Sunday, December 20, 2009
On-Line Everybody Knows if you are a Dog
I read recently that America’s first president, George Washington, transcribed Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation some time before he was 16 years old. The first rule in the book was “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.”
Another website told me that etiquette began in prehistoric times as a result of increasing interaction between people. According to this account, manners made life “easier and more pleasant,” and as a result “early civilizations developed rules for proper social conduct.” The French led the way during the 1600-1700s, not so much to get along better with others but to avoid boredom. Using the French word for “ticket” as a basis, they called the elaborate set of prescriptions for proper manners “etiquette.” The implication is clear: manners would be a person’s ticket into socially engaging and refreshing interaction. Indeed. “Since the 1960s,” the site adds, “manners have become much more relaxed. Etiquette today is based on treating everyone with the same degree of kindness and consideration, and it consists mostly of common sense.”
Did George Washington really transcribe Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour or is this another “cherry tree” myth about the president’s early life? The anecdote is in character but its veracity is beside the point. What matters is that the first rule in this book of manners is that “respect” towards others, especially when they are present, should be paramount. Let’s call this “Washington’s First Rule of Social Conduct,” even if he was not the author.
Is it true that civilization produced manners? If Rousseau were alive today, he would say “No” since, in his view, civilization corrupted human nature (on the other hand, civilization was the result of a social contract---Rousseau is full of contradictions). Hobbes would also disagree, but his take would be that manners were the product of a God-awful type of interaction---the war of all against all---in the state of nature; yes, civilization did produce codes of conduct but only after the protections provided by absolute power made people comfortable enough to interact with each other without fear that “nasty and brutish” behavior would make their life on earth unduly short.
A third website I visited, titled Etiquette From the Past, consisted of excerpts from the book Youth's Educator for Home and Society, published in 1896. One of the prescriptions included in this volume could be considered a variation of Washington’s First Rule. It reads: “The tongue is a little member, but it should be jealously guarded. Harsh and cutting things should not be said after marriage, any more than before. Coarse and unrefined conversation can never be indulged in without a loss of respect which involves a loss of influence and power.”
Manners have certainly changed since the 1960s but I don’t think that the generalization that best describes the changes is that we now treat everyone with the same degree of kindness and consideration. The loophole in Washington’s First Rule is that respect needs to be shown to “those that are present.” The internet broadens that loophole because it is both presence and absence; just like the dog in the New Yorker cartoon who says to the cat: “On the internet nobody knows you are a dog,” it seems that participants in on-line forums feel that they can say anything that comes to mind and that this will reveal nothing about them because no one can actually see them as they say it. In fact, the whole world is witness to their statements, including those whom they talk about, but the consequences that would follow interaction in real, physical time, are not there. Therefore, they can act like dogs under cover of anonymity and with impunity. On second thought, while those who disparage others on-line are seemingly protected by cybernetic distance/absence, when they say "harsh and cutting things" about others they do risk losing not just the respect of their audience but also their own “influence and power.” Thus, the tongue “should be jealously guarded,” as the 1896 book cited above suggests, especially on-line and not just after marriage.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Power of Identity
Today we understand friendship differently. If I were to use or promote work that was considered substandard, others may say: “he does it because he and the author are friends.” I’ve actually been in situations where I’ve taken a minority position out of loyalty to a friend. I’ve done so for the sake of reciprocity of feeling rather than seeking to re-pay a similar favor or expecting to be granted a favor in the future. In that sense, my obligation has been subjective and thus different from the obligation entailed in the classical understanding of friendship.
People will argue about the meaning of subjectivity and its relationship to objectivity until they are blue in the face and will not come anywhere near resolution, agreement, or consensus. Similarly, it is very difficult to fully understand what propels individuals to engage one another, regardless of the basis for engagement; it matters little whether they do so for subjective or objective reasons—why we do it remains obscure more often than not.
Some will say that identity induces engagement. It is “natural” for like people to approach each other, seek each other out. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, becomes “if you are Roman, you will hang out with Romans.” It is easy to shatter this assumption. I do it all the time when I tell people that I am not married to a Puerto Rican or when I say that I don’t care much for merengue or that I like opera. Yet, I do understand the power of identity and have acted under its influence more than a few times. Thus, if friendship is bricks and mortar to relations based on reciprocity, identity is often the bricklayer that puts everything together and gets friendship started.
I’ve experienced this many times and most recently did so in Puerto Rico. On the night of November 6, 2009, I walked into the lobby of Intercontinental Hotel in Isla Verde, and to my delight a salsa trio was playing. Thanks to the marvels of technology, the sound of the group, which consisted of keyboards, congas, and a singer/percussionist, included a full brass and reed section. The sound was clearly artificial but it was not jarring. The singer had a good voice and was a great sonero. His maraca technique was superb and during the montunos he sang and played the cowbell. I think that to sonear and play the cowbell without going cruzao on the cowbell is not easy, but this singer stayed in clave seemingly without much effort. I thought I recognized the singer and at the end of their penultimate song I walked over to him. “Aren’t you the son of Andy Montañez?,” I asked. I had seen him last year, doing coro for his father at the Albany Latin Fest. He was happy to be remembered. I sat at the bar and at the end of the set, he came to me and we struck a conversation. I asked him about his sister Lisa, his years in Venezuela, and we talked about his father’s voice. When the subject of Montañez, Sr. came up, Andicito, as he calls himself, mentioned that Andy, Sr. would be playing at the Conrad Hotel in El Condado the following night. It was a private party, hosted by a physicians association, but I could come if I wanted to. No, “You must come,” he said, “Do you have a suit and tie? (“I only brought guayaberas,” I said) It doesn’t matter, you come with me. Here’s my card. Call me tomorrow around 9 o’clock and I’ll meet you there and I’ll get you in. You have to call me, ok? Llámame, ok? ¡No me falles! ¿Me vas a llamar? (“Sí, hombre,” I interjected) So, we go and hang out, you’ll see what a band Papi has, es un bandón, and then we come back here. Pero, llámame, ¿ok?, ¡No me falles!”
I left the hotel that Friday night, floating through the air. The following day I did as agreed and had the chance to hear Andy Montañez, Sr. and his orchestra. It didn’t matter that there were over one hundred people at the party. To me it felt like a private audience. Andicito introduced me to his father and his brother Harold; to his father’s friends and to just about every one of the musicians in the band, who, with the exception of one of the trumpet players, turned out to be a collegial bunch. After the party I told Andicito I would see him back at the Intercontinental, where he was due to finish his regular Saturday night gig. At the Intercontinental, we talked some more, had a drink, and then said our goodbyes.
What made Andicito Montañez, who did not know me from Adam, talk to me as if we had been longtime friends? Why did he embrace me in such a way? I was a part of his inner circle instantly, without warning and for no real good reason. This was not an instance of friendship in the classical or modern sense. Friendship develops over time. Yet, I felt that he and I had become instant friends. I still cannot fully explain it. This impulse that some people have to treat perfect strangers as if they were longtime friends has, for sure, some basis on identity, but it must also be driven by something more personal, stronger and deeper. I don’t know what it is. But it is clear to me that identity is not just power; it also has power, it makes people act in strange ways. In other words, it makes A do B under circumstances in which A should do C. It expresses itself as a relationship but it can truly come into being from nowhere. For the time being, I’ll leave it at that.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Latin Jazz is Not Real
My dear friend George Rivera does not like the term Latin jazz and he disagrees with the statement in my previous post that Latin jazz is the future of jazz. Maybe I overstated my point. First, who really knows what the future of jazz is? Second, Latin jazz is one of many possible futures. But the gist of my statement is that of all the possible futures of jazz, Latin jazz is a probable and highly promising one.
But George’s objection is not so much about what the future may hold but about the here and now. In his view, Latin jazz is, at best, a marketing label, at worst, a designation that confines and ultimately marginalizes musicians, limiting their circulation in the market and therefore their artistic and commercial success. To be designated a Latin jazz artist is bad not just because the category is meaningless but also because it ghettoizes musicians and prevents their incorporation into the mainstream.
As a political scientist I’m familiar with this sort of argument in regards to the question of cultural maintenance versus assimilation. The argument there goes beyond the question of integration versus marginality. The debate in politics is also about the viability of a stable political system. Luckily, no one has yet argued that Latin jazz is a divisive category that opens up a fault line within the society that threatens to tear it apart. Yet in musical circles, the debate is just as heated as in political and intellectual circles.
I’ll never forget the night at the Blue Note when George and Ray Barretto ganged up on me on the question of Latin jazz. When the subject came up, Barretto lit up like a firecracker and he was vehement. “What is that? There is no such thing!!,” he insisted. You can find Latin in jazz and jazz in Latin but Latin jazz does not exist. If a Japanese musician plays jazz, is that “Japanese jazz?” There was a reference to “Jibaro Jazz” in the conversation that elicited derisive laughter from Barretto. I referred to Miguel Zenon’s Jibaro, which had just come out, as an example. I said that if you added clave to jazz you had Latin jazz whether the musician was Latino or not. Nothing I said moved him or George. In the end we tacitly agreed to disagree.
From the Blue Note we went to a coffee shop on the East Village for coffee and dessert. By then our conversation had moved to other topics. I offered to pick up the tab seeking atonement for my Latin jazz heresy. Barretto made the sign of the cross with his right hand and said: “You are forgiven my son.” Then he gave me a ride to my hotel. When he dropped me off on the corner of 8th Ave and 23rd Street, he asked what I had been listening to recently and then we shook hands. Later on he was designated a Jazz Master. When he appeared in Ramsey Lewis’ Legends of Jazz, in what turned out to be his last recorded performance, he was introduced as “one of the leading lights of Latin jazz for more than, well, 40 years!”
Sunday, September 6, 2009
A Greatly Exaggerated Death
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Home
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Smoke(ing)
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Everything is Jazz
I was listening to the opening track of a CD by the Hermanos Cepeda in my car, on my way to the train station, and it was a chant to Eleguá, the god of the crossroads in Santería, set to a plena rhythm. That was interesting. The defining feature of Santería is syncretism, the mixture and synthesis of African and Spanish religious traditions. Jazz, on the other hand, has been defined as the synthesis of the mixture of swing, blues, and improvisation. So, in this Hermanos Cepeda song there is a combination of Cuban and Puerto Rican elements---a plena to Eleguá. That’s just great. Everything is a mix. Nothing is pure, except in its combination. Everything is jazz.