September 2008 Archives

There are some wonderful layers of meaning conveyed by Rosa Lee in this music video, which is performed bilingually, in spoken English and American Sign Language.

"All I Want" opens with a literal translation of the English lyrics into a manual code that is not ASL. There is a transition - see if you can spot it - when Rosa Lee switches from the artificially-constructed signed code for spoken English into the fluid, natural rhythms of American Sign Language.

Then, the burden is placed on the English words to accommodate the rich, beautiful meanings she produces with ASL. The reversal is sweet. Can you perceive the difference? Now, imagine that you grow up with a code. There are rules and structures and boundaries, some of which make some kind of sense (or you create some meaning so that they do 'make sense'), some of which appear isolated, with no obvious relationship to anything else. One can spend a lifetime bouncing off the elements of such codes. Perhaps the bouncing is motivated: a seeking for coherence, a search for niches where meanings are more transparent, a compulsion to re-discover relationships that passed one by in the slew of stimulus.

Life happens. Some people adapt to the code, either following its logic (or the logic they assign to it) or learning how to use the code to their own advantage. They play the game. Some play well, others not so well, but at least they feel they are in it, a part of society, a member of humanity.

Living happens. Many people are fortunate to grow up within a language that is whole, or have the organic neurochemistry to pick one up later in life. This does not mean their family is necessarily happy, or that society doesn't have problems, or that culture solves everything. To live is to grow: bigger, smarter, faster, more lean, more mean - more kind, more generous; or less selfish, less demanding, less stubborn; more fluid. Individuals grow, but language is the medium for shared growth. Through language we learn together, teach each other, test ideas, discover errors. Language lets us breath inspiration into the world, infusing community, bridging differences, building commonality.

Thanks, Rosa Lee, for showcasing language's glory.

on the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 5/2005 : Interpretation expenditure incurred by the Parliament, the Commission and the Council (2006/2001(INI))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the European Court of Auditors' Special report No 5/2005: Interpretation expenditure incurred by the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, together with the institutions' replies(1),

- having regard to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, Article 276(3) and Article 280(5) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0261/2006),

Respect for multilingualism

1. Considers that multilingualism is one of the key features of the European Union, which highlights cultural and linguistic diversity and ensures equal treatment of EU citizens;

2. Considers that multilingualism guarantees citizens' right to communicate with the EU institutions in any of its official languages, thus enabling them to exercise their right of democratic control;

3. Considers that the linguistic services of the EU institutions facilitate communication, and that, in so doing, the institutions remain open to the citizens of Europe;

4. Considers that the total cost of all the linguistic services of the EU institutions, translation and interpretation combined, represent merely 1 % of the total EU budget;

5. Considers that its Rules of Procedure stipulate that Members may speak in the official language of their choice and that interpretation into the other languages is provided; considers that, in addition, the use of official languages is governed by its 'Code of Conduct on Multilingualism', updated in 2004;

6. Considers that multilingualism is an expression of the EU's cultural diversity, which must be preserved, and that, therefore, while the increasing number of official languages calls for pragmatic solutions in the preparatory work within the institutions, multilingualism must be guaranteed to ensure the legitimacy and diversity of the European Union;

With regard to all institutions

7. Welcomes with satisfaction the high quality of interpretation in the EU institutions; is furthermore of the opinion that the high quality of interpretation must be continuously evaluated and guaranteed;

8. Notes that the overall cost of interpretation in 2003 was EUR 57 000 000 as regards the European Parliament and EUR 106 000 000 as regards the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and some agencies;

9. Is, however, very concerned that in 2003 approximately 16% (EUR 25 900 000) of the total interpretation costs of EUR 163 000 000 represented costs for services supplied but not used and for stand-by arrangements;

10. Is of the opinion that the Parliament, the Council and the Commission should endeavour to reduce 'implicit or explicit stand-by duty', these arrangements accounting for EUR 18 000 000 spent on interpretation services supplied but not used; notes that reserve interpreters should be available for ad hoc meetings with a short request time;

11. Calls on its administration, the Council and the Commission to improve inter-institutional cooperation;

12. Calls on the Parliament and Commission interpretation services, in order to be more efficient, to exchange interpreters and create mixed interpretation teams, and to make possible the use of available interpreters where and when they are requested in order to meet real needs;

13. Calls on the institutions to encourage and facilitate the use of 'local interpreters', language combination allowing, and stresses that national administrative provisions must not be an obstacle; notes that a high quality of interpretation must be guaranteed;14. Considers that the Parliament and the Commission should establish an overview on the official/free-lance ratio per language in time for the 2006 discharge;

15. Calls on the Commission to reinforce, in coordination with other institutions, cooperation with Member States in training interpreters from their respective countries;

16. Calls on the EU institutions to renegotiate the agreement with the Auxiliary Conference Interpreters (ACI) with regard to travel arrangements, remuneration, inter-institutional cooperation and administrative simplification;

17. Notes the high share of travel and accommodation costs; urges meeting organisers and interpretation services to reduce travel and accommodation costs; calls for better coordination, planning and organisation of travel and accommodation arrangements;

With regard to the Parliament

18. Expects its administration to provide estimates of the average total daily cost of ACIs and permanent interpreters in time for the 2005 discharge report;

19. Notes that the full cost for an interpretation day is almost 30% higher in Parliament than in the Council or the Commission, one reason being that very few local interpreters can be used during Strasbourg sessions, which increases Parliament's interpretation costs in Strasbourg by 13 %;

20. Notes its refusal to take part in an evaluation with a view to creating an inter-institutional office providing interpretation service to all EU institutions, this having been considered by the Bureau on 4 September 2005, as incompatible with the interests of Parliament;

21. Calls on its administration to continue to establish meaningful 'session reports', i.e. reports from the head of an interpretation team about the active and passive use of languages during group, committee and delegation meetings, and report back on its findings in time for the 2005 discharge procedure;

22. Urges its administration to raise Members' awareness of interpretation costs; asks if it makes best possible use of the language profiles of Members; stresses that this should not lead to a ranking of official EU languages;

23. Recalls that, pursuant to Article 1 of the Code of Conduct on Multilingualism of 19 April 2004, resources should be allocated taking into consideration the users' real needs;

24. Calls on its administration to study how the Council's 'request system', the Council of Europe's internal billing system, or UNESCO's quota system for interpretation could be used by the Parliament;

25. Notes that in 2003, it spent EUR 4 000 000 on interpretation services made available but not used due to late requests or cancellations; asks that last-minute cancellations and last-minute requests be discouraged; furthermore calls on the interpretation services to be more flexible in their service planning and request system;

26. Calls on its responsible bodies to adapt its calendar of committee, group and plenary session weeks in order to achieve a better balance between needs and resources available;

o o

o

27. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Court of Auditors.

(1)

OJ C 291, 23.11.2005, p. 1.

The U.S. Congress is working "to finalize the language of an agreement," reports the NYTimes this morning, concerning "the bailout" of what has been called "the financial crisis" and/or "the economic crisis" in the United States.

Overthinkingit.com imagines "put[ting] Bruce Wayne in charge of the SEC." Surrealism of The Dark Knight aside (compliance or complicity?), critique and background information (listen to Jim Crotty's interview) has been issuing from my University for weeks. I admitted to a friend,

"I don't know enough about macro-economics to argue [against the opinion that the bailout is the only option], and certainly have no idea regarding the other consequences (intended and not) that will rain down upon us little people if they do not bail out the banks, but letting people keep their homes seems good to me. Let the major players take the hit and figure out new, better rules."

Perhaps a naive stance, but I want to bridge the harder science of physics with this soft science of economics. I missed most of last Friday's live broadcast from CERN about the next operational steps for the Large Hadron Collider. When I did tune in, one of the scientists was responding to a concern that iron might bend against the steel floor (or some such) because certain experimental results differed from simulated results in an earlier test.

The point the responding scientist emphasized, was that the data is the information, not the simulation: "We won't fit the data to the simulation," he said (quoted from memory), "We will believe the data, as we always should." Someone else argued: "We must do a risk versus benefit analysis for every intervention we imagine we want to make.... according to the Alara Principle - you must do it now" (in this case, install a pre-shower). The question CERN scientists are debating is:

The CERN debate regards when to determine priorities - now, or after some weeks of data has been secured? In another email, I wrote:

I believe [the critique emerging from my University and others] engage[s] the matter of the government tending to bail out the large investors and major institutions (even if the premises for their business are shaky - such as financing purchases that people cannot afford) instead of, or without also bailing out the individuals who suffer the most direct and dire consequences.
I do not want a debate between conservatives (keep traditional, established systems in place) and progressives (change everything), rather, I'd like to figure out ways to change our basis of comparison to long-term sustainability with evidence of gradual improvement for everyone: this is my understanding of U.S. banking policy after the Great Depression, and especially after WWII. Indeed - up through the 1960s, ALL social classes improved their status. Of course markets are more complicated now, but that is just an excuse for a lack of creativity and policy innovation.

Of course, it always matters which data one chooses to pay attention to, and there is always information left out. So illustrates another article in today's NYTimes, describing the participation of Goldman Sachs in negotiations to save American International Group. Gretchen Morgenson explains that the housing collapse is often cited - i.e., framed - as the "cause" of the problem, but argues that A.I.G. is a better exemplar, much closer to - and indicative of - the root of the problem:

the virus exploded from a freewheeling little 377-person unit in London, and flourished in a climate of opulent pay, lax oversight and blind faith in financial risk models.

I am astonished at how easy it has been for the housing market as symptom to become the scapegoat for the problem.

"We have to commit [the bailout agreement] to paper so we can formally agree," Nancy Pelosi is quoted in the NYTimes headline story quoted above. The language is the crux of the matter.

The BBC's Newsnight reported (introduced with a dramatic actionflick score) on Friday's imminent challenge to the U.S. Congress about dealing with the U.S. economy. This clip was shared with my academic department (Communication) with this intro:

"If you are interested in English humor, BBC-interview techniques and reporting, and want to learn a thing or two about the current 'Wall Street' crisis, which you may have missed in the [U.S.] mainstream media, watch [it]."

I learned a thing or three about the dynamic forces at play: financial interests, political imperatives, the role of the presidential campaign debate as a factor in Congress' negotiations. Responses from Communication Department faculty included "Stephen Colbert's razor sharp take on the financial crisis," and a multilayered observation comparing British and U.S. modes of humor and reporting.

In addition to Colbert's labeling of the (apparent) need for the U.S. to decide "in a panic" the largest financial overhaul in our lifetimes, is that while the BBC may have more of a history of engaging "troubling questions," such difficult questions "are [being] posed of those proposing the bailout, questions that used to be hard to pose here [in the U.S.]. Now, though," explains another faculty member, "they're surfacing, e.g. on Rachel Maddow (weeknights, MSNBC, also mainstream)."

Maddow's metaphor of kids in a candy store is excellent. Robert Reich also weighs in on the sugar high. Addiction. That is what this behavior reminds me of - junkies who will do anything in order to score the next hit. Addicts need treatment, and toxic substances (such as those emitting radiation) need careful, deliberate, and open handling. We need to weigh the financial and economic priorities at stake - those in potential as well as those at risk.

Andy, in the tradition of Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman, and Mahatma Andi, read & rapped his poetry to the sonorous sounds of a contrabass and various accompanying instruments, including electric guitar, flute, and vocal percussion.

Given the fact that Andy and The Androids deliver their art in Flemish, my interpretation is based upon the one in a thousand words I understood: periodic English terms dotted throughout, and/or phrases that my mind could hear as English, even if it wasn't! I gleaned some things by the tenor of the music and the interplay of syncopation among/between instruments (including Andy's voice) and the trio of artists.

The flavor I captured was dark and humourous: at turns optimistic (and-or-but activist optimism doesn't seem to matter?), engaged with/against violence (superspastic, illustrated by the pro- and anti-taser brigades), or calling out the Serial Thing to Kill or was it the need for Serial Pain Killers? I enjoyed watching my friends laugh, yet also noticed disparate effects on the audience-as-a-whole. At times a laugh would ripple throughout in a spontaneous wave, other times the audience was carved into thirds: those attempting to suppress their amusement, those with quizzical expressions - apparently puzzled or processing, and those whose stiff blank visages suggested a deep unease or even disassociation. Countering the bursts of laughter, silence often echoed in the cozy, filled lobby of the cultuurcentra Antwerpen (Berchem).

I enjoyed the challenge of applying my closure skills: that particular leap of faith interpreters make as their best guess as to the meaning being attempted by a particular message right now. Andy jumps from one non-sequitur to the next; how else can Albania, the ozone layer, "lesbes in El Dorado," "Income Walker," kanker zo hip, and "nipples" appear in such close linguistic proximity?

Why has the burghermeister gone underground?

Who is wearing moonboots?

What is the title of the song of Stevie Ray Vaughn's that was emulated? (I recognized the melody but my musical recall is pure lousy.) :-/

The moan of disappointment that shot through the crowd when Andy announced the last number, after the guitarist had just amended his earlier superspastic claim to a psychopathic fascination with degrading fruitcake sex with every girl, testified to the coherence of his unlikely combinations.

I am not sure if the last rap about Caesar referenced the political hate group here or some larger human entity (groups and/or institutions) seeking control, but what Andy is doing with language proves how supple, creative, empowering and membering our ways of speaking can be.

I cannot disclose the location, nor can I say under what auspices I came to be here (with a small group having lunch with the CEO of an important multinational corporation). I can say the meal was delectable all the way through, from aperitif to braised scallops to the main dish and dessert.

The conversation was lively, from a comparison of the Belgian and U.S. educational systems to the creation of market practices in financial services to the role of citizens and businesses in social justice. For instance, which has the better curriculum for today's world, the U.S. that allows such range of choice, forcing one to decide an academic path (and potential career) at every turn, or the intensive specialization in Belgium, that drives one deeply along a prescribed path until the achievement of a certain level of expertise? And, what of the drive to establish sweeping standardization such that translation between various software platforms becomes moot? And, not to be left out, how far should businesses go in contributing to righting the world's wrongs?

I refrained from asking as many questions as I wanted; my mind will muddle along here by metaphorical comparison. Drawing a comparison between computer 'languages' (I know I oversimplify) and spoken languages is easy enough. There are times when generating common meaning (i.e., "understanding") is tricky enough between speakers of the same language, let alone between speakers of different languages. There are also the gems of phrasing and imagination that one language captures that another is ill-or un-equipped to handle. Hence, interpreters always consider context and precedent - but do the people who use interpreters know that this is part of what is going on? Do they value the intelligence and creativity of this attempted mind-reading or perceive only concerns with control and error?

The drive to standardize reduces the chances of a miscommunication by limiting the parameters of operation and fixing (i.e., making permanent, solid, inflexible) the code for representing these parameters. This is valuable, a good, when the information being standardized is itself fixed, inflexible, not subject to interpretation. My U.S. dollar has its value; the Euro has its own. There may be a relative comparison and some complicated system of equations that determine the actual ratio of value from one to the other, but these mathematical formulations adhere to unvarying principles: the structure that determines what qualifies as wealth may change, but the math used to count it probably will not.

Standardization in and of itself is . . . a very mixed bag. Inevitably, the creation of a standard implies its imposition. By definition, a standard establishes the non-standard and makes it "other" = less desirable, penalized... a whole series of consequences - intended and unintended - issue forth, like water seeping through a dam: inexorable, unavoidable, serious.

But we need standardization, this much is obvious. The questions of interest to me are, where do we need it, how extensively do we need it, when do we need it, and how can we ensure we can change it if/when such becomes desirable or even imperative?

The assumption guiding my research at the European Parliament is that language is NOT the place where standardization is desirable. Yes yes, it is one thing to be painstakingly articulate with precise diction for legal documents that institute the sociopolitical and economic structure, but it is another to assume communication occurs best when people speak the same language, and only then. My assumption may be wrong, of course. Or it may be wrong under certain conditions, with particular people seeking specific aims. If so, what are these conditions, who are these people, and what are these aims? Because if we define these parameters, then we can begin to design language policies that are not based in forms of elite cosmopolitanism.

This is what I think, now, before embarking on the research project per se. I am open to being proved wrong. I am open to being shown that it is always better for persons to use a lingua franca (if they have one) no matter what disparities in fluency, unfamiliarity with the social system and/or jargon of the specific situation, similar or different desired aims of interlocutors, or variations in knowledge of the particular content area under discussion. My action research hypothesis is that, in arguing these stances, an articulation of the vital criteria indicating the need to provide simultaneous interpretation will emerge. Likewise, guidelines for the kinds of situations and circumstances which enable interlocutors to be effective via a lingua franca will also be made more clear.

Such knowledge will, I propose, enable more efficient, efficacious, and effective use of simultaneously interpreted language as a creative resource, rather than as a perceived barrier to intercultural, inter-institutional, and interdisciplinary understanding.

What is that noise?

I was writing in The Indian Room when the sound penetrated my concentration. There were at least 100 horse drawn carriages calumping along The Stone Way to Mechelen (Mechelsesteenweg). "These Flemish," I thought to myself, "are something!"

Sunday was A Day Without Cars, and also braderij, a regular fair but with the addition of local organizations presenting themselves to the community. The event and the weather were absolutely fitting for the last day of summer, the eve of the autumn equinox.

Saturday night, two wise women took me out to The Red Dragon, showing me a picturesque alley (not, btw, a dead end, rather a quiet way for walking), telling me tale(s) of the Antwerp hand, showing off an architectural treasure trove in one of the high rent districts, filling me up with hot chocolate, and giving me a taste of "very Belgium" de Koninck's in a bowl.

I had such a pleasant social evening that I went to bed thinking I needn't go out in the world. Then came dawn.

Shortly before the horses, Jose had called from Hoboken with the sounds of a mechanical organ reverberating through the phone. Leaning over the balcony straining for every last glimpse of the equine procession, it was obvious the day was gorgeous and only a fool would waste it. I stopped in at the fitness club to sign up (last day of the special deal), and Nabila "I'm a Morrocan girl" surprised me with membership presents - now I am a walking advertisement for Passage. (They have a sauna!)

The street festival was in high gear by the time I arrived; I walked its length grinning. Among the piles of wares a kaleidoscope of ethnicities murmured in diverse tongues. Performances, impromptu and planned, were staged at regular intervals. My first surprise was discovering that the rock song being broadcast from the church grounds was being sung live to a generation that preceded the rock era by more than a few decades. :-) Then there were the Golden Star Country Dancers, a comedic marching band of three, a pair of aliens (really!), and - yes, even in Belgium - an Elvis impersonator!

I spoke with the guy who lives with the granddaughter of the organ builder for several minutes. :-) The 100th anniversary next month will bring some fifteen of these original beasts together: now that is gonna be something to experience! Even the one by itself was delightful, now I am looking forward to the symphony.

Jose snuck away from the music school booth (to secure batteries for my camera, an important mission in its own right), which enabled me to eat pancakes at the Communist House. Yes, I know its sacriligious for an American to mingle with communists, but they win high praise in Hoboken for providing real, tangible, affordable health care to everyone, period. I have not gotten all the European political distinctions sorted out yet: the Communists are different than the Socialists and the Liberal Democrats are not the same as the Democrats in the U.S. although maybe all of these folk are somehow lumped in under the umbrella "Democrat" in the U.S.? Then again, some of the Liberal Democrats here would probably qualify as moderate U.S. Republicans, and the far right parties here align with the fundamentalist Christian wing of U.S. Republicans? I am not planning on getting this sorted out all too quickly but I am going to make the effort. The politics is more sober here - more intent on practical challenges and policy distinctions than the vicious sporting contest it is in the U.S.

From the festivities, I headed directly down to Antwerp's Center to meet Annmarie and Arlette. Oh Arlette! What fun we have in store! ;-) We had a rousing discussion about languages, particularly the autonomy of sign languages from spoken languages. We meandered through conversation to a spontaneous pasta dinner and called it quits only after hours of half-baked plotting.

My dominant impression so far is of a people with a high degree of social concern and an equal passion for individual pleasure - not just their own, but as a social good which should be shared.

Some days are just quiet.

I decided to play tourist and went looking for a museum and a recommended bookshop. I found a church! (Make of it what you will!) Street names here change every few blocks, requiring navigational vigilance.

Some time thereafter, I stumbled upon a square, Mechelse Plain, in full preparations for an art opening, featuring the photography of a Belgian artist who died last year, Patrick De Spiegelaere.

A coalition of NGOs hosted the event, Wereldbeelden (World Images). There were some speeches, improv, and then live music. Perhaps folks got to dancing, eventually? It seemed everyone was enjoying mingling. The improv artists promised me a word in English - I suppose I did not wave vigorously enough from the audience but it was a bit tough (!) to gauge timing given my three phrase Dutch vocabulary ("ja," "nee," and "dank u"). The audience did provide a few words I could recognize: macaroni, John Lennon, and eyeliner are the ones I recall. :-)

Belgian NGOs are "debating development" this year, in concert with initiatives agreed upon by the World Social Forum.

Walking the chilly streets of Antwerp this morning, I did not feel alone. Sure, my friends went bowling without me (such nerve!), but they teased me about it - which is almost as good as being there. :-)

While some of those pals (you'll have to guess which ones), may have still been roaring (like Fran, the Trader from Haven), "Who wants another drink? I mean, besides me?" I was waiting in line . . .

No, not for a rock concert, but to make an appointment (three weeks out!) to register my guest residency for the next nine months. The other day, Houda and Quetzal set me up for the Logic Test that would determine my placement for Dutch language lessons, with a delay of less than twenty-four hours! Quite efficient, those two. :-)

I'm here during the elephant parade, which works for me (better than the cows that swept the artworld a few years back). I fancy myself a bit like Lathan Devers (who goes underground for The Foundation as a captive of The Empire), or Ambassador Spock, when he went underground to try and make peace with the Romulans. Although I do not mean to suggest that I am in enemy territory (the battlelines, as it were, are hardly so clear-cut), I would say that I am here in "the smallness . . . and the individuality; a relic of personal initiative in a Galaxy of mass life" (p. 107). Of course, in quoting Asimov I will also take issue with some of the claims infusing his representations. For instance, "relic" is not appropriate (at least not yet - don't age me that quickly!). Asimov's "psychohistory" is premised upon statistics as the base measure of truth and certainty. Without engaging the essential battle of qualitative vs quantitative research methodologies, let's take his argument on its merit. Batya explains:

"The laws of history are as absolute as the laws of physics, and if the probabilities of error are greater, it is only because history does not deal with as many humans as physics does atoms, so that individual variations count for more..." (p. 112)

Work backwards with me according to this logic - Asimov's mythical future involves quadrillions of human beings (maybe more, me and numerous zeros have little basis of understanding). Our relatively puny sample (current population of Earth) must be in some multiple of decimal points of a mere one percent, yes? In short, hardly enough to extrapolate much further than a few decades ahead, if even that, and only in terms of hugely broad trends - such as economic spits and backfires and, probably, worsening evidence of climate change. (No wonder the immediate occupies most people's attention.) Again, I hope some of you with a better sense of scale will correct me if I'm way off here, but doesn't this put us (as a mass) somewhere near the level of a quantum particle? Remember I'm operating within Asimov's conjecture of the human conglomerate.

Which implies that the universe of possible futures is actually pretty wide open, eh?

Asimov would discount the machinations of individual efforts as "this wild threshing up of tiny ripples" (p. 96), however such ripples writ large compose the limits of such mathematical equations as he proposes may someday be possible. Just because we lack, as yet, the tools to turn our perceptions of these ripples into certain prediction, this hardly proves that the ripples, as such, are devoid of meaning or doomed to ineffectuality.

Most of what I sense, leaving Asimov for the moment, I am unable to articulate. For instance, there is a quality of sound - or lack therof - about this city that I cannot place. It must be in reference to the background noise of Amherst but what it is that is "missing" I cannot say. The cafes buzz (even if the vast majority lack internet, sigh), and music plays in most shops. There is a hum of traffic, too, although perhaps it is less consistent (no constant thrum of a major interstate nearby). The air is still - windy, yes (its bite precedes itself: a warning of fall and winter to come). Perhaps I project my own psychic state onto the environment, but the atmosphere gives a sense of suspension . . . as if there is action brewing, momentum building, some sweep of happenings either suppressed or swelling which will soon burst upon the scene.

Hmmm. A Seldon crisis? :-) Of course not, we've not reached the mass eligible for that kind of mapping. Perhaps, however, a problematic moment, or a confluence of them - crises on small enough scales to be permeable to group relations theory, predictable in terms of general knowledge concerning group dynamics, and thus indicative of "a new turning" (p. 112), as crisis directs us on.

Any language used to describe the situation is tricky; ignorance is helpful. (No one expects an American to know anything substantive: "How do you know?!" one man asked, amazed I even had a clue.)

I first learned about the Belgian language crisis from Jeff. Hints had been percolating but I had not followed up: this is not what I'm here to study. Nonetheless, the conjunction is amazing. One could write off the coincidence with a cynical attitude, but that's not my style (how unzeitful, eh?!) Seriously, I am here to study the use of simultaneous interpretation as a democratic means of multicultural governance (to what extent does interpretation guarantee participation and voice?) at the EU's seat - the European Parliament - which just happens to be (largely) based in a country (Belgium) engaging in linguistic conflict.

Getting my French lessons underway (back so long ago in August, ahem), Jeff dug up a news article about the address given by Belgium's King to all citizens on the recent national holiday. The article summarized the crisis (a year without a national government while the northern Flemish speakers of Dutch withheld agreement with the southern Walloonian speakers of French) as a matter of entrenched politicians playing nationalistic sentiment against the majority public will. A few days later, as I was on the phone with someone from the Belgian Consulate in the U.S. concerning my passport, she expressed horror that the foolish King had addressed the country only in French! Jeff, and others who I have spoken with since, were skeptical that the King would neglect speaking also in Flemish (a regional variation of Dutch). Maggie confirmed that the King is well beloved (even though it seems we ascertained that the King's power is more symbolic than literal).

Bill had pieced together a similar account: that economics is driving the current impulse for separation. A gentlemen who helped me board the Antwerp Express from the Brussels airport (who was surprised I knew enough to even ask about the situation) explained that separation is inevitable, because "the Nouth is tired of paying for the Sorth." Dorothee said as much, without the economic angle. She's from France, and her take is that the Flemish are "most powerful" in the debate so far, at least as represented by French news (television and papers). She was unclear if French Belgians actually would want to join France if the Flemish north succeeds in breaking away, although France certainly wants to gain the territory!

Meanwhile, José says the political battle is "ridiculous!" And others have also said the greatest schism is between the Flemish politicians fighting for separation and the broad Flemish majority who perceive no practical issue and would prefer to put governmental energy to other projects, rather than "[trying to] convince us that we are enemies."

Maggie's overview was particularly helpful, as she provided a longer-term economic history. Here is her summary:

Until the 1950s, all the economic wealth was in Wallonia, in coal and steel; the Flemish were poor then. When coal and steel dried up, Flanders took off.

Although Flanders is the name that seems inevitable if the Dutch-speaking north secedes, the actual historical lines shifted so much that there may be room for quibbling. Antwerp was (according to one source) originally part of Brabante, not Flanders. (You see the political landmines?! One's choice of vocabulary assumes or projects an alignment - whether one wishes so or not!)

A fascinating language-based phenomena that Maggie shared led her also to make a prediction that in the future ("ten years") the wealth will re-shift back to the Walloon region:

In the 1980s, all Dutch-speaking college graduates were trilingual (Dutch, French, and English). [During the same period], French-speaking college graduates only knew French and some English. Now [two decades later], French speakers are required to take two years of Dutch in college and English too.

Maggie thinks the status quo will reign until then. The gentleman I spoke with on the bus, however, was convinced separation will occur because "people feel it in their pockets." This linkage of money with language seems rife (first of all) with capitalistic entrepreneurialism, which radically privileges the short-term. (Can there be a capitalism that truly engages the long-term? Or is this when socialism comes into play?) Secondarily, the linkage of language with nationality is reminiscent of Benedict Anderson's argument concerning the appropriation of language for nationalism (see last paragraph). An idealistic American might wish that Europe - let alone one of its pinnacles! - would be beyond such politics, but good old-fashioned rhetoric may be as effective here as we have witnessed it to be in the U.S.

The statue series is by Erica Chaffart; I stumbled upon it today walking through Antwerp's Botanical Garden.

Phillipe, our tour guide, said "Belgium is surrealistic" in reference to the language alliance of the German-speaking population in the east with the French-speakers of the south. Belgium, he explained, is "a small country with complicated problems." The majority language speakers of Dutch are the Flemish in the north. I will need to devote a single blog entry concerning what I have learned about these language dynamics to date - I think I have enough to sketch an outline of the main discourses. (We'll see!)

Meanwhile, I put most of my energy towards my new colleagues. What a fascinating lot! You may guess I gravitated toward Colin ("metaheuristics") and Jared ("neurogenesis") immediately. :-) Colin's description of metaheuristics as a huge simplified abstraction of simple rules applied to a population which then generates complex interactions put me immediately in mind of Asimov's "human conglomerate." Jared's work on bird brains led to a comment that there are now two known areas of the brain that produce new cells throughout life: the subverticular zone (responsible for smell) and a region above the hippocampus engaged with memory. What better start to this research project than optimization forces and new cells in the brain?

Bill, who is here to teach about the color line in American literature, said there is no other approach for addressing matters of race/ism than "to start with the present and proceed to the past." (I want to take his class!) He really got me excited later, inquiring about this blog (!), when he described the inevitability of a diurnal narrative structure emerging with and without the writer's conscious intentions. Yes! Indeed this is what I have grasped (over five long years and a lot of nudging from friends to present my thinking in a more organized fashion) and - hopefully - put into deliberate motion with the three new categories linkable from the cutesy flash animation (above). How much force/creation can be generated is a function of participation/response (so it seems to me). I am in agreement with Bill that one can only begin with the present. I am hopeful the past can help us learn how to make choices toward more preferred futures (presuming some agreement can be forged on a vision).

Vanja and I compared notes concerning our respective "Institutional Review Boards" processes in order to receive authorization for "human subjects research." I received varying advice on approaching the Members of the European Parliament. One person is convinced response rates will be low. :-/ Jen suggested I follow 'chains' of connections by developing each contact slowly and deliberately. Meanwhile, I'm still hoping to find people to translate a few more of the initial invitations so that I can approach MEPs in their official national language. It's just a hunch (as is most of this action research project), but I'm thinking I might up the percentage of interest just a nib by making this gesture. We'll see!

Zac "The Architect", Cathleen, and Kathy "The Medievalist" had an interesting conversation about the differences between studying the work of live persons (or those who lived recently enough that people who knew them in person are still alive) and studying those long dead. Is it really true that one can define clearer boundaries about a past subject than about a more current one? I'm not sure. I do know that I'm grappling with the liveliness of my own subject , its "superfluidity" to use Zac's term, and have struggled to impose a boundary of location and membership (the European Parliament and its current Members), as well as to define the locus of study on MEPs discourses concerning the choices they make in terms of which language to speak, when and why, and how the attitudes revealed or exposed by these discourses establish a certain frame of reference in relation to interpretation. What is/are those frames, and how do they establish behavioral rituals that instruct (by example), thus limiting and enabling potentials of communication across cultural/linguistic differences?

Cathy's artist of study, Marcel Broodthaers, kinda seems like a guy right up my alley (not necessarily an ally - so many people read my business card mistakenly! I guess ally is either not much in favor or largely unused.) He is famous among Belgians for his mussel pottery. Cathy described how some of his work "pretends to teach" and that he interspersed text in his work in an anti-modernist way . . . there was something she said about his use of space that I'd like to understand better. Later, on the tour, Phillipe explained that symmetry in buildings was a feature to emerge during the Renaissance in the 16th century. It had never occurred to me before that symmetry was not always a desirable geometry, or at least a frame of reference anchoring artistic deviations!

We're all waiting to witness Alyssa in action, meanwhile I was reminded of the incredible cello performance I saw in Northampton some years ago - dang, can't find a blogpost about it! - when they surrounded us with forty or more cellos and played deep and low like whale song. Still gives me shivers! Finally, Caitlin has also carved out a language-related project. I may even have a lead for her! :-)

When I got home yesterday evening, my host and I had a long conversation about the day and all its learnings, ending with a bit of collaborative poetry:

I am being graciously hosted in a flat surrounded by the paintings of Tony Mafia. This afternoon, I passed a Ganesh Festival, and then found classical dancers had taken over the main lobby of Central Station - perhaps it was a waltz? Today was gorgeous: a tad cool in the shade (19 C) but perfect in the sun, and the full moon rose over dinner.

Yesterday, for the first time, I touched London.

Nigham showed me around. :-) We took in an exhibit at the Tate Modern, States of Flux.

We also enjoyed a (smallish) river festival along the Thames, where we ate, and witnessed an absentee ballot voter campaign for Barack Obama.

While Hurricane Ike crashed into Texas, I recall Mother of Storms and consider the juxtapositions of our time. I am still too jet-lagged to offer more than this pastiche, but the poignancy of multilayered moments is on my mind.






I do believe we need groups - big ones! - to weave sensibility among the gaps produced by all the challenges that face us.




Note: Blogentry title quote from "On Going to the Airport" by Alain de Botton (On Seeing and Noticing, 2005).

Some thirty stalwart spirits braved the edge of Hurricane Hannah to begin building "Belchertown's own pyramid." Sailing knots secured the tarp which - propped up by two ladders - withstood the night, protecting us from the downpour and thrilling us with sounds of rain and wind as we christened the cairn near midnight with Wrongo Dongo. Howls mixed with cheers in a cacophony of exuberance as we embraced the spirit of ritual, blending our voices with nature's infinite chanting. I was asked for a convocation (see "Other Use"); all I could muster was Thank You. I felt calm and peaceful in our candlelit circle, humbled by and proud of my friends.

In all important respects, we gathered as we always do - indulging delicious food, drinking comfortably, talking, dancing, teasing, touching, teaching and calling each other into being. I learned so much, as I always do. :-) Everyone oriented to the ceremonial element in their own way. Some recalled significant moments of shared interpersonal interaction, acknowledged difficult aspects of private histories and/or future challenges, and speculated on the symbolism of our individually swirling energies encapsulated by nature's capacity for storm. Others lost themselves in dance, told tall tales, lampooned themselves and others, played tricks and carefully watched for the precise moment to deliver a perfect pun. Most of us did some of everything. We take our fun seriously, without letting fun completely overtake the serious.

There was power in our utterances last night and this morning. Dorothee educated me on linguistic minorities in France and the Belgian Flemish/French controversy (more on these later!), and Nick proposed jazz as a uniquely unreproducible medium. The confluence of these topics with my upcoming research woke me right up (or was it the Turkish coffee?!)

"Oh yea, that was in quotes," Don said, walking by a few minutes later as Nick explained, "I don't want my life to be an open book, I want people to question me." We were talking about how online social networking could remove mystery from our lives by producing a vast field of ambient awareness (another longer-term side effect of ambient awareness could be the evolutionary loss of certain cognitive skills associated with fact-based memory). An iPhone provided entertainment for awhile, its accelerometer on display with Newton's Cradle . This put me in mind of the results of a recent "mind map" of local and global trends affecting a particular organization's anti-racism and social justice activities, in which nearly all trends were described in terms of increase (more more more and faster) instead of decrease.

How did we get from the accelerometer to air-conditioning? I cannot recall, but the comment reminded me of Christopher Dickey's claim:

as air conditioning conquered the lethargy-inducing climate and Northerners by the millions abandoned the rust belt for the sun belt, the past wasn't forgotten or forgiven so much as put aside while people got on with their lives and their business.

Somehow nostalgia for the "old days" of answering machines (when you received your telephone messages only when you got home at the end of the day) got intertwined with the luxuries of heating and cooling . . . The Chosen One mused, "we've had heat for a long time, it's harder to make cold." Indeed, air-conditioning as we know it today is a phenomenon of only the last century: for millenia humans have known how to keep ourselves warm, but only "yesterday" have we figured out how to make ourselves cool. (Uh oh. Global warming is here, now.)

When Brandon left is when it hit me. Some of these people I really may not see again. Dhara reminisced about meeting me at bowling her first year here. She and Henk had been the ones to unveil the group present. (Rumor Mill: going viral. First batch original orders for t-shirts and bumperstickers should be placed here.)

The Nepalese mantra gracing the cairn is, as best I understand it to date, a kind of paean to precious knowledge and pure beauty. We have created physical evidence of passing this way; and less tangibly we have left our marks upon each other - bits of spirit inspiring compelling turning and calling us on, always with the invitation to return. "It's good," Franz said today, "to be a little bit bothered by each other." Yes - such is the evidence of communal connections: they persist!

2005:

• The Five (Lane 17) (Sept 28)
• left-handed bowling (Oct 11)
• bowling (yes), salsa (no) (Oct 20)
• 107 left, 144 right (Oct 25)
• it figures! (Nov 23)
• birthdays and bowling (Dec 14)

2006:

• my perspective on bowling: a funky other (Jan 11)
• "Bravo!" (Feb 1)
• two ball bowling (Feb 15)
• no vanity here! (Feb 22)
• floating sunshine out his butt (Mar 1)
• Zeynep! Zeynep! (Mar 14)
• "blog fodder" (Mar 16)
• overshadowed (Apr 4)
• WHY? (Apr 18)
• Pankopaat (Apr 19)
• "we were right to come" (Apr 26)
• "Two more! Just two more!" (Sept 20)

2007:

Spare Man returns (Jan 10)

the curse of threes (Jan 13)

2008:

Laughing in the Morning (Apr 15)

There is always so much going on.

Too much?

I've been trying to sort out some distinctions between "being spiritual" and "being religious" (after being tag-teamed by an Eastern European cynic and an Undertaker from India for the past six years, it seems I've finally cracked). ;-) I know I become overwhelmed, often, trying to make sense of the whole - yet . . . the alternative doesn't appeal. If we give up trying to grasp the whole, then what? Well, people carve out a niche for themselves, making intellectual, emotional, aesthetic choices and compromises and doing the best they can. Meanwhile, social forces twist and buckle the fabric of communities and our cross-cultural relations with each other.

When, I wonder, do we decide it is time to work together? And on what basis? At a community meeting yesterday, someone raised a concern with the erosion of constitutional rights, and someone else objected to the extremity of the claim. But world-class journalists are not supposed to get arrested in America. This occurred at the Republican National Convention, where riot police are keeping protesters as far as possible from the convention center. Since when did protests become such a problem in the land of free speech, the home of originary revolution?

Speaking of which, can you imagine the conversation in Governor Palin's family? "Uh, mom, it's great you just got selected to be the next Vice-President of the United States, but, uh, I've got to tell you something." When does the generosity and understanding that we give our own children extend to other kids' parents?

I was recently at a yoga center where hundreds of earnest persons went about their spiritual work. "Practice," I thought to myself, "for being soon in another country." All the anonymous people were nice enough: polite and indifferent. Don't get me wrong, I was the same way: there to do what I came to do for me, open to engagement if it happened but not seeking interpersonal connection. It was a mild form of alienation. I "belonged" there as much as anyone else who had paid the fee. I look like 95% of the people who were there, and I behave similarly in culturally substantial ways. But I was bothered - it's a commercial place from which collaborative social action might grow but (it seems) only on the basis of similarity.

In the U.S. (the one that I grew up in, have been shaped by, and currently worry about), the emphasis on individuality leads to the massive reproduction of independent spiritualists who - typically, usually - fail to commit to work together for any coherent social action. Even if people are atheists, that identity is defined in opposition to the notion of some kind of spiritual center. With secular yoga, the body has replaced god as the object of worship. In politics, the body is also central: "what" one looks like, and "how" one sounds become the basis for argumentation and persuasion.

Still . . . it is a measure of how far America has come that both candidates for President of the United States are members of multiracial families. (This point was also raised by a participant during that community meeting.) In my opinion, the most important thing Senator Obama said during the Democratic National Convention (quoted from memory) was to assert

We can continue to live as Americans without a common "religion," or as Americans whose religion has become a narrowly-defined nationality, or we can find ways to build common cause with the very material of difference itself.

"This" - all of it - is about us. All of us.