Watching the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the tragedy that befell those caught in her path, particularly in New Orleans, I began to wonder if there isn't a more sinister force of nature (?) to worry about than a mere Category 4 Hurricane.
The solemn-faced anchors and correspondents -- along with the politicians, policy-makers, and heads of various Federal bureaucracies to whom the network bosses grant airtime to lament the "natural" disaster and offer their often sketchy plans for remediation -- give way to ads for products and services appealing to all, but affordable only to the likes of those whose SUVs lined the Interstates after the evacuation was ordered in New Orleans preceding the storm. After CNN's hip "Hurricane Katrina" music signaled the transition from a particularly poignant report from the scene of mass hysteria and human misery along the Gulf Coast to commercial break, the viewer was greeted with an advert for the latest gas-guzzling, TV and satellite radio-equipped, power everything, leather seated, GPS enabled monstrosity, which could be had for twenty-something thousand dollars, after the dubious "employee discounts" and "cash back rebates" were applied. Watching the wundercar navigate through the most unforgivable of conditions -- including a deluged city street -- without incident or harm to its invisible driver and passengers, one might think to one's self, "Gee, if I were in New Orleans right now, I'd be able to get to higher ground if I had one of those," or, more likely, "Golly, what would the guys (or girls) say when I rolled up to the club (or golf course, race track, social dinner, or backyard get-together -- pick your poison) in that?"
By the time the would-be consumer processes that thought, they're immediately barraged with ads for "low-interest" home equity loans and mortgages, "high return" mutual funds and other Wall Street jibber-jabber, "family-friendly" cellular phone plans, and personalized credit cards that offer rewards for foolish spending (i.e., see above). The faces greeting the potential consumer are largely white and "comforting," males dominate the power positions (can one recall a commercial, featuring a man and woman in the same vehicle, where the "fairer sex" prevails in its operation?), and any people of color who are included are often portrayed without any ethnic personality traits, for fear that they might be considered edgy or threatening by the typical suburbanite, and, thus, damaging to the brand image that is so meticulously constructed and protected.
After some form of self-serving praise and promotion of the latest and greatest of themed news programming, the viewer is returned to the solemn-faced anchor, along with his or her corresponding cronies, reporting on the devastation -- flood, wind damage, fire, lawlessness -- wrought by the Hurricane. Crying mothers clutching hapless children punctuate their coverage of the aftermath, presented before a backdrop cluttered with wind-scarred hotels, newly amphibious vehicles (so much for On Star), and copious amounts of sewage- and toxin-laden floodwater. The reporters offer words of encouragement to those who were left behind by those with the means to get them out, as if they, the elite of the business, are in the same predicament. Are those words really meant to ease the suffering of Joe and Jane Hurricane Victim? Or, are they meant as metaphorical appeasement to the collective guilty conscience, subliminal as it may be, borne by an America whose default in compassion for the collective good has become so painfully evident in the delay of life-saving relief to those so desperately in need?
During the coverage of the storm (most of which, to be fair, occurred before the levees holding back the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain faltered), there were more Americans tuned in to the MTV Video Music Awards than the combined news network coverage. The next morning, as New Orleans' children were dying en masse, America's well-to-do housewives and husbands took theirs to shop for school clothing in clean, white malls, bantering about the effects that the storm would have on the price of the gasoline needed to shuttle their family to their Labor Day vacation destination. Men and women in the office huddled around the water cooler and discussed preseason NFL or bragged about their standard of living. And people in economic situations similar to those who remained in New Orleans, had no idea what was going; one of my social work clients, a twenty five year old mother of four living in public housing, asked what I meant when I stated that anywhere was better than New Orleans on that particular morning.
The ignorance extended to the upper echelons of the Federal government. President Bush remained on vacation at his ranch until the news became so grim as to prompt an uprising if he hadn't returned to play leader; it seemed as if Karl Rove must have been on the porch, twisting his arm, like a mother would an insolent child's, waving the polling data, indicating the sheer unpopularity of his decision to stay in Texas while so many were trapped in New Orleans, in the air to punctuate his point. He attended a publicity stunt for his ridiculous Medicare policy, at which point he commented on the tragedy that had befallen his countrymen and women. Then, he was photographed receiving and strumming a guitar given to him by a country music artist, the look of boyish abandon evident upon his face. The Secretary of State was seen at a NYC production of "Spamalot" guffawing along with the others in attendance, while bodies were washing up on the beach in Biloxi, MS. She then went on a shopping spree and bought $7000 shoes. Let's hope they were galoshes, because this administration will have some sewage of their own to wade through once this catastrophe is properly addressed.
Even given the unprecedented coverage dedicated to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many Americans approached the subject in as blasé a manner as imaginable...that is, until the looting was reported. While only sometimes drawing a distinction between scavenging for food and depicting the looters as pure, unadulterated criminals, the coverage of the looting was given as much play as the "important stuff," and call-in viewers and pundits were quick to rebuke and demand the heads of those involved. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan was not the only talking head to suggest that looters should be shot on sight, when expressing her haughty displeasure at their "tragic piggism." So-called objective (ahem, fair and balanced) news personnel described the looters (or, if they were light-skinned, "scavengers") in less than objective terms. Within the context of one of the most tragic events that many of us will ever witness (hopefully), leaders such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour advocated "ruthless" treatment for those willing to break the law, without making the aforementioned distinction. Even the most non-judgmental among us cannot deny feeling a slight tinge of rage toward those who dared to defy laws protecting personal property in the midst of such a severe crisis. There were even calls, such as the one received on the Glenn Beck Show from a man in South Carolina, to boycott the Red Cross relief effort because, "the people who are looting are all black people," despite the fact that seventy percent of New Orleans is African American.
To an extent, that rage is not misguided, in terms of basic human behavior. To another extent (and while violence should never be condoned; the reports of rampant brawling, rape, and murder are truly as horrific as can be imagined) the rage would be better directed at a socioeconomic system that promotes material over true substance, and pits the rich and powerful against those who coincidentally lie in the wake of their transactions. Those same televisions that the looters were stuffing into industrial sized garbage bags and hauling away might have adorned the walls and shelves of their pre-flood homes, rented at a high premium from seedy establishments whose coffers are fueled by the "need to have it" mentality generated by our materialistic society. The shoes and jewelry being purloined by the armful represent niceties that, while not empirically necessary, are taught to be more reflective of a person than, well, personality and personability. Their deeds were reflective of a power structure that they, in the most dire of circumstances, were seizing as their own, if only for a few moments.
New Orleans is a cultural Mecca, a jewel of the Gulf Coast. Even folks that have never ventured to its allegedly-moss-covered streets, according to the 'other' Ms. Rice, Anne, description of the town, hold it in a certain state of reverence. However, with any great tourist destination, there comes the inevitable human tragedy of low-wage jobs, in the service of the rich and enabled. Yet the compassion and reverence that many feel toward the city's institutions and attractions (and local heroes) never seems to translate into support for those who are the backbone of the system. As Ms. Rice wrote in a recent editorial:
But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs.
Truth is, the Hurricane hit most of these people generations ago, and has only intensified over the years. Hurricane C -- Capitalism -- along with the 'hypercompetitivism' and 'hyperconsumerism' that evolve has fueled the greed that has become painfully evident during this crisis. Many editorialists have noted Thomas Hobbes' "state of nature" argument as an explanation; "Hobbesian" this and "Hobbesian" that, and, "this is how we should all expect people to act in the vacuum created by a lack of responsible governance." However, Hobbes proved himself subservient to the system, making a case for economics and against the inherent good of human nature. To be sure, Hobbes' Leviathan was written following the extremely depressing English Civil War, but its tone eerily reflects the current prevailing US emotion with regard to world events: shrill paranoia and vapid uncertainty. Such wayward historians often forget to note what Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about the "state of nature" (pre-Social Contract) being corrupted by the marketplace and social hierarchies; the "state of nature" does not exist for we have, almost genealogically allowed profiteering and ruthless class division to obliterate it. Should there be some discussion of changing our underlying beliefs in the golden cow that is our marketplace? Or are we too comfortable in our Fortress America, the richest nation in the world? Do we not want to lend credence to the thought that our economic system has become our interpersonal system? Would we rather banter on about race and the criminal instinct than pursue a meaningful discussion about the effects of too much wealth? Time will tell.
The horrifying truth is that hypercapitalism had its filthy paws in the disaster, as much as Katrina, with her 145 mph winds and incredible storm surge. Geologists and public emergency preparedness workers had been tolling the impending disaster bell for more than 40 years, quoting astronomical human devastation due to structural integrity issues of the man-made defense system badly in need of address. However, instead of fully funding the projects focused on prevention (which were already in place), the Bush administration grabbed the purse strings, commissioning Federal dollars for its effort to appease its friends in the oil business (or, as the effort is more commonly described, to fight the "war on terror"). Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman, was instrumental in convincing the easily-led Bush administration to reverse flank and boycott the Kyoto Accords, due to the impact they might have on the pocketbooks of oil conglomerate CEOs.
And what of the relief effort? While so many Americans are pledging their homes and financial resources to the victims of the flooding (the humanitarian response on behalf of groups such as the Red Cross is unprecedented, one of the only bright spots in this carnival of deplorability), an insurance economist is quoted, in an article by Jennifer Bayot in the New York Times, as saying that Americans should not expect "generosity" from insurance underwriters in the aftermath of this tragedy. In an already-famous gaffe, Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, publicly posited that rebuilding New Orleans would not be economically beneficial, and is, therefore, a silly idea.
David Brooks recently authored an Editorial for the Times in which he argues that political change is bound to arrive in the aftermath of this tragedy. He sees America headed down any number of roads, including a progressive rebirth, a "hard-headed law and order" mentality, or a "McCainist patriotism." However, more than political change, America needs to remedy the sickening culture of "stuff" before it can dream of recovering from the loss of life (and property) caused by (short term) Katrina and (long term) Hurricane C.
Social scientists would be remiss to separate the plight of the hurricane survivors from that of so many low-income families and individuals around the country. To be sure, those who suffered through the worst that Mother Nature had to dish out in recent days and weeks are at a substantially more imminent risk of physical and emotional harm. However, for the over thirty percent (according to the most recently released figures which, incidentally, were released in conjunction with Katrina's landfall) of Americans living below the ridiculously understated poverty line, complete calamity and devastation is only a few raindrops (or gunshots) away, as has been shown with New Orleans, Biloxi, and, to a smaller extent, Mobile. Maybe this tragedy will serve as the impetus for genuine progress in the social justice movement. Then again, haven't we always been told not to mess with nature?
No comments:
Post a Comment