Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Formative Influences


Looking at the concurrent furores about racism and betrayal of family values and civic virtues in the so-called First World, I’ve been recently seeking solace in a favourite book series in this intensely Women-Empowerment focused week. 


What better title could be possible for my need for some Fempowered escapism than ‘A Woman Of Substance’, I thought? And so I dusted off this classic bestselling 80s paperback by Barbara Taylor Bradford, tracing the epic rise to power of Emma Harte, a female prince of industry, and set in gorgeous country homes and chic apartments and boardrooms in Yorkshire, London, New York, Texas, Paris, The French Riviera, and Sydney. And of course I read its 5 sequels, appreciating the storyline of empowerment which was able to be felt despite the leaden writing style and the colourless and cliched characterization. 


The dedicated focus on appearances in the narrative was strangely hypnotizing: the descriptions of long willowy figures, and beautiful faces, delicate features and lustrous hair. The intense glamour of the men. The business acumen of the women. The obsession with bloodlines, generational perpetuation and the acquisition of property. Location. Location. Location. 


The detailed descriptions of the interior design and the furniture and the colour schemes and the original artwork on the walls. The constant name dropping of the wines, food and favourite dishes favoured by the 1%, and the references to European artists, and musicians were like a 1980s Conduct Book. An exclusively Eurocentric one. 


‘Stepping further along, she stared at a number of art books stacked on a shelf, which featured the work of Renoir, Picasso, Manet, Monet, Degas, Gauguin, Turner, Constable, Gainsborough, .. Rodin. Resting on another shelf were books on the music of Massenet, Bizet, Ravel, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Puccini, and the operas of Wagner.’ 


Nothing exceeds like excess. The litany of the greatest hits of Western Civilisation hummed and buzzed me into a state of semi-consciousness. 


I found the designated villain of the saga, a shady and decadent individual who felt unfavoured by his multi-faceted grandmother, crudely drawn and monotonously malevolent because his arc was drawn out too long. This malcontent went to Hong Kong, and became a real estate broker. Probably because in the author’s Anglocentric view the mystic East was the most appropriate place for a blond Englishman with a dark purpose. 


What I noticed while reading this time was not the monochrome of the writing but the total absence of any person of colour in any capacity other than as support staff in the story. No charismatic Indian business tycoons. No brilliant Sri Lankan legal or medical experts. No South Korean billionaires. The staff in the well-located homes in Australia were from the Philippines, the staff in the luxury Hong Kong apartment were Chinese. This writer from Yorkshire actually had the brazenness to describe such people as speaking with ‘accented English’. 


When Tessa, Emma’s granddaughter, visits her French lover for the first time in his home in Paris, she is greeted by his butler, ‘a smiling middle-aged man in a white butler’s jacket. From his olive skin and dark hair she thought that he was probably North African.’ Interestingly, when this lady cooks up a gourmet meal for her cousins, she cooks couscous and veal, a veritable Moroccan feast - full of Eastern spices - turmeric, ginger, saffron, cumin - an exotic and refreshing change, no doubt, from the thinly-sliced smoked salmon, egg mayonnaise nursery tea sandwiches and Morecombe Bay potted shrimps. 


The only ‘black’ person in the 6 novels was the ‘Black Irish’ Shane Desmond Patrick O’Neill, known as ‘Blackie’, because of his dark eyes and hair. To be sure. 


Emma Harte was the most interesting character in the story, and when she departed the series, in a blizzard of build-yourself-up-from-humble-beginnings truisms and empowering slogans, it was clear that her grandchildren and great grandchildren just did not have what it took to hold my interest. I’d outgrown the narrative. Like the human body fails to absorb lactose after a certain age, I no longer unquestioningly absorb racist tropes, even if they are wrapped in quasi feminist packaging. 


I was trying to work out why I now find the storyline so flaccid, when I had overlooked the defects of this series so many years before. And I found the key in a chance, cliched phrase that was a thought ascribed to one of Emma’s great grand-daughters, who, in the book titled ‘Unexpected Blessings’, had recently discovered she was related to Emma and had been accepted by the rest of the family. In a moment of self-revelation, she realizes she is ‘free, white and twenty one’. 


Since when had this become a saying? Why had I never heard it, growing up in Australia? It turns out it is an archaic American expression, popular in the 1930s and 40s, meaning ‘independent and beholden to no one’. And exclusively used by and with reference to white people, usually white women. There was even a film with this phrase as a title, in 1963. Well, don’t it make my brown eyes blue. 


This character’s father, a man who was supposedly knowledgeable about history, explains to this vapid young woman the reason one of their cousins was named ‘India’ - According to him, the name ‘came into popularity because of England’s involvement in India, and its influence over the country, for hundreds of years. During those years, the English loved so many things which were of Indian origin, and of course there were a lot of British troops stationed there, ... all part of the Indian army. Anyway, I suppose one day someone had the bright idea of calling a child after the country, and India became a favourite name for girls in the eighteen hundreds, when Queen Victoria was on the throne and Empress of India as well. And it’s still used today.’ 


The repellant selectivity of this airbrushed, whitewashed version of British colonisation presented as fact is augmented by a description of India’s grandmother, Edwina, the Countess of Dunvale, who ‘sounds like a British general at the head of an army about to quell the natives’ when she calls her granddaughter up on the telephone. Edwina is described as ‘determined, feisty and, in a funny way, rather nice’. What is also crystal clear is that she is oblivious that she is (in an unfunny way) rather racist, and that her estate in Ireland has been resourced by the forced labour of ‘natives’. The quelled variety, no doubt. Kept in their unrightful place by the systemic white supremacist beliefs which fuelled the growth of the British Empire. 


When I was young, I had truly loved the description of Emma Harte’s growing collection of jewellery, and admired the establishment of her business dynasty and the fulfillment of her materialistic and romantic dreams. She revelled in her success, as a self made woman, but had stopped short of buying the Kohinoor Diamond, which Queen Victoria had looted from the so-called subcontinent in 1849. 


As I lined up to buy these books as a girl, I had no idea that years later I would find that they were so profoundly lacking in actual substance. My colourful dreams and the vibrant spectrum of my own life and lineage could not be contained or defined in the pages of its narrow story. This realization is an unexpected blessing. 


Thank you, BTB.


Even Better Than The Real Thing



There’s a contemporary technological innovation which perfectly illustrates something that is going on in our society all the time: the way that what we are presented with visually does not match up with the reality as experienced. 


The technological innovation is the phenomenon known as ‘Deep Fakes’, where we see on our digital screens what appears to be a well known person saying something that fits with our idea of what they generally say publicly. But the image and the words are fabricated, and intended to mislead and misrepresent what is shown to the viewer and listener. The aim is to construct a believable facsimile of reality, manipulated to substitute false for true, to align with a political or social agenda. 


This is happening in less technically augmented ways, globally, throughout the society we live in. There are plenty of people with public profiles who are armed with false credentials, whose resumes are so filled with factual errors that they can only be seen as frauds. 


In days gone by, personal letters of recommendation were required in addition to a list of a candidate’s scholastic attainments and work experience, when they were applying for a professional position or a scholarship. This character reference was personally signed by someone who had known the candidate for a period of at least two years, but was not personally related to them or affiliated with them. 


In these days of DIY presentation, and self promotion, we have instead a lot of claims. Like fake designer brands, where people display the labels outward at all times, the big name countries, universities and colleges are mentioned prominently on the person’s LinkedIn. But when these claims are investigated, various discrepancies become apparent, which evasions and euphemisms cannot conceal. 


I first noticed this some years ago when I was interviewing a person for a teaching position with a company. He had a good resume, but there was an oddity in one of the entries on the chronological timeline: he had listed the date at which he commenced a doctorate at a prestigious university, but there was no mention of an end date, or awarding of the doctorate, or the subject and title of his thesis. 


When asked whether he had omitted to mention this by accident, he blushed and admitted he had not finished the degree. Most people would not have mentioned the doctorate at all, unless it was completed. But he clearly wanted the kudos generated by being associated - even slightly - in the minds of the decision makers, with that renowned university. 


I have also seen a person on Facebook list on his public profile that he had studied certain subjects at American universities, implying that he had followed a degree course with the disciplines and objective standards involved in that, when he had in fact paid 50 USD or so to do an online course offered by that university. Not the same at all. 


These people who do these things have arrived at this place in their lives by a process of rationalization. Perhaps they couldn’t afford to pay the high fees to enroll in the actual courses at the actual university they claim to be alumni of. Perhaps it was geographically difficult for them to attend classes in person. Perhaps they didn’t see the value of face to face teaching, and didn’t want to make the effort to physically present themselves in class with lecturers and tutors, failing to see that direct access as the privilege it is. 


The democratization, streamlining and commodification of Education is one of the features of the digital era, and it is not a ‘bad’ thing. It offers access to the course materials which are regarded as the key components in various areas of knowledge, and prompts real initiative and self learning on the part of the student. 


But it also erases the dedicated transmission of knowledge from person to person which was historically at the heart of teaching. And it evaporates the joy and possibility of personal transformation inherent in that human experience, by treating a body of knowledge with its myriad aspects as units of data, to be memorized and relayed, often with minimal engagement or understanding by the student. 


Of course, the practices of plagiarism and fraud have inevitably escalated, in these contexts. When a person with little respect for actual education, beyond the surface bling and sheen it brings to their professional profile, sees a gap in their own resume, they will take short cuts to fill those gaps, to augment their personal fame and perceived status. 


Often these people are very active on social media, and in the blaze of noise they create around themselves, public assumptions are made that they are what they appear to be. But when you Google search them, you do not find any original work by them, or any objective third party references to them. Just a series of puff pieces, social media rants, and congratulatory comments - which are often written by themselves or their associates. 


This kind of activity can be seen as a rather sad commentary on the superficiality of the world we live in, and the deep insecurity of the individuals involved, who clearly must feel they have to superglue these adornments to their public garments to appear like people of authority, and seem worthy of community respect. 


But when these people are in public life, on panels and talk shows and symposiums, and influencing legislation and the perspectives of others with their opinions and advice, we would expect them to have not only credibility but integrity. We must not take people on face value. We should do our due diligence. 


Calling yourself a ‘Doctor’ is not something that should be done lightly or casually, to impress others. The institution you have gained your doctorate from should exist, and be authorized to grant this degree, and the qualification should represent your successful fulfillment of the academic requirements for that course, which enables your work to be recognized on an international level. 


To invent a degree course and a university in an overseas country, usually North America or England, remote from Sri Lankan visibility, and then claim in different platforms that your  ‘doctorate’ was in two unrelated fields is disrespectful - both of legitimate education itself and of the public, whose positive assumptions that you speak the truth are based on simple goodwill. The success that is spray painted on such flimsy materials is dispiriting for all associated with such conduct. 


People with qualifications should have copies of their course work, and transcripts, as well as their degree certificates. If they have not yet completed their courses, they should say ‘pending’ on their profile when citing the degree, until it has been awarded. If they have done the doctorate, they will have copies of their doctoral thesis. 100,000 words of original research. With a scholarly bibliography. Which has to be defended in front of an academic panel, to prove the candidate has done the work themselves. 


When asked to produce these materials as evidence of their claims to call themselves ‘Doctor’, it is a red flag to be told that ‘the thesis is still with the university’. It’s not a requirement to have a higher degree to be a leader, or academic qualifications; but at least the qualifications cited should be accurate and real and valid. Or a person making false representations of themselves will be morally unqualified to lead anyone. 


This is even more unconscionable when you are leading an organization, or fronting an enterprise which claims to shape society in a positive way. High standards are claimed, but an uninspiring lack of personal ethics at the top of these organizations, on the part of key figures in its structure, suggests that following where such people lead is not the way anyone’s dreams are going to come true, in any real way. 

Monday, March 8, 2021

Taking Up the Challenge of Women’s Empowerment



The theme of International Women’s Day 2021 is “Choose to Challenge”

In the past several years, we can see that a remarkable change has been occurring in Sri Lanka. A society which is disproportionally dominated by male voices and perspectives, has seen and heard the emergence of a vibrant group of female journalists, activists, business leaders and communicators. Collectively, their work is changing the status and recognition of women in this country.

Some of the most skilled and ethical journalists, medical and legal professionals, corporate personnel and entrepreneurs are women. Many women working in the field of media are also excellent online networkers and communicators, and actively use their social media platforms to convey their ideas and opinions. What is most notable in contrast to a prevailing belief that women are competing  with each other and don’t like to see another woman’s success is that they are also active supporters of other women.

These women, in their 30s and 40s, with 15 to 20 years frontline experience in the media industry, have created a far better environment for those that came after them. They have established themselves as independent thinkers and can voice their disapproval of public decisions openly and without bias. Many of these women generously share the platforms they have created to promote other emerging people and their projects.

Each of them has undoubtedly experienced sexism, condescension, stereotyping, belittlement and attempts to threaten and influence or silence them, and many have received messages or decrees to incentivize them to modify their views. In the face of this, and the rise in online cyber violence targeting outspoken women, they have maintained their presence and continue to have their say.

The younger women writers and activists in their 20s are qualified, educated, witty and eloquent. They face and take on the relentless barrage of chauvinism and toxic masculinity, often on a daily basis, and do not give ground. They are not shamed or silenced. Some are seen as pushy and self-serving but the coteries they form do not just mindlessly endorse and support them but also critique their approach, ensuring that there is there is alignment between the walk and the talk.

If Sri Lankan society is to modernize itself in alignment with more progressive social values, the erasure, diminishment and marginalization of women must cease. Women who speak up against gender-based crimes, offenses and disrespect are outnumbered in politics and government and intimidated and controlled by adverse social and cultural commentary, which punish them for their articulacy.

They are characterized as angry or humorless or unattractive. The activists among them are described as perpetually offended. Their public responses to serious matters such as the erosion of civil rights and the diminishment of safety for minority groups are sneered at. We have a distance to go before gender discrimination will disqualify a person for a role of authority and influence, or unacceptable, inappropriate and unethical conduct would render ministers unelectable.

Several of the best female journalists describe the excellent mentorship, respect and encouragement they received from established senior male journalists and editors in their formative apprentice years. In a patriarchal society, this generous support and recognition of female talent from men who are their bosses and employers is not a given. The loyalty and bonds formed between women whose professional life begins in this kind of positive and affirming situation are often lifelong.

The kinds of stories that are reported in both the mainstream and alternative media, and the ways in which stories of female experience are specifically framed and represented, will change under the emerging  influence of these women. Their commitment and dedication to balanced and unbiased, wholistic reporting will provide the missing perspective that has made our news commentary and media stories so one-dimensional and unrepresentative.

Politically and in corporate and administrative sectors, the notable absence and minimization of women in positions of influence needs to be perceived as a loss of quality and competence to any governing body, whether public or private.

Women who have broken through gender barriers to achieve success and recognition in their fields are inevitably targets of petty jealousy. This can take the form of undermining background noise and erosion from both men and women who are threatened by an emerging force to be reckoned with. This is due to the performance-based and competitive culture in which they have been educated and trained.

It is vitally important in this context that women support other women through constructing professional and social networks, which positively increase the presence and impact of women in both public and private spheres.

Systemic change requires that every girl and woman in a leadership capacity in every tier of society should consciously use her position to advance women and recognize and reward their excellence. Recognizing the patterns of erosion of dignity and value that occur across the society, we can provide resources and support for each other.

Last year, several women joined forces to start an initiative called “Balance The Panel”, which sent a shout out to over 200 women across 15 spheres of professional activity to collate details of their industry experience, capability and skills on a digital platform. This information is now accessible to everyone who is organizing speakers, presenters and panellists for public discussions and symposia.

Instead of being treated as optional accessories, invisible, outnumbered, marginalized and talked over, qualified women could be respected and positioned to express their excellence in ways that would openly inform and educate the public. They could be visible and audible. They would not only participate in the public discourse and report it; they could form it and shape it.

For this to take place, the barriers standing in their way need to be systematically challenged, questioned and worn down. Society as a whole loses significant value when half the society is not participating fully in its processes of governance and operation.

Many individuals have started initiatives to prompt social change in response to the frustrations women face as a gender. Gender based violence, generational poverty, lack of universal sex education, psychological support, awareness of the need for planned pregnancy, gender based education disparity, and economic hardship are all issues that have prompted groups like Women In Need and the End Sexual Violence Now campaign to start connecting to support each other’s campaigns and recognize each other’s work and the ongoing challenges.

#Choosetochallenge is the theme of International Women’s Day, this year. Let’s be the change and take the challenge.

Fempowerment

International Women’s Day is a time for affirmative action, to continue to challenge the gender inequities in our society and communities.

How can we support women? Not just on one day of the year, but as a regular practice? 

By not shaming them, undermining them or blaming them. By giving them the benefit of the doubt, in situations where a woman is being attacked, mocked or defamed. By appreciating their multiple aspects and dimensions, and not reducing them to their body parts or focusing solely on their physical appearance or speculating about their romantic relationships. 

Without drowning them out

By listening to what they have to say. Without  interruption. Without drowning them out, whatabouting them or selectively mishearing their words. I’ve been told by several business leaders from England and the U.S. and Australia how they have noticed how often men in South Asia interrupt and talk over women. It’s a sign of ungenerosity, egotism and selfishness. It’s an expression of weakness, and we lose by it. 

We should respect women’s professional  and personal boundaries. By not assuming that they are always available to answer a phone call in the middle of a working day - when they are balancing deadlines and competing demands of work and household in a way few men are required to do. Text them, or email, don’t call. Respect their time. Respect their energy and the work they do. Their excellence and capability does not lessen us, it increases us as a whole community. 

A brilliant initiative was founded last year called ‘Balance The Panel’. Women were asked to nominate women of talent, skill, and genius, with earned qualifications, expertise and a record of excellence in their fields of endeavour - and to include themselves, too - to showcase their skills in a large digital platform. This makes women’s professional profiles accessible to those choosing line-ups for speakers and panellists for public events, so that women are not under-represented or invisible or voiceless on these significant public stages. 

Women are 52 per cent of the population, and deserving of full recognition by the nation for the major contributions they make in every area of life. They are not ornamental, they are not mere background support figures. They should not be underestimated, overlooked or dismissed. 

Absence of women in decision-making positions is a loss of value to the whole country. 

We can remedy this shortfall by appointing women to impactful positions in the public sector; and by supporting women’s SME and independent, entrepreneurial business enterprises. By subscribing to their podcasts, blogs and YouTube channels. By watching their FB live broadcasts, and actively participating in the discussion and commentary, if we think it is valuable and interesting. By furthering their reach. 

We can stand up directly and openly when we see a woman being attacked on social media, and speaking in support of her. Even if she is expressing an unpopular opinion. 

It is easy to make negative and biased assumptions, and jump to conclusions about others. It is far more effortful to think through another person’s statements and try to understand their intention - and not malign them. Let us make the effort. It will benefit all of us. 

We can amplify the good things we think and feel about what women do. Social media is a perfect instrument for this. We can tag women doing excellent work -  and their organisations - into our positive posts on Instagram, FB and Twitter, and on our Stories on FB, Linked In and Instagram, and send them our congratulations and celebrate their achievements and career breakthroughs on our social media platforms. 

Community-building

We can actively promote and highlight the good work they do - by sharing their articles, their interviews, their Facebook live videos via email and links on digital platforms. By highlighting their community-building and their ongoing work for the improvement of society. 

Let’s make this a regular practice. This will go a long way to building up the capable and productive women in our society, which will lead to the improvement of our whole community. We can decide to consciously increase the public profile and digital presence of women whose work we value, and create vibrant and positive energy around women of all ages whose presence graces our nation. 

Where Have All The Flowers Gone?

People process grief in different ways. Some throw themselves into work, either physical labour or intellectual challenge, which provide an alternative to the maelstrom of emotion. Some take up soothing, mechanical, repetitive tasks like washing dishes or sorting linen or cross-stitch embroidery. 


We are told about the healing power of nature: watching the sunrise, seeing butterflies fluttering through colorful flowers, going on forest walks or climbing hills to reach a summit. 

It would take a cultural anthropologist to sort through the myriad alternatives, and make a specific recommendation to suit each distinctive individual. 

Years ago, at the wedding of a dear friend whose mother had an acerbic tongue, I was warned to hold my own and refrain from response, as the lady had no filter, and had shown all her life zero awareness of the feelings she was hurting by speaking as she habitually did. Fortunately, I did promise to refrain, and that restraint was required, as it turned out. She insulted her own daughter while we were dressing her for the wedding: ‘Thank goodness she has finally lost weight!”, she said. “At least she can fit into this dress”. I excused myself and left the room, and took several deep breaths in the corridor. I may have jumped up and down, a few times, in all my bridesmaidery finery. 

Human beings are sometimes appallingly inappropriate in their single-minded drive for whatever is in their own focus at times of stress. I did not have to live with my friend’s mother. I only had to grit my teeth for two days and smile and make a speech, and wish the adorable couple well, and leave. 

Funerals, too, are times of great communal stress. Whenever numbers of people come together, chaos is almost inevitable. 

At a funeral last week, several incidents occurred of interest to cultural anthropologists. Different societies have different bereavement and burial customs, and the custom followed at that funeral was that the body of the person who had died was laid out in his parents’ home for two days, followed by a cremation. 

On the first day, the casket was open, and the people sat around it and offered their condolences and support to the grieving parents of the deceased. Coffee and tea and refreshments were served to those out in the garden in the marquees. 

A famous cricketer, related to the widow of the man who had died, came to pay his respects. And - to my amazement - I saw a group of women in their 40s line up to request to take selfies with this celebrity, with the body of the dead person lying there right next to them. Seeing me staring at them in total astonishment, they invited me to join them. I told them I was not a fan. And that was the understatement of the year. 

Later in the proceedings, I saw a lady I had never seen before go and stand looking at the face of the dead man, and then deliberately move aside the velvet ropes that had been placed around the casket and step right up to him and touch him all over his face. To be fair, her husband had been trying to stop her, but was pushed aside with the force of a bulldozer. Crying, this woman explained to me that she felt entitled to do this, because he had been like a son to her. She felt like his mother. 

I said his actual mother would be surprised to know that. All these years, she had thought she was the only one. I had found it offensive to see this lady touching my brother’s beloved face. Every protective, territorial feeling I had was rampant. 

The worst outrage, though, was perhaps the most mundane. Returning home after the cremation, we found the house bare. All the flower arrangements, wreaths and bouquets, including those sent to my mother and myself, personally, as expressions of love and support from dear friends, had been removed. 

Where have all the flowers gone? I asked. 

The person who had made the arrangements said : oh, sorry, but they are taken with the hearse. I was told by some of my friends that the funeral parlours resell the flower arrangements, and that it is big business. I could not believe it. But apparently some do - and if you leave floral arrangements on the graves of your loved ones at the cemetery, people steal them. One friend said she now breaks up the floral arrangements her family take to the cemetery, and that she scatters the flowers on her father’s grave by hand, to prevent this happening. 

Were the flowers resold? Or were they burnt together with the casket at the crematorium? Does it matter, at all, given that the flowers were only going to last in their beauty for a day or two, at the most? And in any case, there is a superstition that funeral flowers should not be kept in the house after the person has been buried or cremated. 

But it mattered to me. All these incidents, small in themselves, felt like disrespectful violations. I know this is because of the great loss we have suffered, and the intense grief we are feeling, which magnifies everyday human actions and their impact. Perhaps I did not want to lose my place in the hierarchy of grief, or admit that anyone else could have loved my brother as we did. 

But I went to the flower markets and got all the colourful flowers I could find, from the buckets of flowers on Eye Hospital Road: big bunches of gold and orange and red and yellow, like fireworks, in every available vase and jug, on every windowsill and table, to light up the house. Much more vibrant than the white ones that were sent to us for the funeral. 

We are told playing the music my brother loved will help us think of him with joy. So, now all the hundreds of people have gone, we can do that. And he can hear it, and be happy, in heaven. 

And I can plant some butterfly flowers at his grave, so that no one here on earth can take the flowers away. 




Enlarged Heart


My beloved brother passed away suddenly last week, and there were no obvious reasons why. Only after post mortem examination was it determined that he had what is described as an enlarged heart, and one of the major blood vessels to the heart had ruptured suddenly. The doctors said it would have  taken only a minute, and happened in his sleep. 

When I saw him, he looked as if he was sleeping. There were plastic bags and nozzles and hospital debris littering the floor where the doctors had tried for over an hour to resuscitate him. I was told the hospital staff would clear it, but I could not bear to see it, and cleared it and put it in the bin before my parents came. Later that desolate day, I identified his body at the morgue, to spare my parents from having to do it.

He was my childhood companion, and playmate in every adventure. And as we grew up over the years, and faced life’s adversities, I greatly valued him as a gentle, kind, compassionate person, sympathetic and understanding. In that sense too, he had an enlarged heart. Many people who have come to pay their respects over the last few days have commented on this loving kindness, the noble virtue that characterized him. 

I have to say a few words today at his farewell ceremony. And what is in my mind, as I prepare for that, is a sign I saw at the Coroner’s office above a doorway.  A Latin sign, which translates as: ‘The dead teach the living’. 

Both of us loved reading, and discussed films and plays and novels and legends with enthusiasm. We shared music and a love of mythology, speculative fiction and popular culture, including Asterix and the music of Bruce Springsteen. But the greatest teaching he gave me was the person he was. 

I notice that he consistently gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. He was generous in his appreciation of others. He did not narrowly judge people. His love was unconditionally given. And these are difficult lessons to learn, for some of us. It helps if there is a person in your life who embodies these qualities. 

We used to walk in the early morning on Galle Face, with the sun rising and the crows squawking and chat while we walked, me gesticulating dramatically with my arms, he calmly proceeding beside me, while interspersing succinct comments. We liked walking so much we even got raincoats, so we could continue even in the rainy season. 

I am so glad to have known such a wonderful human being so closely, and so thankful for being able to share such an enormous amount of time and so many life experiences with him. 

My grief today is immeasurable. But not only do I know he is in a blessed place, I know that he made our lives deeper and more meaningful, by his presence in our lives. He made us see life and human beings differently. 

The last words he said to me were ‘I adore you’- and the feeling is mutual. 

Vox Populi

There seems to be a lot of questioning of the role of talk show hosts, panellists, opinion makers and presenters of infotainment current affairs shows at the moment. And it is timely. The impact and legacy of many people who have had their say very loudly and proudly on radio and television for decades are now being examined. 

In the U.S., the ongoing exposure of Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s escapist holiday plans last week in the midst of a weather crisis in Texas, during which people in the State not only suffered loss of power and water but actually suffered to the point of death in freezing conditions, provided a good opportunity to examine the role of these media facilitators as not only conveyors of information, but shapers of public opinion. 

Accountability and a conscious sense of responsibility by elected representatives would indicate an awareness of the social contract we all enter into as citizens of our country. It would mean that we forego our private preferences at times, in order to honour our public commitments and undertakings. 

In contrast to this high standard of conduct and integrity, we saw the Senator attempting to portray himself as a family man, saying he had wanted to leave freezing Texas for sunny Mexico to please his daughters. Which surely the electorate would understand. And it is important that they should, because the voice of the people, particularly in a democracy, is the voice of the only God in which many politicians truly believe. But the voice of the people frequently expresses thought processes which have been profoundly interfered with. 

Marcus Aurelius in the original Republic and Capitol had this to say about opinion: ‘Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is perspective, not the truth.’

We can keep this insight in mind as we review the daily onslaught of what are known in America, Australia and England as ‘shock jocks’: talkback radio and television commentators who make vast profits from airing their ‘divisive’ and ‘controversial’ opinions, which usually involve racist, sexist and xenophobic attacks on vulnerable or marginalized groups in society. 

Controversy and provocation prompt the human penchant for battle: and many of these opinion mongers regularly go too far in their personal attacks on the target du jour in an attempt to satisfy the blood lust and tickle the funny bones of their compulsive listeners. 

In the U.S., the recent death of Rush Limbaugh indicated just how much he was loathed by a large section of the populace. It is generally regarded as being in bad taste to express happiness at the death of any human being, but this was a person who had caused harm to the reputation and dignity of many people in his career. His exit from the world was met with elation, in many quarters. 

Howard Stern is another example of inexcusably monetized vulgarity. David Letterman and Larry King have been capable of some gross insensitivity, although now Letterman is seemingly somewhat repentant and looking like Old Father Time. And now Tucker Carlson is riding the debris of the recent election, attempting to panhandle for profit in the wake of the misbegotten attempted overthrow of the sitting government. Candace Owens, black and female, can be relied on to play the race and gender card against her own community and identity group to leverage the widening gap caused by partisan politics.  

In Australia, generally a far more decent and less brazen society, we had Alan Jones, kingmaker for the major conservative political party, and Stan Zemanek, who it was said had people attending his funeral to make sure he was really dead. The baby-faced Zemanek once even became verbally abusive and physically threw a book at a female fellow panellist on the show ‘Beauty And The Beast’, a long running television talk show in Australia where issues of the day were discussed in a combat which pitted a sexist and superior male (‘The Beast’) against some well known Australian women (‘The Beauties’). It was like watching bear baiting in the Renaissance. 

Looking back today, in 2021, on the long careers of these commentators in the 80s and 90s and 2000s, we can see how those in management of their commercial radio and television stations constantly ignored their worst offenses in order to keep their high rating shows on air. The producers actually at times hired voice actors to ring in to the ‘talkback’ radio shows, pretending to be genuine examples of certain representative stereotypes, for the entertainment of the public. 

It was manufactured opinion and faux outrage that was being expressed. But people listening in on a daily basis were not aware that they were being targeted, demoralised and played to. Most thought that what was being said in these exchanges were the real opinions of real people. And the citizens began to find the common ground they shared being eroded, and their society becoming polarized. 

In Britain, the grandiosely repellant Piers Morgan glories in being ‘politically incorrect’, and he shares this ‘anti PC’, ‘provocative’ platform with one of the few female shock jocks, Katie Hopkins, who adds to the high levels of verbal violence against women in the U.K. by shaming women who she feels are ‘fragile’ and ‘playing the victim’, for which she as a ‘strong woman’, victorious in what she believes is the combat for the survival of the fittest at the heart of modern life, expresses contempt. Characteristic of their conduct is a pattern of accusatory and inflammatory language. 

Several major male media identities have been summarily sacked from their shows in recent years: for obscenity, for defamatory remarks, and for a pattern of abusive and inappropriate behaviour with staff and guests, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement. 

Aligned with these men - but not seen as so openly malignant and destructively violent as they were permitted to be - are the famous female celebrity  interviewers, like the lisping Barbara Walters and the passive aggressive, pseudo genteel, saber-toothed arachnid Diane Sawyer, who interviewed a sad Britney Spears, a drug-dependent Whitney Houston and the traumatized daughter of Elvis Presley and got them to erode their own self respect on syndicated network television. 

Nothing was off limits, apparently. 

The lines of questioning created and sustained by these helmet-haired media moguls, as they interrogate young women in vulnerable and unstable situations, disrespecting their personal boundaries while creating facsimiles of emotional intimacy to get exclusive insights into human pain they have no empathy for, are truly reprehensible. They seem to glory in evoking tears or causing the interviewee to become agitated or distressed. 

These personages in their roles as media commentators shaped public opinion and impacted our perceptions and the reputations of public figures for decades. In their compulsion to get people to ‘open up, exclusively’ to them, these vultures scoured out essential elements of people’s characters in quest of a juicy scoop.

They are responsible for a lot of harm, under the cover of free speech and enabling and honouring the ‘public’s right to know’.