Don Adams - Modules
Don Adams - Modules
Don Adams - Modules
less.
"Don'1 you al l be p u l l i n g your bug eyes on me," he sai d, "lie' s t he
f r i ggi ng crook." l i e grabbed Cedri c by t h e col l ar.
Cedri c raised an eyebrow. "Cook, you mean, " lie sai d.
Al t hi s Fernando punched Cedri c in t he mo ut h; a n d t he words he had
j us t ut t er ed not wi t hst andi ng, my f at her fired hi m on t he spoi.
Wi t h ever yt hi ng t ha i was happeni ng, Mona and I were ready lo be
get t i ng out of t he restaurant. It was almost lime: t he days were st i l l stuffy
with summer, but our window shade had st art ed (l appi ng in t he eveni ng
as if geari ng up to go out. That year t he brce/.es were f ul l of sal t , as t hey
sometimes were when t hey came in from die f ast , and t hey blew anchors
and docks through my mi nd like so many tumble-weeds, Ti l l i ng my dreams
wi t h wherri es and l obst ers and grainy-faced men who squinted, day in
and day out, at t he sky.
It was t i me for a change, you coul d feel i t ; and yet t he pancake
house was t he same as ever. The day before si hool st arter! my f a t h e r
came home wi t h bad news.
"Fernando called police," he said, wiping his hand on his pant leg.
My mot her nat ur al l y wauled to know what police; and so wi t h much
coughing and hawing, the long story began, the latest i nst all ment of which
had the police calling immigration, and i mmi grat i on sending an
investigator. My mother sat st i ff as whalebone as my l at her described
how t he man summari l y refused l unch on t he house and How my f at her
had admi t t ed, under pressure, di al he knew there were "things" about
his workers.
"So now what happens'
1
'
My fat her di dn' t know. "Hooker and Cedric- went wi t h hi m to the
jail," lie said. "But me, here 1 am." He laughed uncomfortably.
The next day my f at her posted bail for "his boys" and wai t ed
apprehensively for something to happen. The day af t er t hat he waited
again, and t he day after t hat he cal l ed our neighbor's law st udent son,
who suggested my father call the immigrat i on department under an alias.
My f at her t ook hi s advice; and it was thus t hat he discovered l hat Hooker
was ri ght : it was i l l egal f o r al i ens to work, but it wasn't to hi re them.
In t he happy i nt erval t hat ensued, my f at her apologi/.ecl to my
mother, who in turn confessed about the country cl ub, for which my f at her
had no choice but to forgive her. Then he t ur ned his at t ent i on back to "his
boys."
My mother dicln'l see t hat t here was anyt hi ng to do.
"I like to t al ki ng to t he judge," said my fat her.
"This is not China," said my mother.
"I' m oulv t al ki ng to him. I' m not give hi m money unless he want s it."
' You' re going to land up in jail."
"So what else I shoul d do?" My f at h e r t hr ew up his hands. "Those are
my boys."
"Your boys!" exploded my mot her. "What about your famil y? What
about your wife''"'
My l a t h e r l n < > k a l o n g s i p of l ea. " > o u know, " he s ai d f i n al l y. "In
t he war my f a t h e r sent our cook lo di e S' l l di i ' i
1
' ; lo use. l i e al"- av-, s ai d il
di e pr ovi nce comes before t h e l i mn, di e t o \ \ n comes bef or e t h e f a mi l y . "
"A restaurant is not a town," said my mother.
My l at her sipped at Ins tea again. '">ou know, uhen 1 lirst come to Il i e
Uni t ed States, I also had to hide-and-seek wi t h those deport at i on guys.
II' people di d not helping me, I'm no! here today."
My mother scruiini/.ed her hem.
After a minute I vol unt eered t hat before seeing a .judge, he might t r y a
lawyer.
He turned. "Since'when di d you become so at rai d li ke your mother?"
I st art ed to say t hat it wasn't a mai l er of fear, but he cut me off.
"What 1 need today," lie said, "is a son." '
My l at her and I spent t he bet t er pai l of t he next day st andi ng in
lines at t he immigration office. He did not get 10 speak to a judge, but wi t h
much persistence he managed to speak to a judge' s clerk, who t ri ed to
persuade hi m t hat ; it was not her place to extend him advice. My fatti er,
(hough, siiamele.ssly plied her, wi t h compliments and offers of Tree
pancakes unt i l she fi nal l y conceded t hai she personally doubted anything
would happen to ei t her L'edric or Hooker.
"Especially if t hey' re 'needed workers,' " she said, rubbi ng at t he red
marks her glasses l eft on her nose. She yawned. "Have yo u t hought about
sponsoring t hem to become permanent residents?"
Could he do t hat ? My fat t i er uas overjoyed. And uhal il he saw to it
right away? Would she perhaps put in a good word wi t h t he judge?
She yawned again, her nostrils Daring. "Don't worry," she said. "They'll
get a fair hearing."
My father returned jubilant. Hooker and C'edric hailed him as (heir
savior, their Buddha incarnate. He was like a f at her to them, t hey said;
and laughing and clapping, they made hi m tell the story over and over,
sorting over the details like jewels. And how old was t he assistant judge?
And what did she say?
That evening my father l i pped t he paperboy a dol lar and bought a pot
of mums for my mother, who suffered t hem to be placed on t he dining
room table. The next night he took us al l out to dinner. Then on
Saturday' , Mona found a l et t er on my father's chair at t he restaurant.
Dear Mr. Chang,
You are t he grat boss. But , we do not like to t ri al , so will riming
away now. Plese to excus us. People sayi ng t he law in America is
fears li ke dragon. Here is onl y $140. We hope some day we can pay
back t he rest bale. You will get t i ng i nt rest , as you di servi ng, so
gr at a boss y o u are. Thank you for every thing. In next life you \ si l l
be burn in rich f ami l y, wi t h no more pancaks.
Yours
truley,
Hooker +
Cedric
In t he weeks t hai followed my l at her went to t he pancake house for
crises, but otherwise hung around our house, f i ddl i ng i dl y wi t h t he sump
pump and boil er in an eff ort , he said, to get ready for wi nt er. It was as
t hough he had gone i nt o ret i rement, except t hat inst ead of moving soul h,
lie had moved to t he basement. He even took to showering my mot her willi
l i t t l e at t enti ons, and lo calling her "old girl," and when we finally heard
t hat t he club had entertained all the applications il could for the year, he
was so sympat het i c t hat lie seemed more disappointed t han my mother.
BERNARD MALAMUD (1914-1986)
Introduction
For most of his fiction, Bernard Malamud took as his subject
the life of Jews in America. Malamud was born and raised in
New York City, which may well claim to be the center of
American Jewish culture, and which is the setting for much of
Malamuds fiction, including The Magic Barrel.
The Jews are an anomaly in Western history and culture.
Their religious and philosophical tradition, from which
Christianity partially arose (Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, if an
unusual one), is central to the Western tradition. But as an
ethnic group, they were marginalized by the very success of
Christianity as a universal religion that grew to include non-
Jews, and which the Jews as a group largely repudiated. In
addition, soon after the time of Christ, the Jews who rebelled
continually against the control of their country by the Roman
empire were forced to leave their homeland by an angry
Roman emperor who decided to end their rebellion once and
for all by forcing the entire population into permanent exile.
For nearly two thousand years (until the formation of Israel
after World War II), the Jews lived without a homeland, in
exile within other cultural, ethnic, and national community
groups. Even today, far more Jews live in other countries than
in Israel; although, in this sense, they are similar to many other
ethnic groups in the mobile modern world (there are far more
Irish-Americans, for instance, than there are inhabitants of
Ireland). During this two thousand year history of exile, the
Jews living mostly in Christian and Muslim countries were
often actively discriminated against. But they stubbornly and
successfully clung to their religious beliefs and rituals, ethnic
identities, and cultural practices.
Malamuds story, The Magic Barrel, is concerned with one
such Jewish cultural practice the use of a community
matchmaker to arrange marriages a practice that is
decidedly out of place in a modern American context. The
matchmaker, Salzman, and the religious student, Finkle, are
both stereotypical Jewish figures, representing different
aspects of the Jewish cultural tradition. Finkle is sensitive and
unworldly, serious and introspective, earnest and painfully
self-conscious. In his studies, and by his nature, he is
concerned with morality and tradition. Salzman, by contrast, is
a typical salesman (if seemingly not a very successful one).
He is crafty and demonstrative, a worldly man and an
inveterate purveyor of folk wisdom. As a salesman, he is
obviously not to be trusted and yet the entire story hinges on
the suspicion that he is more wise in his clever evasions and
obvious machinations than the earnest young Rabbinical
student with all of his intellectual knowledge and spiritual
profundity.
There is some evidence in the story that Salzman is a figure
with magical and mystical qualities and powers, and many
critics have expounded on this possibility. But there is no
reason to believe that he is anything other than profoundly
versed in the mysteries of the human heart, and in the vagaries
and inconsistencies of human desire. For all of its strange
properties, the story is in some essential sense a simple (if
unusual) love story, with a happy ending. When the unworldly
but prematurely jaded religious student looks into the eyes
filled with desperate innocence of the all-too worldly
matchmakers daughter, we are reminded that love is no less
necessary for human happiness than it is an inexplicable
mystery for the human intellect.
The Magic Barrel (1958)
Not long ago there lived in uptown New York, in a small
almost meager room, though crowded with books, Leo Finkle,
a rabbinical student in the Yeshivah University. Finkle, after
six years of study, was to be ordained in June and had been
advised by an acquaintance that he might find it easier to win
himself a congregation if he were married. Since he had no
present prospects of marriage, after two tormented days of
turning it over in his mind, he called in Pinye Salzman, a
marriage broker whose two line advertisement he had read in
the Forward.
The matchmaker appeared one night out of the dark fourth-
floor hallway of the graystone rooming house where Finkle
lived, grasping a black, strapped portfolio that had been worn
thin with use. Salzman, who had been long in the business, was
of slight but dignified build, wearing an old hat, and an
overcoat too short and tight for him. He smelled frankly of fish,
which he loved to eat, and although he was missing a few
teeth, his presence was not displeasing, because of an amiable
manner curiously contrasted with mournful eyes. His voice,
his lips, his wisp of beard, his bony fingers were animated, but
give him a moment of repose and his mild blue eyes revealed
a depth of sadness, a characteristic that put Leo a little at ease
although the situation, for him, was inherently tense.
He at once informed Salzman why he had asked him to come,
explaining that his home was in Cleveland, and that but for his
parents, who had married comparatively late in life, he was
alone in the world. He had for six years devoted himself almost
entirely to his studies, as a result of which, understandably, he
had found himself without time for a social life and the
company of young women. Therefore he thought it the better
part of trial and errorof embarrassing fumblingto call in an
experienced person to advise him on these matters. He
remarked in passing that the function of the marriage broker
was ancient and honorable, highly approved in the jewish
community, because it made practical the necessary without
hindering joy. Moreover, his own parents had been brought
together by a matchmaker. They had made, if not a financially
profitable marriagesince neither had possessed any worldly
goods to speak ofat least a successful one in the sense of
their everlasting devotion to each other. Salzman listened in
embarrassed surprise, sensing a sort of apology. Later,
however, he experienced a glow of pride in his work, an
emotion that had left him years ago, and he heartily approved
of Finkle.
The two went to their business. Leo had led Salzman to the
only clear place in the room, a table near a window that
overlooked the lamp-lit city. He seated himself at the
matchmakers side but facing him, attempting by an act of will
to suppress the unpleasant tickle in his throat. Salzman eagerly
unstrapped his portfolio and removed a loose rubber band from
a thin packet of much-handled cards. As he flipped through
them, a gesture and sound that physically hurt Leo, the student
pretended not to see and gazed steadfastly out the window.
Although it was still February, winter was on its last legs, signs
of which he had for the first time in years begun to notice. He
now observed the round white moon, moving high in the sky
through a cloud menagerie, and watched with half-open mouth
as it penetrated a huge hen, and dropped out of her like an egg
laying itself. Salzman, though pretending through eyeglasses
he had just slipped on, to be engaged in scanning the writing on
the cards, stole occasional glances at the young mans
distinguished face, noting with pleasure the long, severe
scholars nose, brown eyes heavy with learning, sensitive yet
ascetic lips, and a certain almost hollow quality of the dark
cheeks. He gazed around at shelves upon shelves of books and
let out a soft, contented sigh.
When Leos eyes fell upon the cards, he counted six spread out
in Salzmans hand.
So few? he asked in disappointment.
You wouldnt believe me how much cards I got in my office,
Salzman replied. The drawers are already filled to the top, so
I keep them now in a barrel, but is every girl good for a new
rabbi?
Leo blushed at this, regretting all he had revealed of himself in
curriculum vitae he had sent to Salzman. He had thought it best
to acquaint him with his strict standards and specifications, but
in having done so, felt he had told the marriage broker more
than was absolutely necessary.
He hesitantly inquired, Do you keep photographs of your
clients on file?
First comes family, amount of dowry, also what kind
promises, Salzman replied, unbuttoning his tight coat and
settling himself in the chair. After comes pictures, rabbi.
Call me Mr. Finkle. Im not yet a rabbi.
Salzman said he would, but instead called him doctor, which he
changed to rabbi when Leo was not listening too attentively.
Salzman adjusted his horn-rimmed spectacles, gently cleared
his throat and read in an eager voice the contents of the top
card:
Sohpie P. Twenty four years. Widow one year. No children.
Educated high school and two years college. Also real estate.
On the mothers side comes teachers, also one actor. Well
known on Second Avenue.
Leo gazed up in surprise. Did you say a widow?
A widow dont mean spoiled, rabbi. She lived with her
husband maybe four months. He was a sick boy she made a
mistake to marry him.
Marrying a widow has never entered my mind.
This is because you have no experience. A widow, especially
if she is young and healthy like this girl, is a wonderful person
to marry. She will be thankful to you the rest of her life.
Believe me, if I was looking now for a bride, I would marry a
widow.
Leo reflected, then shook his head.
Salzman hunched his shoulders in an almost imperceptible
gesture of disappointment. He placed the card down on the
wooden table and began to read another:
Lily H. High school teacher. Regular. Not a substitute. Has
savings and new Dodge car. Lived in Paris one year. Father is
successful dentist thirty-five years. Interested in professional
men. Well Americanized family. Wonderful opportunity.
I knew her personally, said Salzman. I wish you could see
this girl. She is a doll. Also very intelligent. All day you could
talk to her about books and theater and what not. She also
knows current events.
I dont believe you mentioned her age?
Her age? Salzman said, raising his brows. Her age is thirty-
two years.
Leo said after a while, Im afraid that seems a little too old.
Salzman let out a laugh. So how old are you, rabbi?
Twenty-seven.
So what is the difference, tell me, between twenty-seven and
thirty-two? My own wife is seven years older than me. So what
did I suffer? Nothing. If Rothschilds a daughter wants to
marry you, would you say on account her age, no?
Yes, Leo said dryly.
Salzman shook off the no in the yes. Five years dont mean a
thing. I give you my word that when you will live with her for
one week you will forget her age. What does it mean five
yearsthat she lived more and knows more than somebody
who is younger? On this girl, God bless her, years are not
wasted. Each one that it comes makes better the bargain.
What subject does she teach in high school?
Languages. If you heard the way she speaks French, you will
think it is music. I am in the business twenty-five, and I
recommend her with my whole heart. Believe me, I know what
Im talking rabbi.
Whats on the next card? Leo said abruptly.
Salzman reluctantly turned up the third card;
Ruth K. Nineteen years. Honor student. Father offers thirteen
thousand cash to the right bridegroom. He is a medical doctor.
Stomach specialist with marvelous practice. Brother-in-law
owns own garment business. Particular people.
Salzman looked as if he had read his trump card.
Did you say nineteen? Leo asked with interest.
On the dot.
Is she attractive? He blushed, pretty?
Salzman kissed his finger tips. A little doll. On this I give you
my word. Let me call the father tonight and you will see what
means pretty.
But Leo was troubled. Youre sure shes that young?
This I am positive. The father will show you the birth
certificate.
Are you positive there isnt something wrong with her? Leo
insisted.
Who says there is wrong?
I dont understand why an American girl her age should go to
a marriage broker.
A smile spread over Salzmans face.
So for the same reason you went, she comes.
Leo flushed. I am pressed for time.
Salzman, realizing he had been tactless, quickly explained.
The father came, not her. He wants she should have the best,
so he looks around himself. When we will locate the right boy
he will introduce him and encourage. This makes a better
marriage than if a young girl without experience takes for
herself. I dont have to tell you this.
But dont you think this young girl believes in love? Leo
spoke uneasily.
Salzman was about to guffaw but caught himself and said
soberly, Love comes with the right person, not before.
Leo parted dry lips but did not speak. Noticing that Salzman
had snatched a glance at the next card, he cleverly asked,
How is her health?
Perfect, Salzman said, breathing with difficulty. Of course,
she is a little lame on her right foot from an auto accident that
it happened to her when she was twelve years, but nobody
notices on account she is so brilliant and also beautiful.
Leo got up heavily and went to the window. He felt curiously
bitter and upbraided himself for having called in the marriage
broker. Finally, he shook his head.
Why not? Salzman persisted, the pitch of his voice rising.
Because I detest stomach specialists.
So what do you care what is his business? After you marry her
do you need him? Who says he must come every Friday night
in your house?
Ashamed of the way the talk was going, Leo dismissed
Salzman, who went home with heavy, melancholy eyes.
Though he had felt only relief at the marriage brokers
departure, Leo was in low spirits the next day. He explained it
as arising from Salzmans failure to produce a suitable bride
for him. He did not care for his type of clientele. But when Leo
found himself hesitating whether to seek out another
matchmaker, one more polished than Pinye, he wondered if it
could behis protestations to the contrary, and although he
honored his father and motherthat he did not, in essence,
care for the matchmaking institution? This thought he quickly
put out of his mind yet found himself still upset. All day he ran
around in the woodsmissed an important appointment, forgot
to give out his laundry, walked out of a Broadway cafeteria
without paying and had to run back with the ticket in his hand;
had even not recognized his landlady in the street when she
passed with a friend and courteously called out, A good
evening to you, Doctor Finkle. By nightfall, however, he had
regained sufficient calm to sink his nose into a book and there
found peace from his thoughts.
Almost at once there came a knock on the door. Before Leo
could say enter, Salzman, commercial cupid, was standing in
the room. His face was gray and meager, his expression
hungry, and he looked as if he would expire on his feet. Yet
the marriage broker managed, by some trick of the muscles, to
display a broad smile.
So good evening. I am invited?
Leo nodded, disturbed to see him again, yet unwilling to ask
the man to leave.
Beaming still, Salzman laid his portfolio on the table, Rabbi, I
got for you tonight good news.
Ive asked you not to call me rabbi. Im still a student.
Your worries are finished. I have for you a first-class bride.
Leave me in peace concerning this subject. Leo pretended
lack of interest.
The world will dance at your wedding.
Please, Mr. Salzman, no more.
But first must come back my strength, Salzman said weakly.
He fumbled with the portfolio straps and took out of the leather
case an oily paper bag from which he extracted a hard, seeded
roll and a small, smoked white fish. With a quick motion of his
hand he stripped the fish out of its skin and began ravenously
to chew. All day in a rush, he muttered.
Leo watched him eat.
A sliced tomato you have maybe? Salzman hesitantly
inquired.
No.
The marriage broker shut his eyes and ate. When he had
finished he carefully cleaned up the crumbs and rolled up the
remains of the fish, in the paper bag. His spectacled eyes
roamed the room until he discovered, amid some piles of
books, a one-burner gas stove. Lifting his hat he humbly asked,
A glass tea you got, rabbi?
Conscience-stricken, Leo rose and brewed the tea. He served
it with a chunk of lemon and two cubes of lump sugar,
delighting Salzman.
After he had drunk his tea, Salzmans strength and good spirits
were restored.
So tell me, rabbi, he said amiably, you considered some
more the three clients I mentioned yesterday?
There was no need to consider.
Why not?
None of them suits me.
What then suits you?
Leo let it pass because he could give only a confused answer.
Without waiting for a reply, Salzman asked, You remember
this girl I talked to youthe high school teacher?
Age thirty-two?
But, surprisingly, Salzmans face lit in a smile. Age twenty-
nine.
Leo shot him a look. Reduced from thirty-two?
A mistake, Salzman avowed. I talked today with the dentist.
He took me to his safety deposit box and showed me the birth
certificate. She was twenty-nine years last August. They made
her a party in the mountains where she went for her vacation.
When her father spoke to me the first time I forgot to write the
age and I told you thirty-two, but now I remember this was a
different client, a widow.
The same one you told me about? I thought she was twenty-
four?
A different. Am I responsible that the world is filled with
widows?
No, but Im not interested in them, nor for that matter, in
school teachers.
Salzman pulled his clasped hands to his breast. Looking at the
ceiling he devoutly exclaimed, Yiddishe kinder, what can I
say to somebody that he is not interested in high school
teachers? So what then you are interested?
Leo flushed but controlled himself.
In what else will you be interested, Salzman went on, if you
not interested in this fine girl that speaks four languages and
has personally in the bank ten thousand dollars? Also her
father guarantees further twelve thousand. Also she has a new
car, wonderful clothes, talks on all subjects, and she will give
you a first-class home and children. How near do we come in
our life to paradise?
If shes so wonderful, why hasnt she married ten years ago?
Why? said Salzman with a heavy laugh. Why? Because she
is partikiler. This is why. She wants the best.
Leo was silent, amused at how he had entangled himself. But
Salzman had aroused his interest in Lily H., and he began
seriously to consider calling on her. When the marriage broker
observed how intently Leos mind was at work on the facts he
had supplied, he felt certain they would soon come to an
agreement.
Late Saturday afternoon, conscious of Salzman, Leo Finkle
walked with Lily Hirschorn along Riverside Drive. He walked
briskly and erectly, wearing with distinction the black fedora
he had that morning taken with trepidation out of the dusty hat
box on his closet shelf, and the heavy black Saturday coat he
had thoroughly whisked clean. Leo also owned a walking stick,
a present from a distant relative, but quickly put temptation
aside and did not use it. Lily, petite and not unpretty, had on
something signifying the approach of spring. She was au
courant, animatedly, with all sorts of subjects, and he weighed
her words and found her surprisingly soundscore another for
Salzman, whom he uneasily sensed to be somewhere around,
hiding perhaps high in a tree along the street, flashing the lady
signals with a pocket mirror; or perhaps a cloven-hoofed Pan,
piping nuptial ditties as he danced his invisible way before
them, strewing wild buds on the walk and purple grapes in their
path, symbolizing fruit of a union, though there was of course
still none.
Lily startled Leo by remarking, I was thinking of Mr.
Salzman, a curious figure wouldnt you say?
Not certain what to answer, he nodded.
She bravely went on, blushing, I for one am grateful for his
introducing us. Arent you?
He courteously replied, I am.
I mean, she said with a little laughand it was all in good
taste, or at least gave the effect of being not in baddo you
mind that we came together so?
He was not displeased with her honesty, recognizing that she
meant to set the relationship aright, and understanding that it
took a certain amount of experience in life, and courage, to
want to do it quite that way. One had to have some sort of past
to make that kind of beginning.
He said that he did not mind. Salzmans function was
traditional and honorablevaluable for what it might achieve,
which, he pointed out, was frequently nothing.
Lily agreed with a sigh. They walked on for a while and she
said after a long silence, again with a nervous laugh, would
you mind if I asked you something a little bit personal?
Frankly, I find the subject fascinating. Although Leo
shrugged, she went on half embarrassedly, How was it that
you came to your calling? I mean was it a sudden passionate
inspiration?
Leo, after a time, slowly replied, I was always interested in
the Law.
You saw revealed in it the presence of the Highest?
He nodded and changed the subject. I understand that you
spent a little time in Paris, Miss Hirschorn?
Oh, did Mr. Salzman tell you, Rabbi Finkle? Leo winced but
she went on, It was ages ago and almost forgotten. I
remember I had to return for my sisters wedding.
And Lily would not be put off. When, she asked in a tremble
voice, did you become enamored of God?
He stared at her. Then it came to him that she was talking not
about Leo Finkle, but of a total stranger, some mystical figure,
perhaps even passionate prophet that Salzman had dreamed up
for herno relation to the living or dead. Leo trembled with
rage and weakness. The trickster had obviously sold her a bill
of goods, just as he had him, whod expected to become
acquainted with a young lady of twenty-nine, only to behold,
the moment he laid eyes upon her strained and anxious face, a
woman past thirty-five and aging rapidly. Only his self control
had kept him this long in her presence.
I am not, he said gravely, a talented religious person, and
in seeking words to go on, found himself possessed by shame
and fear. I think, he said in a strained manner, that I came to
God not because I loved Him, but because I did not.
This confession he spoke harshly, because its unexpectedness
shook him.
Lily wilted. Leo saw a profusion of loaves of bread go flying
like ducks high over his head, not unlike the winged loaves by
which he had counted himself to sleep last night. Mercifully,
then, it snowed, which he would not put past Salzmans
machinations.
He was infuriated with the marriage broker and swore he
would throw him out of the room the minute he reappeared.
But Salzman did not come that night, and when Leos anger
had subsided, an unaccountable despair grew in its place. At
first he thought this was caused by his disappointment in Lily,
but before long it became evident that he had involved himself
with Salzman without a true knowledge of his own intent. He
gradually realizedwith an emptiness that seized him with six
handsthat he had called in the broker to find him a bride
because he was incapable of doing it himself. This terrifying
insight he had derived as a result of his meeting and
conversation with Lily Hirschorn. Her probing questions had
somehow irritated him into revealingto himself more than
herthe true nature of his relationship to God, and from that it
had come upon him, with shocking force, that apart from his
parents, he had never loved anyone. Or perhaps it went the
other way, that he did not love God so well as he might,
because he had not loved man. It seemed to Leo that his whole
life stood starkly revealed and he saw himself for the first time
as he truly wasunloved and loveless. This bitter but
somehow not fully unexpected revelation brought him to a
point of panic, controlled only by extraordinary effort. He
covered his face with his hands and cried.
The week that followed was the worst of his life. He did not
eat and lost weight. His beard darkened and grew ragged. He
stopped attending seminars and almost never opened a book.
He seriously considered leaving the Yeshivah, although he was
deeply troubled at the thought of the loss of all his years of
studysaw them like pages torn from a book, strewn over the
cityand at the devastating effect of this decision upon his
parents. But he had lived without knowledge of himself, and
never in the Five Books and all the Commentariesmea
culpahad the truth been revealed to him. He did not know
where to turn, and in all this desolating loneliness there was no
to whom, although he often thought of Lily but not once could
bring himself to go downstairs and make the call. He became
touchy and irritable, especially with his landlady, who asked
him all manner of personal questions; on the other hand,
sensing his own disagreeableness, he waylaid her on the stairs
and apologized abjectly, until mortified, she ran from him. Out
of this, however, he drew the consolation that he was a Jew
and that a Jew suffered. But gradually, as the long and terrible
week drew to a close, he regained his composure and some
idea of purpose in life to go on as planned.
Although he was imperfect, the ideal was not. As for his quest
of a bride, the thought of continuing afflicted him with anxiety
and heartburn, yet perhaps with this new knowledge of himself
he would be more successful than in the past. Perhaps love
would now come to him and a bride to that love. And for this
sanctified seeking who needed a Salzman?
The marriage broker, a skeleton with haunted eyes, returned
that very night. He looked, withal, the picture of frustrated
expectancyas if he had steadfastly waited the week at Miss
Lily Hirschorns side for a telephone call that never came.
Casually coughing, Salzman came immediately to the point:
So how did you like her?
Leos anger rose and he could not refrain from chiding the
matchmaker: Why did you lie to me, Salzman?
Salzmans pale face went dead white, the world had snowed
on him.
Did you not state that she was twenty-nine? Leo insisted.
I give you my word
She was thirty-five, if a day. At least thirty-five.
Of this dont be too sure. Her father told me
Never mind. The worst of it was that you lied to her.
How did I lie to her, tell me?
You told her things about me that werent true. You made me
out to be more, consequently less than I am. She had in mind a
totally different person, a sort of semimystical Wonder Rabbi.
All I said, you was a religious man.
I can imagine.
Salzman sighed. This is my weakness that I have, he
confessed. My wife says to me I shouldnt be a salesman, but
when I have two fine people that they would be wonderful to
be married, I am so happy that I talk too much. He smiled
wanly. This is why Salzman is a poor man.
Leos anger left him. Well, Salzman, Im afraid thats all.
The marriage broker fastened hungry eyes on him.
You dont want any more a bride?
I do, said Leo, but I have decided to seek her in a different
way. I am no longer interested in an arranged marriage. To be
frank, I now admit the necessity of premarital love. That is, I
want to be in love with the one I marry.
Love? said Salzman, astounded. After a moment he
remarked, For us, our love is our life, not for the ladies. In the
ghetto they
I know, I know, said Leo. Ive thought of it often. Love, I
have said to myself, should be a by-product of living and
worship rather than its own end. Yet for myself I find it
necessary to establish the level of my need and fulfill it.
Salzman shrugged but answered, Listen, rabbi, if you want
love, this I can find for you also. I have such beautiful clients
that you will love them the minute your eyes will see them.
Leo smiled unhappily. Im afraid you dont understand.
But Salzman hastily unstrapped his portfolio and withdrew a
manila packet from it.
Pictures, he said, quickly laying the envelope on the table.
Leo called after him to take the pictures away, but as if on the
wings of the wind, Salzman had disappeared.
March came. Leo had returned to his regular routine. Although
he felt not quite himself yetlacked energyhe was making
plans for a more active social life. Of course it would cost
something, but he was an expert in cutting corners; and when
there were no corners left he would make circles rounder. All
the while Salzmans pictures had lain on the table, gathering
dust. Occasionally as Leo sat studying or enjoying a cup of tea,
his eyes fell on the manila envelop, but he never opened it.
The days went by and no social life to speak of developed with
a member of the opposite sexit was difficult, given the
circumstances of his situation. One morning Leo toiled up the
stairs to his room and stared out the window at the city.
Although the day was bright his view of it was dark. For some
time he watched the people in the street below hurrying along
and then turned with a heavy heart to his little room. On the
table was the packet. With a sudden relentless gesture he tore
it open. For a half-hour he stood by the table in a state of
excitement, examining the photographs of the ladies Salzman
had included. Finally, with a deep sigh he put them down.
There were six, of varying degrees of attractiveness, but look
at them long enough and they all became Lily Hirschorn: all
past their prime, all starved behind bright smile, not a true
personality in the lot. Life, despite their frantic yoohooings,
had passed them by; they were pictures in a brief case that
stank of fish. After a while, however, as Leo attempted to
return the photographs into the envelope, he found in it
another, a snapshot of the type taken by a machine for a
quarter. He gazed at it a moment and let out a cry.
Her face deeply moved him. Why, he could at first not say. It
gave him the impression of youthspring flowers, yet agea
sense of having been used to the bone, wasted; this came from
the eyes which were hauntingly familiar, yet absolutely
strange. He had a vivid impression that he had seen her before,
but try as he might he could not place her although he could
almost recall her name, as if he had read it in her own
handwriting. No, this couldnt be; he would have remembered
her. It was not, he affirmed, that she had an extraordinary
beautyno, though her face was attractive enough; it was that
something about her moved him. Feature for feature, even
some of the ladies of the photographs could do better; but she
leaped forth to his hearthad lived or wanted tomore than
just wanted, perhaps regretted how she had livedhad
somehow deeply suffered. It could be seen in the depths of
those reluctant eyes, and from the way the light enclosed and
shone from her, and within her, opening realms of possibility:
this was her own. Her he desired. His head ached and eyes
narrowed with the intensity of his gazing, then as if an obscure
fog had blown up in the mind, he experienced fear of her and
was aware that he had received an impression, somehow, of
evil. He shuddered saying softly, it is thus with us all. Leo
brewed some tea in a small pot and sat sipping it without sugar,
to calm himself. But before he had finished drinking, again
with excitement he examined the face and found it good: good
for Leo Finkle. Only such a one could understand him and help
him seek whatever he was seeking. She might perhap, love
him. How she had happened to be among the discards in
Salzmans barrel he could never guess, but he knew he must
urgently go find her.
Leo rushed downstairs, grabbed up the Bronx telephone book,
and searched for Salzmans home address. He was not listed,
nor was his office. Neither was he in the Manhattan book. But
Leo remembered having written down the address on a slip of
paper after he had read Salzmans advertisement in the
personal column of the Forward. He ran up to his room and
tore through his papers, without luck. It was exasperating. Just
when he needed the matchmaker he was nowhere to be found.
Fortunately Leo remembered to look in his wallet. There on a
card he found his name written and a Bronx address. No phone
number was listed, the reasonLeo now recalledhe had
originally communicated with Salzman by letter. He got on his
coat, put a hat on over his skullcap and hurried to the subway
station. All the way to the far end of the Bronx he sat on the
edge of his seat. He was more than once tempted to take out
the picture and see if the girls face was as he remembered it,
but he refrained, allowing the snapshot to remain in his inside
coat pocket, content to have her so close. When the train
pulled into the station he was waiting at the door and bolted
out. He quickly located the street Salzman had advertised.
The building he sought was less than a block from the subway,
but it was not an office building, nor even a loft, nor a store in
which one could rent office space. It was a very old tenement
house. Leo found Salzmans name in pencil on a soiled tag
under the bell and climbed three dark flights to his apartment.
When he knocked, the door was opened by a thin, asthmatic,
gray-haired woman, in felt slippers.
Yes? she said, expecting nothing. She listened without
listening. He could have sworn he had seen her, too, before but
knew it was an illusion.
Salzmandoes he live here? Pinye Salzman, he said, the
matchmaker?
She stared at him a long minute. Of course.
He felt embarrassed. Is he in?
No. Her mouth, though left open, offered nothing more.
The matter is urgent. Can you tell me where his office is?
In the air. She pointed upward.
You mean he has no office? Leo asked.
In his socks.
He peered into the apartment. It was sunless and dingy, one
large room divided by a half-open curtain, beyond which he
could see a sagging metal bed. The near side of a room was
crowded with rickety chairs, old bureaus, a three-legged table,
racks of cooking utensils, and all the apparatus of a kitchen.
But there was no sign of Salzman or his magic barrel, probably
also a figment of the imagination. An odor of frying fish made
Leo weak to the knees.
Where is he? he insisted. Ive got to see your husband.
At length she answered, So who knows where he is? Every
time he thinks a new thought he runs to a different place. Go
home, he will find you.
Tell him Leo Finkle.
She gave no sign she had heard.
He walked downstairs, depressed.
But Salzman, breathless, stood waiting at his door.
Leo was astounded and overjoyed. How did you get here
before me?
I rushed.
Come inside.
They entered. Leo fixed tea, and a sardine sandwich for
Salzman. As they were drinking he reached behind him for the
packet of pictures and handed them to the marriage broker.
Salzman put down his glass and said expectantly, You found
somebody you like?
Not among these.
The marriage broker turned away.
Here is the one I want. Leo held forth the snapshot.
Salzman slipped on his glasses and took the picture into his
trembling hand. He turned ghastly and let out a groan.
Whats the matter? cried Leo.
Excuse me. Was an accident this picture. She isnt for you.
Salzman frantically shoved the manila packet into his portfolio.
He thrust the snapshot into his pocket and fled down the stairs.
Leo, after momentary paralysis, gave chase and cornered the
marriage broker in the vestibule. The landlady made hysterical
outcries but neither of them listened.
Give me back the picture, Salzman.
No. The pain in his eyes was terrible.
Tell me who she is then.
This I cant tell you. Excuse me.
He made to depart, but Leo, forgetting himself, seized the
matchmaker by his tight coat and shook him frenziedly.
Please, sighed Salzman. Please.
Leo ashamedly let him go. Tell me who she is, he begged.
Its very important for me to know.
She is not for you. She is a wild onewild, without shame.
This is not a bride for a rabbi.
What do you mean wild?
Like an animal. Like a dog. For her to be poor was a sin. This
is why to me she is dead now.
In Gods name, what do you mean?
Her I cant introduce to you, Salzman cried.
Why are you so excited?
Why, he asks, Salzman said, bursting into tears. This is my
baby, my Stella, she should burn in hell.
Leo hurried up to bed and hid under the covers. Under the
covers he thought his life through. Although he soon fell asleep
he could not sleep her out of his mind. He woke, beating his
breast. Though he prayed to be rid of her, his prayers went
unanswered. Through days of torment he endlessly struggled
not to love her; fearing success, he escaped it. He then
concluded to convert her to goodness, himself to God. The idea
alternately nauseated and exalted him.
He perhaps did not know that he had come to a final decision
until he encountered Salzman in a Broadway caferia. He was
sitting alone at a rear table, sucking the bony remains of a fish.
The marriage broker appeared haggard, and transparent to the
point of vanishing.
Salzman looked up at first without recognizing him. Leo had
grown a pointed beard and his eyes were weighted with
wisdom.
Salzman, he said, love has at last come to my heart.
Who can love from a picture? mocked the marriage broker.
It is not impossible.
If you can love her, then you can love anybody. Let me show
you some new clients that they just sent me their photographs.
One is a little doll.
Just her I want, Leo murmured.
Dont be a fool, doctor. Dont bother with her.
Put me in touch with her, Salzman, Leo said humbly.
Perhaps I can be of service.
Salzman had stopped eating and Leo understood with emotion
that it was now arranged.
Leaving the cafeteria, he was, however, afflicted by a
tormenting suspicion that Salzman had planned it all to happen
this way. Leo was informed by letter that she would meet him
on a certain corner, and she was there one spring night, waiting
under a street lamp. He appeared, carrying a small bouquet of
violets and rosebuds. Stella stood by the lamppost, smoking.
She wore white with red shoes, which fitted his expectations,
although in a troubled moment he had imagined the dress red,
and only the shoes white. She waited uneasily and shyly. From
afar he saw that her eyesclearly her fatherswere filled
with desperate innocence. He pictured, in her, his own
redemption. Violins and lit candles revolved in the sky. Leo
ran forward with flowers outthrust.
Around the corner, Salzman, leaning against a wall, chanted
prayers for the dead.
BHARATI MUKHERJEE (1940- )
Introduction
Bharati Mukherjee is an American writer of Asian decent,
having been born and raised in an upper-middle-class Hindu
family in Calcutta, India. She refuses the designation Asian-
American and wonders why it is that only non-white American
immigrants and their descendants are hyphenated Americans
(Asian-American, African-American, etc.), while Americans of
European lineage are plain Americans.
Such a linguistic practice suggests a tension in American cultural
and political identity a refusal of the majority white, European-
based culture fully to accommodate and adjust itself to other
ethnic and cultural identities, and a reluctance, as well, on the
part of the non-white population groups to assimilate themselves
into the cultural majority. And yet, as Mukherjee indicates, the
very idea of America as a nation of voluntary immigrants
engaged in a social and political experiment implies that these
various groups must seek to come together into a workable
whole that does not so much eradicate and invalidate individual
and cultural identities and histories as it connects and weaves
them together into something new and different.
As Mukherjee explains, most modern nations are made up of
more or less homogenous ethnic identity groups living in
traditional territories. (Poland is populated largely by ethnic
Poles, as Vietnam is inhabited mostly by the ethnic Vietnamese.)
But America was founded as a nation in which voluntary
immigrants from whatever ethnic and cultural background could
come and join in an experiment in forming a society and nation
based upon ideas of individual freedom and political liberty.
Americas founding fathers could not foresee that American
would one day be the home and destination for immigrants
from throughout the world including from many cultures and
places that they had never even heard of. Nineteenth-Century
American poet Walt Whitman, however, foresaw such a
destiny for America, and he celebrated its possibilities for the
improved future of human society, which he assumed would be
multicultural and trans-national. Mukherjees essay proves her
to be Whitmans heir when he writes:
Passage to India!
Lo, soul, seest thou not Gods purpose from the first?
The earth to be spannd, connected by network,
The races, neighbors, to marry and be given in
marriage,
The oceans to be crossd, the distant brought near,
The lands to be welded together.
Passage to India, which is also the poems title, refers to
Christopher Columbuss intention to find a cross-ocean sea-
route from Europe to Asia, for which he was searching when
he discovered America the New World. Whitman believed
that it is Americas particular destiny to bind together, bridge,
and merge the Old World cultures of Europe and Asia and
the New World cultures of the Americas into one diverse unity.
As Mukherjees essay indicates, this is a destiny that is still in
the making.
American Dreamer (1997)
By Bharati Mukherjee
January/February 1997 Issue
The United States exists as a sovereign nation. "America," in
contrast, exists as a myth of democracy and equal opportunity to live
by, or as an ideal goal to reach.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen, which means that, unlike native-born
citizens, I had to prove to the U.S. government that I merited
citizenship. What I didn't have to disclose was that I desired
"America," which to me is the stage for the drama of self-
transformation.
I was born in Calcutta and first came to the United States -- to Iowa
City, to be precise -- on a summer evening in 1961. I flew into a small
airport surrounded by cornfields and pastures, ready to carry out the
two commands my father had written out for me the night before I left
Calcutta: Spend two years studying creative writing at the Iowa
Writers' Workshop, then come back home and marry the bridegroom
he selected for me from our caste and class.
In traditional Hindu families like ours, men provided and women were
provided for. My father was a patriarch and I a pliant daughter. The
neighborhood I'd grown up in was homogeneously Hindu, Bengali-
speaking, and middle-class. I didn't expect myself to ever disobey or
disappoint my father by setting my own goals and taking charge of my
future.
When I landed in Iowa 35 years ago, I found myself in a society in
which almost everyone was Christian, white, and moderately well-off.
In the women's dormitory I lived in my first year, apart from six
international graduate students (all of us were from Asia and
considered "exotic"), the only non-Christian was Jewish, and the only
nonwhite an African-American from Georgia. I didn't anticipate then,
that over the next 35 years, the Iowa population would become so
diverse that it would have 6,931 children from non-English-speaking
homes registered as students in its schools, nor that Iowans would be
in the grip of a cultural crisis in which resentment against immigrants,
particularly refugees from Vietnam, Sudan, and Bosnia, as well as
unskilled Spanish-speaking workers, would become politicized enough
to cause the Immigration and Naturalization Service to open an
"enforcement" office in Cedar Rapids in October for the tracking and
deporting of undocumented aliens. {publish-page-break}
In Calcutta in the '50s, I heard no talk of "identity crisis" -- communal
or individual. The concept itself -- of a person not knowing who he or
she is -- was unimaginable in our hierarchical, classification-obsessed
society. One's identity was fixed, derived from religion, caste,
patrimony, and mother tongue. A Hindu Indian's last name
announced his or her forefathers' caste and place of origin. A
Mukherjee could only be a Brahmin from Bengal. Hindu tradition
forbade intercaste, interlanguage, interethnic marriages. Bengali
tradition even discouraged emigration: To remove oneself from Bengal
was to dilute true culture.
Until the age of 8, I lived in a house crowded with 40 or 50 relatives.
My identity was viscerally connected with ancestral soil and genealogy.
I was who I was because I was Dr. Sudhir Lal Mukherjee's daughter,
because I was a Hindu Brahmin, because I was Bengali-speaking, and
because my desh -- the Bengali word for homeland -- was an East
Bengal village called Faridpur.
The University of Iowa classroom was my first experience of
coeducation. And after not too long, I fell in love with a fellow student
named Clark Blaise, an American of Canadian origin, and impulsively
married him during a lunch break in a lawyer's office above a coffee
shop.
That act cut me off forever from the rules and ways of upper-middle-
class life in Bengal, and hurled me into a New World life of scary
improvisations and heady explorations. Until my lunch-break
wedding, I had seen myself as an Indian foreign student who intended
to return to India to live. The five-minute ceremony in the lawyer's
office suddenly changed me into a transient with conflicting loyalties
to two very different cultures.
The first 10 years into marriage, years spent mostly in my husband's
native Canada, I thought of myself as an expatriate Bengali
permanently stranded in North America because of destiny or desire.
My first novel, The Tiger's Daughter, embodies the loneliness I felt but
could not acknowledge, even to myself, as I negotiated the no man's
land between the country of my past and the continent of my present.
Shaped by memory, textured with nostalgia for a class and culture I
had abandoned, this novel quite naturally became an expression of the
expatriate consciousness.
It took me a decade of painful introspection to put nostalgia in
perspective and to make the transition from expatriate to immigrant.
After a 14-year stay in Canada, I forced my husband and our two sons
to relocate to the United States. But the transition from foreign student
to U.S. citizen, from detached onlooker to committed immigrant, has
not been easy.
The years in Canada were particularly harsh. Canada is a country that
officially, and proudly, resists cultural fusion. For all its rhetoric about
a cultural "mosaic," Canada refuses to renovate its national self-image
to include its changing complexion. It is a New World country with Old
World concepts of a fixed, exclusivist national identity. Canadian
official rhetoric designated me as one of the "visible minority" who,
even though I spoke the Canadian languages of English and French,
was straining "the absorptive capacity" of Canada. Canadians of color
were routinely treated as "not real" Canadians. One example: In 1985 a
terrorist bomb, planted in an Air-India jet on Canadian soil, blew up
after leaving Montreal, killing 329 passengers, most of whom were
Canadians of Indian origin. The prime minister of Canada at the time,
Brian Mulroney, phoned the prime minister of India to offer Canada's
condolences for India's loss.
Those years of race-related harassments in Canada politicized me and
deepened my love of the ideals embedded in the American Bill of
Rights. I don't forget that the architects of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights were white males and slaveholders. But through their
declaration, they provided us with the enthusiasm for human rights,
and the initial framework from which other empowerments could be
conceived and enfranchised communities expanded.
I am a naturalized U.S. citizen and I take my American citizenship very
seriously. I am not an economic refugee, nor am I a seeker of political
asylum. I am a voluntary immigrant. I became a citizen by choice, not
by simple accident of birth.
Yet these days, questions such as who is an American and what is
American culture are being posed with belligerence, and being
answered with violence. Scapegoating of immigrants has once again
become the politicians' easy remedy for all that ails the nation. Hate
speeches fill auditoriums for demagogues willing to profit from stirring
up racial animosity. An April Gallup poll indicated that half of
Americans would like to bar almost all legal immigration for the next
five years.
The United States, like every sovereign nation, has a right to formulate
its immigration policies. But in this decade of continual, large-scale
diasporas, it is imperative that we come to some agreement about who
"we" are, and what our goals are for the nation, now that our
community includes people of many races, ethnicities, languages, and
religions.
The debate about American culture and American identity has to date
been monopolized largely by Eurocentrists and ethnocentrists whose
rhetoric has been flamboyantly divisive, pitting a phantom "us" against
a demonized "them."
All countries view themselves by their ideals. Indians idealize the
cultural continuum, the inherent value system of India, and are
properly incensed when foreigners see nothing but poverty,
intolerance, strife, and injustice. Americans see themselves as the
embodiments of liberty, openness, and individualism, even as the
world judges them for drugs, crime, violence, bigotry, militarism, and
homelessness. I was in Singapore in 1994 when the American teenager
Michael Fay was sentenced to caning for having spraypainted some
cars. While I saw Fay's actions as those of an individual, and his
sentence as too harsh, the overwhelming local sentiment was that
vandalism was an "American" crime, and that flogging Fay would deter
Singapore youths from becoming "Americanized."
Conversely, in 1994, in Tavares, Florida, the Lake County School Board
announced its policy (since overturned) requiring middle school
teachers to instruct their students that American culture, by which the
board meant European-American culture, is inherently "superior to
other foreign or historic cultures." The policy's misguided implication
was that culture in the United States has not been affected by the
American Indian, African-American, Latin-American, and Asian-
American segments of the population. The sinister implication was
that our national identity is so fragile that it can absorb diverse and
immigrant cultures only by recontextualizing them as deficient.
Our nation is unique in human history in that the founding idea of
"America" was in opposition to the tenet that a nation is a collection of
like-looking, like-speaking, like-worshiping people. The primary
criterion for nationhood in Europe is homogeneity of culture, race, and
religion -- which has contributed to blood-soaked balkanization in the
former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union.
America's pioneering European ancestors gave up the easy
homogeneity of their native countries for a new version of utopia.
Now, in the 1990s, we have the exciting chance to follow that tradition
and assist in the making of a new American culture that differs from
both the enforced assimilation of a "melting pot" and the Canadian
model of a multicultural "mosaic."
The multicultural mosaic implies a contiguity of fixed, self-sufficient,
utterly distinct cultures. Multiculturalism, as it has been practiced in
the United States in the past 10 years, implies the existence of a central
culture, ringed by peripheral cultures. The fallout of official
multiculturalism is the establishment of one culture as the norm and
the rest as aberrations. At the same time, the multiculturalist emphasis
on race- and ethnicity-based group identity leads to a lack of respect
for individual differences within each group, and to vilification of those
individuals who place the good of the nation above the interests of
their particular racial or ethnic communities.
We must be alert to the dangers of an "us" vs. "them" mentality. In
California, this mentality is manifesting itself as increased violence
between minority, ethnic communities. The attack on Korean-
American merchants in South Central Los Angeles in the wake of the
Rodney King beating trial is only one recent example of the tragic side
effects of this mentality. On the national level, the politicization of
ethnic identities has encouraged the scapegoating of legal immigrants,
who are blamed for economic and social problems brought about by
flawed domestic and foreign policies.
We need to discourage the retention of cultural memory if the aim of
that retention is cultural balkanization. We must think of American
culture and nationhood as a constantly re-forming, transmogrifying
"we."
In this age of diasporas, one's biological identity may not be one's only
identity. Erosions and accretions come with the act of emigration. The
experience of cutting myself off from a biological homeland and
settling in an adopted homeland that is not always welcoming to its
dark-complexioned citizens has tested me as a person, and made me
the writer I am today.
I choose to describe myself on my own terms, as an American, rather
than as an Asian-American. Why is it that hyphenation is imposed only
on nonwhite Americans? Rejecting hyphenation is my refusal to
categorize the cultural landscape into a center and its peripheries; it is
to demand that the American nation deliver the promises of its dream
and its Constitution to all its citizens equally.
My rejection of hyphenation has been misrepresented as race
treachery by some India-born academics on U.S. campuses who have
appointed themselves guardians of the "purity" of ethnic cultures.
Many of them, though they reside permanently in the United States
and participate in its economy, consistently denounce American ideals
and institutions. They direct their rage at me because, by becoming a
U.S. citizen and exercising my voting rights, I have invested in the
present and not the past; because I have committed myself to help
shape the future of my adopted homeland; and because I celebrate
racial and cultural mongrelization.
What excites me is that as a nation we have not only the chance to
retain those values we treasure from our original cultures but also the
chance to acknowledge that the outer forms of those values are likely
to change. Among Indian immigrants, I see a great deal of guilt about
the inability to hang on to what they commonly term "pure culture."
Parents express rage or despair at their U.S.-born children's forgetting
of, or indifference to, some aspects of Indian culture. Of those parents
I would ask: What is it we have lost if our children are acculturating
into the culture in which we are living? Is it so terrible that our
children are discovering or are inventing homelands for themselves?
Some first-generation Indo-Americans, embittered by racism and by
unofficial "glass ceilings," construct a phantom identity, more-Indian-
than-Indians-in-India, as a defense against marginalization. I ask:
Why don't you get actively involved in fighting discrimination? Make
your voice heard. Choose the forum most appropriate for you. If you
are a citizen, let your vote count. Reinvest your energy and resources
into revitalizing your city's disadvantaged residents and
neighborhoods. Know your constitutional rights, and when they are
violated, use the agencies of redress the Constitution makes available
to you. Expect change, and when it comes, deal with it!
As a writer, my literary agenda begins by acknowledging that America
has transformed me. It does not end until I show that I (along with the
hundreds of thousands of immigrants like me) am minute by minute
transforming America. The transformation is a two-way process: It
affects both the individual and the national-cultural identity.
Others who write stories of migration often talk of arrival at a new
place as a loss, the loss of communal memory and the erosion of an
original culture. I want to talk of arrival as a gain.
Chapter 9: Challenges for the Future
America as a Test Society
The early 20
th
Century American writer Gertrude Stein
claimed that America is the oldest country in the modern
world. She explained that, although England was the earliest
industrialized country, America was the first country to
experience the full effects of industrialization with the
mechanized horrors of the American Civil War. Thus, she
reasoned, America entered the modern age first and is the
worlds oldest modern country.
Partly because of its uniqueness as a country that has served as
a destination and haven for immigrants from throughout the
world, and partly because of its wealth of natural resources,
America has continued to lead the way forward into the
modern age. In many respects, Americas society, economy,
and culture operate as a sort of testing and proving ground for
the advance and progress of modern civilization. In that sense,
Americas societal conditions and crises may serve as useful
warnings and lessons for the world in general as it becomes
increasingly modernized.
Neil Postman on the Media
The essays in this chapter address two areas of grave concern
for the future and history of human civilization in the modern
world. In the first essay, Future Shlock, Neil Postman
contends that citizens in American society have become so
obsessed with and immersed in the visual stimulation of
electronic media that they can no longer distinguish between
matters of vital political and societal importance which
might require action and reaction and material that is
designed to be passively consumed as entertainment.
Rachel Carson on the Environment
In the second essay, The Obligation to Endure, influential
American environmental activist Rachel Carson warns of the
grave dangers for the continuation of human life itself caused
by our constant tampering with and willful sabotaging of our
home in nature. Carson contends that modern human societies
must begin thinking past the short term if they are to survive in
the long term.
Both Postman and Carson stress that, as human control of our
living environment becomes more pervasive and invasive, it is
of vital importance that we exercise discretion, caution, and
wisdom in shaping our world and future. The fate of the
human species, and perhaps even of life on Earth, depends
upon it.
NEIL POSTMAN (1931-2003)
Introduction
Neil Postman is a social critic who has focused his attention on
the effect of the electronic media on modern societies and
social-political consciousness. In the influential essay, Future
Shlock, he considers the social, political, and psychological
effect of the American populaces infatuation with television.
Most Americans (like most of the world these days) get their
news of the community, nation, and world from television. But
television news, as Postman points out, is primarily concerned
with providing visual entertainment and stimulus, and is very
poor at providing intellectual analysis and historical context.
A population that receives its information of itself and of the
world almost wholly from television naturally will possess
strong opinions prompted by the mediums emotionally stirring
images. But a mature and responsible community requires
more than merely strong emotional opinions in order to operate
soundly. It requires a great breadth and depth of knowledge, a
capacity for dispassionate analysis, and a dedication to reason,
all of which television does not and perhaps cannot, by the
nature of its visual-emotional medium provide an adequate
forum for.
Postman contends that there are two ways by which modern
societies can become oppressive of individual freedom and
thought, and destructive of responsible political communities.
They can overtly and actively repress individual freedom and
political expression like the Fascist government of Nazi
Germany. Or they can amuse and distract themselves to such
an extent that entertainment becomes an end in itself, rather
than a pleasant relief from the cares and responsibilities (but
also freedoms and opportunities) of the real world.
The second mode of oppression oppression by pleasure,
rather than by fear is the more insidious of the two, in that it
is not generally experienced as oppressive, and provides the
illusion of freedom. But what is felt as the free choice to
consume entertainment endlessly is actually a compulsion and
an addiction, which are enforced by the whole machinery of
the pleasure-addicted consumerist society.
Postman does not offer a cure for the society that suffers from
oppression by pleasure, but he alerts us to the existence of this
condition, and warns us of its danger for the future of civil
society, and perhaps for the future of civilization itself.
Future Shlock (1988)
Future Shlock
Neil Postman has distinguished himself as a critic, writer,
educator, and communications theorist since the 1960s. His early
work focused on language and education; with such books as
Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969) and The Soft
Revolution: A Student Handbook for Turning Schools Around
(1971), both coauthored with Charles Weingartner, he became
known as an advocate of radical education reform. For ten
years he was editor of Et Cetera, the journal of general
semantics. As television has played an increasingly central role
in American culture, Postman has critically analyzed its impact
not only on what information is available but on how we receive
and understand information. 1 lis book Amusing Ourselves to
Death (1986) explores these questions; so does "Future Shlock,"
which comes from his 1988 book Conscientious Objections:
Stirring Up Trouble About Language, Technology, and Education.
Postman is currently chair of the Department of Communication
Arts and Sciences at New York University; he also serves on the
editorial board of TAe Nation magazine. He lives in Flushing,
New York.
Sometime about the middle of 1963, my colleague Charles
\\cingartner and 1 delivered in tandem an address to the National
Council of leachers of English. In that address we used the
phrase /ufure s/iock as a way of describing the social paralysis
induced by rapid technological change. Ib my knowledge,
Weingartner and 1 were the first people ever to use it in a public
fomm. Of course, neither Weingartner nor I had the brains to write
a book called Future S/ioc&, and all due credit must go to Alvin
'loftier tor having recognized a good phrase when one came along.
1 mention this here not to lament lost royalties but to explain why
1 now feel entitled to subvert the phrase. Having been among the
first to trouble the public about future shock, I may be permitted to
be among the first to trouble the public about future shlock.
Future s/i/ock is the name 1 give to a cultural condition
characterized by the rapid erosion of collective intelligence.
Future shlock is the aftermath of future shock. Whereas future
shock results in confused, indecisive, and psychically uprooted
people, future shlock produces a massive class of mediocre people.
^
Human intelligence is among the most fragile things in nature. It
doesn't take much to distract it, suppress it. or even annihilate it. In this
century, we have had some lethal examples of how easily and quickly
intelligence can be defeated by any one of its several nemcses: ignorance,
superstition, moral fervor, cruelty, cowardice, neglect. In the late 1920s, for
example, Germany was, by any measure, Hie most literate, cultured nation in
Hie world. Its legendary scats of learning attracted scholars from even" corner.
Its philosophers, social critics, and scientists were of the first rank: its humane
traditions an inspiration to less favored nations. Rut by the mid-1930s that
is. in less than ten years this cathedral of human reason had been
transformed into a cesspool oi barbaric irrationality. Many of the most
intelligent products of German culture were forced to Ace for example,
Kinslein, Krcud, Karl Jaspers, Thomas Mann, and Stefan Zweig. Even worse,
those who remained were either forced to submit their minds to the
sovereignty of primitive superstition, or worse still willingly did so:
Konrad Lorcn/., \\^rncr Hciscnbcrg, Martin Heidegger, Gcrhardt
Hauptmann. On May 10, 1933, a huge bonfire was kindled in Berlin and the
books of Marcel Proust, Andrd Gide, Emilc Zola, Jack London, Upton
Sinclair, and a hundred others were committed to the flames, amid shouts of
idiot delight. By 1936, Joseph Paul Goebbels. Germany's minister of
propaganda, was issuing a proclamation which began with the following
words: "Because this year has not brought an improvement in art criticism, I
forbid once and for all the continuance of art criticism in its past form,
effective as of today." By 1936, there was no one left in Germany who had the
brains or courage to object.
Exactly why the Germans banished intelligence is a vast and largely
unanswered question. I have never been persuaded that the desperate
economic depression thai afflicted Germany in the 1920s adequately explains
what happened, 'lo quote Aristotle: "Men do not become tyrants in order to
keep warm." Neither do they become stupid at least not (Aaf stupid. But
the matter need not trouble us here. I offer the German case onlv as the
most striking example of the fragility of human intelligence. My focus here is
the United States in our own time, and I wish to worry you about the rapid
erosion of our own intelligence. If you are confident that such a thing cannot
happen, your confidence is misplaced, 1 believe, but it is understandable.
After all. the United States is one of the few countries in the world
founded by intellectuals men of wide learning, of extraordinary rhetorical
powers, of deep faith in reason. And although we have had our moods of
anti-intellectualism, few people have been more generous in support of
intelligence and learning than Americans. It was the United States that
initiated the experiment in mass education that is, even today, the en\v of the
world. It was America's churches that laid the foundation
of our admirable system of higher education; it \vas the Land-Grant Act -of
1862 that made possible our great state universities; and it is to America that
scholars and writers have fled when freedom of the intellect became
impossible in llicir own nations. This is why the great historian ot American
civilization Henry Steele Commager called America "the Empire of
Reason." But Commager was referring to the United States of the eighteenth
and ni neteenth centuries. What term he would use for America today, I
cannot say. Yet he has observed, as others have, a change, a precipitous
decline in our valuation of intelligence, in our uses of l anguage, in the
disciplines of logic and reason, in our capacity to attend to complexity.
Perhaps he would agree with me that the Empire of Reason is, in fact, gone,
and that the most apt term for America today is the Empire of Shlock.
In any case, this is what I wish to call to your notice; the frightening
displacement of serious, intelligent public discourse in American culture
by the imagery and triviality ot what may be called .show business. I do
not see the decline of intelligent discourse in AmericlTleading to the
barbarisms that flourished in Germany, of course. No scholars. I believe,
will ever need to flee America. There wil l be no bonfires to burn books.
And I cannot imagine any proclamations forbidding once and for all art
criticism, or any other ki nd of criticism. But t hi s is not a cause tor
complacency, let alone celebration. A culture does not have to torce
scholars to lice to render them impotent. A culture does not have to burn
books to assure that they will not be read. And a culture docs not need
a minister of propaganda issuing proclamations to silence criticism. I here
are other ways to achieve stupidity, and it appears t hat , as in so many
other things, there is a distinctly American way.
To explain what 1 am getting at, 1 find it helpful to refer to two films.
which taken together embody t he main lines ol my argument. '1 he first
film is of recent vintage and is called 'I'he Goc/s Must Be Crucv. It is about
a tribal people who live in the Kalahari Desert plains ot southern .\triea.
and what happens to thei r culture when it is invaded by an emptv
Coca-Cola bottle tossed from the window ol a small plane passing oxer-
head. The bottle lands in t he middle of the village and is construed by
these gentle people to be a gift from the gods, tor they not onl y have
never seen a bottle before but have never seen glass either. The people
are almost immediately charmed by the gilt, and not only because ot its
novelty. The bottle, it turns out, has multiple uses, chief among them the
intriguing music it makes when one blows into it.
But gradually a change takes place in t he tribe. The bottle becomes
an ijresistible preoccupation. Looking at it, holding it, t hi nking of things
to do \vith it displace other activities once thought essential. But more
than tliis. the Coke bottle is Hie only thing these people have ever seen
ot which there is only one of its kind. And so those who do not have it
try to get il from the one who does. And the one who does refuses to give
it up. jealousy, greed, and even violence enter the scene, and come very
clo.iL- to destroying the harmony that has characterized their culture for
a thousand years. The people hcgin to love their bottle more than they
love themselves, and arc saved only \vhen the leader of the tribe, con-
vinced t hai t he gods must be crazy, returns the bottle to the gods by
throwing it off the top of a mountain.
i he hi m is great fun and it is also wise, mainly because it is about a
subject as relevant to people in Chicago or Los Angeles or New York as
it is to those of the Kalahari Desert. It raises two questions of extreme
importance to our situation. How docs a culture change when new
technologies are introduced to it? And is it always desirable for a culture
to accommodate itself to the demands of new technologies? The leader
ot the Kalahari tribe is forced to confront these questions in a way that
Americans have refused to do. And because his vision is not obstructed
by a belief in what Americans call "technological progress," he is able
with minimal discomfort to decide that the songs of the Coke bottle are
not so alluring that they arc worth admitting envy, egotism, and greed to
a serene culture.
The second film relevant to my argument was made in 1%7. It is Mel
Brooks's first Rim. T/;c Pm(/i/cers. T/ze Producers is a rather raucous com-
edy that has at its center a painful joke: An unscrupulous theatrical
producer has figured out that it is relatively easy to turn a buck by
producing a play that fails. All one has to do is induce dozens of backers
to invest in the play by promising them exorbitant percentages of its
profits. When the play fails, there being no profits to disperse, the pro-
ducer walks away with thousands of dollars that can never be claimed.
Of course, the central problem he must solve is to make sure that his play
is a disastrous failure. And so he hits upon an excellent idea: He will take
the most tragic and grotesque story of our century the rise of Adolf
Hitler and make it into a musical.
Because the producer is only a crook and not a fool, he assumes that
the stupidity of making a musical on this theme will be immediately
grasped by audiences and that they will leave the theater in dumbfounded
rage. So he calls his play S/?rmg(ime /or H;Y/er, which is also the name
of its most important song. The song begins with the words:
Springtime for Hitler and Germany;
Winter for Poland and France.
The melody is catchy, and when the song is sung it is accompanied 10
by a happy chorus line. (One must understand, of course, that Springtime for
Hitler is no spoof of Hitler, as was, for example, Charlie Chaplin's The Great
Dictator. The play is instead a kind ol denial of Hitler in song and dance; as if
to say, it was all in fun.)
The ending of the movie is predictable. The audience loves the play
and leaves the theater humming Springtime /or Hitler. The musical
becomes a great hit. The producer ends up in jail, his joke having turned
back on him. But Brooks's point !s that the joke is on us. Although Hie
Rim was made years before a movie actor became president of the United
States, Brooks was making a kind of prophecy about that namely, that
the producers of American culture will increasingly turn our historv,
politics, religion, commerce, and education into forms of entertainment,
and that we will become as a result a trivial people, incapable of coping
with complexity, ambiguity, uncertainly, perhaps even reality. \\e will
become, in a phrase, a people amused into stupidity.
For those readers who arc not inclined to take Mcl Brooks as seriousl\ as
I do, let me remind you that the prophecy 1 attribute here to Brooks
was, in fact, made many years before by a more formidable social critic
than he. I refer to Aldous Huxley, who \\rote Orm'c ,\etc \\br/J at the
time that ihe modern monuments to intellectual stupidity were taking
shape: naxism in Cermany, fascism in Italy, communism in Russia. But
Huxley was not concerned in his book with such naked and crude lonns of
intellectual suicide. He saw beyond them, and mostly, I must add. he saw
America, lo be more specific, he toresa\v that the greatest threat to the
intelligence and humane creativity of our culture would not come from
Big Brother and ministries of propaganda, or gulags and concentration
camps. He prophesied, if 1 may pul it this \vay. that there is tyranny
lurking in a Coca-Cola bottle; that we could be ruined not by what \ve
fear and hate but by what we welcome andjavc_by_wjiat \\c construe to .
be a gift from the gods.
And in case anyone missed his point in 1932, Huxley wrote Brm*e .\ew
\W)r/d Revisited twenty years later. By then. George Orwell's J964 had
been published, and it was inevitable that Huxley would compare Or-
well's book with his own. The difference, he said, is that in Orwclls book
people arc controlled by inflicting pain. In Orm'g A'eu' \\br/J. they arc
controlled by inflicting pleasure.
The Coke bottle that has fallen in our midst is a corporation of
dazzling technologies whose forms turn all serious public business into a
kind of S/mngbme /or Hi(/er musical, television is the principal instrument
of this disaster, in part because it is the medium Americans most
dearly love, and in part because it has become the command center of
our culture. Americans turn to television not only for their light enter-
tainment but for their news, their weather, their politics, their religion,
their history all of which may be said to be their serious entertainment.
The light entertainment is not the problem. The least dangerous things
on television are its junk. What I am talking about is television's preemp-
tion of our culture's most serious business. It would be merely banal to
say that television presents us with entertaining subject matter. It is
quite another thing to say that on television all subject matter is
presented as entertaining. And that is how television brings ruin to any
intelligent understanding of public affairs.
Political campaigns, for example, are now conducted largely in the i
form of television commercials. Candidates forgo precision, complexity,
substance in some cases, language itself for the arts of show business:
music, imagery, celebrities, theatrics. Indeed, political figures have become
so good at this, and so accustomed to it, that they do television commercials
even when they are not campaigning. . . . Even worse, political figures
appear on variety shows, soap operas, and sit-coms. George McGovcrn,
Ralph Nacler, Ed Koch, and Jesse Jackson have all hosted "Saturday Night
Live." Henry Kissinger and former president Gerald Ford have clone cameo
roles on "Dynast)'." [Former Massachusetts officials] Tip O'Ncill and
Governor Michael Dukakis have appeared on "Cheers." Richard Nixon did a
short stint on "Laugh-In." The late senator from Illinois, Everctt Dirksen,
was on "What's My Line?," a prophetic question if ever there was one. What
is the line of these people? Or, more precisely, where is the l i ne that one
ought to be able to draw between politics and entertainment? I would suggest
that television has annihilated T it. . . .
But politics is only one arena in which serious language has been
displaced by the arts of show business. We have all seen how religion is
packaged on television, as a kind of Las Vegas stage show, devoid of ritual,
sacrality, and tradition. Today's electronic preachers are in no way like
America's evangelicals of the past. Men like Jonathan Edwards, Charles
Finney, and George Whiteside were preachers of theological depth,
authentic learning, and great expositor,' power. Electronic preachers such
a> Ji mmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwcll are merely performers
who exploit television's visual power and thei r own charisma for the
greater glory of themselves.
We have also seen "Sesame Street" and other educational shows in
whi ch the demands of entertainment take precedence over the rigors of
learning. And we well knew how American businessmen, working under rj
the assumption that potential customers require amusement rather than
facts, use music, dance, comedy, cartoons, and celebrities to sell their
products.
Even our daily news, which for most Americans means television news, is
packaged as a kind of show, featuring handsome news readers, exciting
music, and dynamic Rim footage. Most especially, him footage. When there
is no film footage, there is no story. Stranger still, commercials may appear
anywhere in a news story before, after, or in the middle. This reduces all
events to trivialities, sources of public entertainment and little more. After all,
how serious can a bombing in Lebanon be it it is shown to us prefaced by a
happy United Airlines commercial and summarized by a Calvin Klein jeans
commercial? Indeed, television newscasters have added to our grammar a
new part of speech what mav be called the "Now . . . this" conjunction, a
conjunction that does not connect two things but disconnects them. When
newscasters say. "Xow . . . mis. they mean to indicate that what you have just
heard or seen has no relevance to what you are about to hear or see. There is
no murder so brutal, no political blunder so costly, no bombing so
devastating that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying.
"Xow . . . tins." He means that you have thought long enough on the matter
(l et us xiv. for forty seconds) and you must now give your attention to a
commercial. Such a situation is not "the news." It is merely a daily version ol
S/;m HirYer, and in my opinion accounts for the t act that American are the
most ill-informed people in the world. Ib be sure. we know n/ manv things;
but we know /)oi;/ very little.
Ib provide some verification of this, I conducted a survev a few vcars back
on the subject of the Iranian hostage crisis. 1 cho\v Ihis subject because it was
alluded to on television nx/M &;v /or more /;\m tj vt'<jr. I did not ask my
subjects for their opinions about the hostage \ituation. I am not interested in
opinion polls; 1 am interested in knowledge polls. The questions I asked were
simple and did not require deep knowledge. For example, Where is Iran? What
language do the Iranians speak? Where did the Shah come Irom? What
religion do me Iranians practice, and what are its basic tenets? What does
Aw/o/A;/; mean? I tound that almost everybody knew practically nothing about
Iran. And those \vho did know something said they had learned it Irom
XnrMt'ee^ or Time or the New Ybr& T;'mes. 'television, in other words, is not
the great information machine. It is the great disinformation machine. A most
nerve-wracking confirmation of this came some time ago during an interview
with the producer and the writer of the 'IV mini-series "Peter the Great."
Defending the historical inaccuracies in the drama which included a fabri-
cated meeting between Peter and Sir Isaac Xewton the producer said
that no one would watch a dry, historically faithful biography. The writer
added that it is better for audiences to learn something that is untrue, if
it is entertaining, than not to learn anything at all. And just to put some
icing on Hie cake, the actor who played Peter, Maximilian Schell, rc-
markcd t hat he does not believe in historical truth and therefore sees no
reason to pursue it.
I do not mean to say t hat the triviali/.ation of American public dis-
course ib all accomplished on television. Rather, television is the para-
digm tor all our attempts at public communication. It conditions our
mind> to apprehend the world through fragmented pictures and forces
other media to orient themselves in that direction. You know the standard
question we put to people who have difficult}' understanding even simple
language: \\c ask them impatient!}, "Do I have to draw a picture for you?"
\\ell, it appears that, like it or not, our culture will draw pictures for us,
will explain the world to us in pictures. As a medium for conducting
public business, language has receded in importance; it lias been moved
to the periphery of culture and has been replaced at the center by the
entertaining visual image.
Please understand that 1 am making no criticism of the visual arts in
general. That criticism is made by God, not by me. You will remember
that in His Second Commandment, God explicitly states that "Thou shalt
not make unto thcc any graven image, nor any likeness of anything that
is in I leaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or the waters beneath
the earth." I have always felt that God was taking a rather extreme position
on this, as is His way. As for myself, I am arguing from the standpoint of a
symbolic relativist. Korms of communication arc neither good nor bad in
themselves. Thev become good or bad depending on their relationship to
other symbols and on the functions they are made to serve within a social
order. When a culture becomes overloaded with pictures; when logic and
rhetoric lose their binding authority; when historical truth becomes
irrelevant; when the spoken or written word is distrusted or makes
demands on our attention that we are incapable of giving; when our
politics, history, education, religion, public infomiation, and commerce
arc expressed largely in visual imagery rather than words, then a culture
is in serious jeopardy.
Neither do I make a complaint against entertainment. As an old song
has it. life is not a highway strewn with Rowers. The sight of a few
blossoms here and there may make our journey a trifle more endurable.
But in America, the least amusing people are our professional entertain-
ers. In our present situation, our preachers, entrepreneurs, politicians,
teachers, and journalists are committed to entertaining us through media
that do not lend themselves to serious, complex discourse. But these
producers of our culture are not to be blamed. 'Hiey, like the rest of us. believe
in the supremacy of technological progress. It has never occurred to us that the
gods might be crazy. And even if it did, there is no mountaintop from which
we can return what is dangerous to us.
Wz would do well to keep in mind that there arc two ways in which the spirit
of a culture may be degraded. In the hrst the Onvcllian culture becomes a
prison. This was the way of the Nazis, and it appears to be the way of the
Russians.' In the second the Huxleyan culture becomes a burlesque. This
appears to be the way of the Americans. What Huxley teaches is that in the Age
of Advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an
enemy with a smiling countenance than from one whose face exudes suspicion
and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy. Big Brother docs not watch us, by his
choice; \ve watch him, by ours. When a culture becomes distracted by trivia:
when political and social life arc redefined as a perpetual round of entertain-
ments; when public conversation becomes a form of baby talk; when a people
become, in short, an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then
Huxley argued a nation finds itself at risk and culture-death is a clear
possibility. I agree.
RACHEL CARSON (1907-1964)
Introduction
Rachel Carson was an early contributor to and member of the modern
environmental movement in America. When America was first settled
by Europeans, its wealth of natural resources seemed limitless. Early
American President and social theorist Thomas Jefferson predicted
that it would take at least one thousand years for the huge country
even to be thoroughly explored and settled by human inhabitants. But
in the course of only a few centuries, the country has been not only
settled, but also exploited and abused to the point that many of its
natural resources have been depleted and exhausted, while others
have been strained to the breaking point.
Such exploitation and abuse of the natural environment by human
inhabitants is a world-wide phenomenon that may threaten our very
survival as human populations rapidly increase. Many plant and
animal species some of which have not even been catalogued, much
less studied or used are being quietly forced into extinction by
human expansion. At the same time, un-renewable natural resources
such as mineral and petroleum deposits are being depleted at an
alarming rate, and arable land is being over-farmed and transformed
into man-made wastelands. This is not a new phenomenon in the
comparatively brief course of human history. Vast areas of the Middle
East, Northern Africa, Southern Europe, and Central Asia that once
were agricultural centers of ancient human civilizations are now
largely unfertile partially as a result of human over-use, and of an
over-reliance on short-sighted agricultural methods.
As our land resources are threatened from abuse and exploitation, so
the air we breathe has become increasingly contaminated and polluted,
leading to global warming that threatens to make large portions of
heavily populated areas of the Earth uninhabitable in the relatively
near future, as the glaciers and ice caps melt and ocean levels rise,
submerging low-lying coastal areas.
The root of the various environmental dangers and approaching
catastrophes is human ignorance, avarice, and short-sightedness, as
Carson points out in her essay, The Obligation to endure, in which
she is largely concerned with the foolhardy over-use of man-made
chemicals in modern agriculture. For too long, as Carson contends,
humans have thought of nature as an enemy to be overcome and also
as a simple resource to be manipulated and used. But nature is far
more complex than we have imagined, and our various efforts at
improving and harnessing nature have created more intractable
problems and hidden dangers than we know.
Carson urges her readers to adopt a longer view of progress and of
human civilization, and to try to consider nature as a textbook for our
own survival rather than as a dumb tool for profit and exploitation.
Otherwise we risk destroying ourselves and our environment before
having had the chance to learn natures secret of endurance. For, in
terms of the long eons of life on Earth, humans are still a recent
arrival, and if we are not very careful and humble (much more so than
heretofore), our stay is likely to be all too brief.
The Obligation to Endure (1962)
The history of life on earth has been a history of interaction between living
things and their surroundings. To a large extent, the physical form and the
habits of the earth's vegetation and its animal life have been molded by the en-
vironment. Considering the whole span of earthly time, the opposite effect, in
which life actually modifies its surroundings, has been relatively slight. Only
within the moment of time represented by the present century has one
speciesmanacquired significant power to alter the nature of his world.
During the past quarter century this power has not only increased to one of
disturbing magnitude but it has changed in character. The most alarming of all
man's assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers,
and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for
the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only .in the
world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part
irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment,
chemicals are the sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in
changing the very nature of the worldthe very nature of its life.
Strontium 90, released through nuclear explosions into the air, comes
to earth in rain or drifts down as fallout, lodges in soil, enters into the
grass or corn or wheat grown there, and in time takes up its abode in
the bones of a human being, there to remain until his death. Similarly,
chemicals sprayed on croplands or forests or gardens lie long in soil,
entering into living organisms, passing from one to another in a chain
of poisoning and death. Or they pass mysteriously by underground
streams unt i l they emerge and, through the alchemy of air and
sunlight, combine into new forms that kill vegetation, sicken cattle, and
work unknown harm on those who drink from once pure wells. As
Albert Schweitzer has said, "Man can hardly even recognize the devils
of his own creation."
It took hundreds of millions of years to produce the life that now
inhabits the eartheons of time in which that developing and evolving
and diversifying life reached a state of adjustment and balance with its
surroundings. The environment, rigorously shaping and directing the
life it supported, contained elements that were hostile as well as
supporting. Certain rocks gave out dangerous radiation; even within the
light of the sun, from which all life draws its energy, there were
shortwave radiations with power to injure. Given timetime not in
years but in millennialife adjusts, and a balance has been reached. For
time is the essential ingredient; but in the modern world there is no
time.
The rapidity of change and the speed with which new situations are
created follow the impetuous and heedless pace of man rather than the
deliberate pace of nature. Radiation is no longer merely the background
radiation of rocks, the bombardment of cosmic rays, the ultraviolet of the
sun that have existed before there was any life on earth; radiation is
now the unnatural creation of man's tampering with the atom. The
chemicals to which life is asked to make its adjustment are no longer
merely the calcium and silica and copper and all the rest of the minerals
washed out of the rocks and carried in rivers to the sea; they are the
synthetic creations of man's inventive mind, brewed in his laboratories,
and having no counterparts in nature.
To adjust to these chemicals would require time on the scale that is
nature's; it would require not merely the years of a man's life but the life
of generations. And even this, were it by some miracle possible, would
be futile, for the new chemicals come from our laboratories in an
endless stream; almost five hundred annually find their way into actual
use in the United States alone. The figure is staggering and its
implications are not easily grasped500 new chemicals to which the
bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year,
chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience.
Among them are many that are used in man's war against nature.
Since the mid-1940's over 200 basic chemicals have been created tor use
in killing insects,
626
weeds, rodents, and other organisms described in the modern
vernacular as "pests"; and they are sold under several thousand
different brand names.
These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost
universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homesnonseleclive
chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the "good" and the
"bad," to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to
coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soilall this
though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can
anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons ovi
the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should
not be called "insecticides," but "biocides."
The whole process of spraying seems caught up in an endless spiral.
Since DOT was released for civilian use, a process of escalation has
been going on in which ever more toxic materials must be found. This
has happened because insects, in a triumphant vindication of Darwin's
principle of the survival of the fittest, have evolved super races
immune to the particular insecticide used, hence a deadlier one has
always to be developedand then a deadlier one than that. It has
happened also because, for reasons to be described later, destructive
insects often undergo a "flareback," or resurgence, after spraying in
numbers greater than before. Thus the chemical war is never won, and
all life is caught in its violent crossfire.
Along with the possibility of the extinction of mankind by nuclear
war, the central problem of our age has therefore become the
contamination of man's total environment with such substances of
incredible potential for harmsubstances that accumulate in the tissues
of plants and animals and even penetrate the germ cells to shatter or alter
the very material of heredity upon which the shape of the future
depends.
Some would-be architects of our future look toward a time when it
will be possible to alter the human germ plasm by design. But we may
easily be doing so now by inadvertence, for many chemicals, like
radiation, bring about gene mutations. It is ironic to think that man
might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the
choice of an insect spray.
All this has been riskedfor what? Future historians may well be
amazed by our distorted sense of proportion. How could intelligent
beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that
contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease
and death even to their own kind? Yet this is precisely what we have
done. We have done it, moreover, for reasons that collapse the moment
we examine them. We are told that the enormous and expanding use of
pesticides is necessary to maintain farm production. Yet is our real
problem not one of overproduction? Our farms, despite measures to
remove acreages from production and to pay farmers not to produce,
have yielded such a staggering excess of crops that the American
taxpayer in 1962 is paying out more than one billion dollars a year as the
total carrying cost of the surplus-food storage program. And is the
situation helped when one branch of the Agricul ture Department tries
to reduce production while another states, as it did in 1958, "It is
believed generally that reduction of crop acreages under provision--
of the Soil Bank will stimulate interest in use of chemicals to obtain maximum
production on the land retained in crops."
All this is not to say there is no insect problem and no need of control. I am 12
saying, rather, that control must be geared to realities, not to mythical situations,
and that the methods employed must be such that they do not destroy us along
with the insects.
The problem whose attempted solution has brought such a train of disaster in 13
its wake is an accompaniment of our modern way of life. Long before the age of
man, insects inhabited the eartha group of extraordinarily varied and adaptable
beings. Over the course of time since man's advent, a small percentage of the
more than half a million species of insects have come into conflict with human
welfare in two principal ways: as competitors for the food supply and as carriers
of human disease.
Disease-carrying insects become important where human beings are 14
crowded together, especially under conditions where sanitation is poor, as in
times of natural disaster or war or in situations of extreme poverty and depri-
vation. Then control of some sort becomes necessary. It is a sobering fact, however,
as we shall presently see, that the method of massive chemical control has had
only limited success, and also threatens to worsen the very conditions it is
intended to curb.
Under primitive agricultural conditions the farmer had few insect prob- 15
lems. These arose with the intensification of agriculturethe devotion of im-
mense acreages to a single crop. Such a system set the stage for explosive
increases in specific insect populations. Single-crop farming does not take ad-
vantage of the principles by which nature works; it is agriculture as an engineer
might conceive it to be. Nature has introduced great variety into the landscape,
but man has displayed a passion for simplifying it. Thus he undoes the built-in
checks and balances by which nature holds the species within bounds. One im-
portant natural check is a limit on the amount of suitable habitat for each
species. Obviously then, an insect that lives on wheat can build up its population
to much higher levels on a farm devoted to wheat than on one in which wheat is
intermingled with other crops to which the insect is not adapted.
The same thing happens in other situations. A generation or more ago, the ie
towns of large areas of the United States lined their streets with the noble elm
tree. Now the beauty they hopefully created is threatened with complete de-
struction as disease sweeps through the elms, carried by a beetle t hat would
have only limited chance to build up large populations and to spread from tree to
tree if the elms were only occasional trees in a richly diversified planting.
Another factor in the modern insect problem is one that must be viewed i?
against a background of geologic and human history: the spreading of thousands
of different kinds of organisms from their native homes to invade new
territories. This worldwide migration has been studied and graphically de-
scribed by the British ecologist Charles Elton in his recent book The Ecology of
Invasions. During the Cretaceous Period, some hundred million years ago,
flooding seas cut many land bridges between continents and living things
found themselves confined in what Elton calls "colossal separate nature re-
serves." There, isolated from others of their kind, they developed many new
species. When some of the land masses were joined again, about 15 million
years ago, these species began to move out into new territoriesa movement
that is not only still in progress but is now receiving considerable assistance
from man.
The importation of plants is the primary agent in the modern spread of is
species, for animals have almost invariably gone along with the plants, quarantine
being a comparatively recent and not completely effective innovation. The United
States Office of Plant Introduction alone has introduced almost 200,000 species and
varieties of plants from all over the world. Nearly half of the 180 or so major insect
enemies of plants in the United States are accidental imports from abroad, and
most of them have come as hitchhikers on plants.
In new territory, out of reach of the restraining hand of the natural enemies T>
that kept down its numbers in its native land, an invading plant or animal is able
to become enormously abundant. Thus it is no accident that our most troublesome
insects are introduced species.
These invasions, both the naturally occurring and those dependent on 20
human assistance, are likely to continue indefinitely. Quarantine and massive
chemical campaigns are only extremely expensive ways of buying time. We are
faced, according to Dr. Elton, "with a life-and-death need not just to find new
technological means of suppressing this plant or that animal"; instead we need the
basic knowledge of animal populations and their relations to their surroundings
that will "promote an even balance and damp down the explosive power of
outbreaks and new invasions."
Much of the necessary knowledge is now available but we do not use it. We 21
train ecologists in our universities and even employ them in our governmental
agencies but we seldom take their advice. We allow the chemical death rain to
fall as though there were no alternative, whereas in fact there are many, and our
ingenuity could soon discover many more if given opportunity.
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable 22
that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to
demand that which is good? Such thinking, in the words of the ecologist Paul
Shepard, "idealizes life with only its head out of water, inches above the limits of
toleration of the corruption of its own environment. . . . Why should we tolerate a
diet of weak poisons, a home in insipid surroundings, a circle of acquaintances
who are not quite our enemies, the noise of motors with just enough relief to
prevent insanity? Who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal?"
Yet such a world is pressed upon us. The crusade to create a chemically ster- 2.1
ile, insect-free world seems to have engendered a fanatic zeal on the part of
many specialists and most of the so-called control agencies. On every hand there
is evidence that those engaged in spraying operations exercise a ruthless power.
"The regulatory entomologists .. . function as prosecutor, judge and
jury, tax assessor and collector and sheriff to enforce their own orders/' said Connecticut
entomologist Neely Turner. The most flagrant abuses go unchecked in both state and federal
agencies.
It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I do 24 contend that we
have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons
largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. We have subjected enormous numbers of
people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge. If
the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons
distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our
forefathers, despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem.
I contend, furthermore, that we have allowed these chemicals to be used 25 with little or no
advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself. Future generations
are unlikely to condone our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the natural world thai
supports all life.
There is still very limited awareness of the nature of the threat. This is an era 26 of specialists,
each of whom sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it
fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is
seldom challenged. When the public protests, confronted with some obvious evidence of damaging
results of pesticide applications, it is fed little tranquilizing pills of half truth. We urgently need an
end to these false assurances, to the sugar coating of unpalatable facts. It is the public that is being
asked to assume the risks that the insect controllers calculate. The public must decide whether it
wishes to continue on the present road, and it can do so only when in full possession of the facts.
In the words of Jean Rostand, "The obligation to endure gives us the right to know."