

I haven’t thought deeply enough about these issues to produce a final opinion, but I do think that this interest in cultural evolution stems from Western culture’s obsession with competition. I’m not sure that it’s ultimately desirable or accurate to see every varying current in human existence as competitive ones. Our genes compete. Our sperm compete. Our species competes. Our race competes. Our country competes. We compete. Screaming beetches on America’s Next Top Model compete. May the best ___ win. It’s a profoundly linear, Western attitude.

I like Lewontin’s argument that humans create their own environments, like every other creature in the world. The environment does not exist; just by existing, we alter what is there. By breathing, we take in oxygen and add CO2 to the atmosphere. By eating, we change our environment. There is no static environment, and everything is changing all the time.  Competition is only an activity of relativity.

Hence I refer to Leslie Marmon Silko’s statement that the earth is inviolable. By seeing everything in existence as a matter of desperate survival and competition and selfishness, we injure only ourselves. For a completely different example: If you kill someone out of greed and competition, then does that make you more successful? Success is relative. The universe goes on. Humans desecrate only themselves.

February 13, 2007

Bladder Cry of Freedom

Filed under: academics — apricot @ 10:07 pm

Pretty much only Americanist historians will get my title. Oh well.

Why do professors think they can go 2 hrs+ without a potty break? Yes, I know we can get up and go anytime, really; it’s not kindergarten. Still, we grad students hang on every word that slide out of their sexy learned lips, and it feels rude.

Haven’t got much to say so I’m going to borrow college friend A’s quote to celebrate V-day tomorrow. Happy snugglage to you all!

If we consider men and women generally, and apart from their professions or occupations, there is only one situation I can think of in which they almost pull themselves up by their bootstraps, making an effort to read better than they usually do. When they are in love, and are reading a love letter, they read for all they are worth. They read every word three ways; they read between the lines and in the margins; they read the whole in terms of the parts, and each part in terms of the whole; they grow sensitive to context and ambiguity, to insinuation and implication; they perceive the color of words, the odor of phrases, and the weight of sentences. They may even take the punctuation into account. Then, if never before and after, they read.

–Mortimer Adler, How to Speak, How to Listen

February 10, 2007

Protected: Easy Eats

Filed under: food — apricot @ 12:37 pm

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


February 7, 2007

squinting puppy in yellow shirt

Filed under: bear dog — apricot @ 6:37 pm

squinting bear

February 5, 2007

poor little mung beans

Filed under: food — apricot @ 4:55 pm

Because it’s getting hot, I decided to make sweet mung bean soup yesterday and dutifully submersed a half cup of mung beans in water overnight. I come back from work today and…they’ve sprouted! Little pale white mung bean pointy things sticking out of the beans!

I feel so bad that I’m now going to boil them alive and spoil their chance to live. Seriously, I feel guilty. What did mung beans ever do to anybody? Nothing, that’s what.

I think all the Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau I’ve been reading has driven me a bit nuts. I’ve resorted to cooking to make me feel better. The curious thing is that I don’t really want to eat what I cook, which is proving to be a windfall for Mr. P. He feasted on roasted eggplant, garlic-ginger edamame, pork dumplings (hand-made!), and mango popsicles this weekend. Philosophy makes me lose my appetite, but amps up my inner cook. Go figure.

During the hunt for recipes I came across this page on the cuisine of my hometown. There’s even a brief description of Re Gan Mian, which I’m going to attempt later this week (noodles served warm, with sesame paste, sesame oil, black vinegar, garlic, scallions, preserved vegetables, pepper, and chili sauce). It strikes me as odd that although Wuhanese food is well-known in China, almost no one knows it elsewhere. The fish and crawfish especially are astonishingly good. I think I’ll have a Wuhan theme dinner one of these nights.

February 3, 2007

Some idiot

Filed under: stupid — apricot @ 11:09 am

Mr. P brought me this flyer plastered here and there on campus:

“Artistic Figure Model Needed Pose For Prints.
Beautiful female

H: Blonde or brown past shoulders

Ht: 5′5″–5′11″ , Wt: 100-125

B: 35-37 C, D W: 21-25″

Hm, what are the chances that this ad was written by a male? And a stupid one at that? A girl as underweight and bony as 100-125 pounds at those heights is not going to have C or D cup boobies. Honestly. Human women are not anime characters.

Blog at WordPress.com.