It is the weekend, so we are singing. Today we rather incongruously practiced danzón behind the stage while waiting for the Hot 8. Resignation is not one the Hot 8′s strong points. I, however, have discovered that resignation, that machine to reproduce ideology and the social order, is all the rage. People call it “acceptance” (it was formerly known as “realism”). I have only raw data, of course, and I do not know how to crunch the numbers, but my study has two important implications.
One: there really is a class of people for whom Reeducation is designed. Such people have a problem they do not want to name and / or are afraid to solve. This group of people is larger than one might think and that is why Reeducators assume one only wishes to “manage” situations (while also clamoring incessantly, inanely, and superficially that “change is good”).
Two: when people try to talk me into remaining a professor, as they have been doing for almost twenty years, they assume that I am the type of person described above. At first they thought my dislike of academia was only disinterest in having a career and a desire to be supported by a man. “Would you rather be married and stuck in the house with little children?” they sneered. When after some time I did not do that they changed to the condescending and supercilious “There are problems with all jobs, you know!” (If I wrote a Greek play, the chorus would say these things.)
What I find fascinating is how they managed to speak to me, a person above thirty and then above forty, as though I were below ten. I would furrow my brow, not understanding their logic. Were they mentally impaired or otherwise incompetent? Could they make it through the day on their own? Should I help them? But this is the paradigm. People complain, but only out of weakness and irresponsibility, so they must be taught resignation. I find the belief in this paradigm quite strange, and the existence of people who actually fit it even stranger.