Monday, December 20, 2021

My Penis, Myself

 My Penis, Myself

I didn’t need a penis to be a man. But I needed one to be me.

By Gabriel Mac New York Magazine



Photo: Dan Winters. Groomer: Green Dale Figueroa.

On the day I heard that my penis would be huge, I sobbed.

In the car outside the doctor’s office afterward, I bent my torso in half and bawled, my face against the dashboard, my boyfriend petting my back to console me but confused. Isn’t it good news that they can do it? — like: At all? And obviously, yes. It was. Growing up without one, I’d thought or maybe convinced myself that mine would grow in later — to the extent that when I see a woman in tight pants, I still often instinctively think, Where is her penis? — but my period at 12 aptly, agonizingly bled to death that increasingly implausible dream of reconciling with life, with God, that he wouldn’t make me like this and leave me like this forever. So the news, 28 years later, that the agony was going to be over — abundantly over — was a bit much to take in.

I fixated instead on the information that a pert little average-flaccid package was not an option for me. (If I even wanted that.) (And did I?) When I’d asked the surgeon how big my impending penis was going to be, he could only guess, pointing to the reusable water bottle in my hand, a metal cylinder nine inches in circumference: “Smaller than that.”

I was so different from everybody else already.

I was already always so different.

Phalloplasty in general, it was clear, was hard for people to accept. “Well, I will love you no matter what, sweetie,” a cis female best friend of mine said when I told her I was transitioning, years before — “as long as you don’t get a dick.” One flatly demanded, “Don’t get a dick.” It was, another transmasculine person I used to know said, disgusting, insane to want and to have a surgeon make a sensate phallus out of your arm or leg or somewhere and Frankenstitch it to your body, to go so far out of your way to opt in to a tool, perhaps the tool, of so much suffering. Most transmasculine people didn’t get one. The seminal print transmasc magazine was named after not getting one: Original Plumbing. I saw transmasculine support groups shut down and go silent more than once when someone brought up the procedure, and later, when I was that someone, I was twice invited to leave “with other people who might want to talk about that.” Whatever magical spectrum of unicorn gender expression was otherwise being embraced, it ended firmly before needing a socially, culturally, politically, historically, personally, emotionally, medically complicated dick.

But I did. And I couldn’t outrun it any longer. Literally: The day I gave in and admitted that for me it was penis or death came after a last-ditch bout of denial in which I drove 1,400 miles in three days only to have to acknowledge, devastated, at my destination that I couldn’t avoid it anymore.

So there I was then, finally, showing up to online specialized transmasculine support groups for people seeking or recovering from phallo, between hours spent hustling to call (six) surgeons’ offices about consults and my PCP’s office (19 times) for referrals and my insurance company (17 times — that I wrote down, anyway) for the necessary authorizations. And here they were, these trans and nonbinary people of many races and locations, coming together to try to hold one another’s questions and fears about which donor site on their body to use, and how the site had (or hadn’t) recovered, and how much sensation they had (“My whole dick feels like a giant clit!” one elated guy described his rare, very best-case outcome once to widened eyes all around), and what size testicle implants they got if they got testicles (which are optional) at all, and which surgeon they went to and when could you go back to work and who in the world took care of you, and did anybody else have this or that or a whole series of fistulas or strictures around their new urethral hookup that rerouted their pee and is also optional, and did anyone else just leave their urethra where it is? Once, a pre-op 52-year-old Black man who was struggling with money and his disability and insurance asked if having a penis was really going to make a difference, relieve any of this pain he was barely surviving, and I watched as the post-op group members calmly assured him that, yes, it would. If he could just hang on, hang on, hang in there.

“It gave me a little more hope,” he told me later, “to keep going.”

“I would rather have died on the table than not had the surgery,” one Korean American guy with great sweaters responded (and, like everybody here, gave me permission to repeat), to a chorus of nodding Zoom heads.

It has happened at least once that someone did die. I was fully ready to, by which I mean I’d just spent nearly the last of my savings, which I’d burned navigating the emotional-mental-social-medical-legal-extreme-marginalization mindfuck shitshow of transitioning, on a burial plot just in case. One of the nodding heads in the group belonged to a nonbinary white person who was still horizontal in recovery from having had, a week prior, the worst happen, which was that after their procedure, in which all the fat and skin had been stripped from their left forearm from wrist to nearly elbow, along with major nerves, an artery, and veins, and then shaped into a tube and connected, in careful layers, to skin and blood vessels and nerves in their pelvis, their new penis had failed.

It died. On them.

But here they were, already getting ready for their surgeons to harvest a whole other part of their body within the month with zero hesitation. Because those three days they’d had their penis, they said, before being rushed into an eight-hour surgery that couldn’t save it — the feeling of it, even just for one moment, even still bloody and painful and packed with stitches: worth it. And I understood that immediately when, after a yearlong surgery waiting list and a deep quarantine and an anguished prerequisite COVID test I would either pass or lose my date over, I woke up last December in a hospital bed and before even glancing toward my lap, the room spinning from anesthesia and my lungs partially collapsed from four and a half hours on surgical ventilation and hundreds — plural — of stitches and a 40-square-inch hole in my thigh where I’d been skinned down to the muscle, I could suddenly feel, in a way I could never have fathomed, that this was what being alive was.



Photo: Dan Winters



There’s a scene in Disney’s original Dumbo when the child elephant’s mom cradles him in her trunk and sings to him, exuding love. Quietly, but wholly. As a kid feeling utterly unheld by this world, I hated it.

As a grown man in a hospital bed, chest loosely draped with a gown in a low-lit December room, I looked down in the direction of a penis I’d assumed would be covered in bandages — but then there it just was. Laid out at an angle toward my left thigh, propped on a green cloth. And I, awed and heartful and weeping, sang that song to it.

Ba-by mine, la na na naaaaaaaaa.

I don’t know the words.

Baaaa-byyyy mine, na na na naaaaaaaa.

La, laaaaaa, la — na na na naaa,

La na na naa, baby of miiine.

While I’d been sleeping, two microsurgeons, a reconstructive urologist, a surgical fellow, and a surgical resident had, among other things, cut a seven-by-six-inch rectangle out of my right anterior lateral thigh. They’d taken all the skin and fat, plus one big nerve and some veins attached to the muscle, and connected the skin to itself in the shape of a phallus. Then they slipped the whole thing under two of my thigh muscles, pulled up out of the way with a steel retractor, dragged the phallus across my groin under the skin, and pulled it back out into the world through a hole cut in the skin over my pubic bone. They connected the new penis’s nerve to one of the nerve bundles in my native penis, which some people call a clitoris (embryologically, the cells are the same), which they’d cut free of its ligaments, then skinned, then tunneled up under the skin and out to the landing site of the new penis, the base of which they joined to the base of my pelvis, putting me all together with sutures, some finer than a human hair.

“That penis,” Dr. Bauback Safa, one of the microsurgeons, said when he came by after to see me — to see us — “looks perfect.”

He was talking mostly about blood flow. He did not mean that, with its fresh stitches and a round, bloody hole at the top where the skin would eventually close together, it would look like any other penis at the spa. But also, it was a lovely shape. Dr. Safa had correctly estimated that the width — which can be debulked with further surgery but is initially determined by skin and fat thickness — would land on the very but not spectacularly girth-y side. The length I had been able to pick. Each surgeon I’d consulted with had asked what I wanted, then nodded mildly and written it down, breezy as a waiter. My instinctive answer was long, even though I knew it would be that long all the time: While neophalluses can be implanted with erectile devices that change their stiffness, they do not change their size.

That penis,” the microsurgeon said when he came by after to see me — to see us — “looks perfect.

“That’s a lot of all-day D,” I’d said to the reconstructive urologist, Dr. Mang Chen, during our pre-op visit the week before. (He gave sort of a friendly, unfazed shrug.) I’d been saying it to myself, too, for months as I waited for my surgery date, wondering why I wanted so much, questioning if I should have less by some, by half, indeed like your average, unremarkable soft penis at the spa (listen: I’m Hungarian; I’m essentially made of hot springs). While the more common option of using flesh from forearms, which are generally slimmer, was barely viable in the case of my apparently bizarrely fatless ones, it was technically still possible, and though that site hadn’t felt right to me even before I was told it would make an appendage without any substance, I considered it anyway.

I second-guessed myself constantly. I’m asexual (yes, you can be asexual and have a boyfriend), and what that means for me is my penis was just for me. So what was even the point of having a lot of it? Was I greedy? Crazy? Weeks before my procedure, I got a block of clay and sat meditating and molding by feel, letting my body answer. The resulting phallus was the exact size I’d been requesting. For days, I lay on the floor on and off in the sunlight coming into my living room, asking my ancestors and transcestors for guidance. Some people might kill for this kind of access and choice. Certainly many, many, many, many people have died in the fight for it. One night, I woke up from a dead sleep, and all I heard was: Take the big dick.

So I did.

And it was perfect. Not in the way I’d been trying to be perfect most of my life — catalogue-ready, ideal to everyone else. It may not have looked perfect by the assessment of every San Franciscan in the gray-white city outside my hospital window, and it was clear to me that it was — that I was — distasteful to some of the hospital staff, even though, with the preponderance of phallo surgeons in the Bay Area, they see multiple new penises every single week. One of my surgeons asked me at some point if I’d want to follow up later with surgical girth reduction in case this here wondrous member we had conjured from fucking nothing into warm, space-displacing reality wasn’t yet the fit that would stop the deafening five-alarm bereavement scream that had ricocheted around my insides incessantly since birth.

But the screaming had stopped. In its absence, I couldn’t read or watch TV, which felt overstimulating and loud. I listened, still, to the quiet. Breathing.

For five days, I lay in a hospital bed without moving. No visitors: COVID. Every day, twice a day, someone came and injected anti-coagulating pig-intestine derivatives into my abdomen so I wouldn’t die from a blood clot, my belly becoming a graveyard of needle-punched bruises. Three times a day, I ate, increasingly impressed and concerned that none of it was exiting my colon. People intermittently emptied my giant catheter bag. Occasionally, a team came and jostled me onto my side for a bit to prevent bedsores, each time the pain like being stabbed everywhere at once despite the on-demand Dilaudid and consistent Oxy. And once an hour, to ensure the vessels were thriving, a nurse came and put a pencil-size Doppler rod to my penis to check its pulse, and we listened together to my blood coursing through it, an ultrasound-heartbeat swoosh.

It was alive.

Some people want it all

But I don’t! Want nothing at allll

I do know the words to this song.

If it ain’t you, ba-by

If I ain’t got you, ba-by

After my discharge, which included a grueling car ride wearing mesh hospital underwear packed full of gauze to keep my penis propped as close to perpendicular to my body as possible, I spent the first hour in bed singing top-volume falsetto Alicia Keys to my penis.

So you can imagine my heart-stopping horror when I woke up that very first night to find that my penis — propped and carefully angled so as not to kink or damage the blood vessels that had been relocated through my leg and groin to sustain it — was cold.

I pressed a finger to the skin and let go, watching the color return. It’s supposed to happen quickly — but, a brief document from the urologist’s office said, not too quickly. What was the right speed? I texted the microsurgeons’ director of transgender services, a nurse named Logan Berrian, but it was 1 a.m. I Googled frantically, though I was already well aware of the dearth of available useful information about phalloplasty. Was the room just cold? How cold was too cold for my penis at this stage in its life? Did I need to go to the emergency room back over the Bay Bridge in San Francisco? Have a surgeon awakened and brought in? My right leg was in a full brace from hip to shin because my blood vessels, unlike most people’s, had turned out to require deep dissection of my rectus femoris muscle to excavate, and moving around was slow, difficult, also scary, often bleeding-causing agony. I pressed a finger to the skin again. And again, watching. Blood was returning. Blood was flowing. I spent the next seven hours watching over it, as if it were a troubled newborn, making sure.

“It’s okay!” Berrian texted me back at 8 a.m. It’s only an emergency if it’s cold and the “color is changing to a white/blue/gray/purple.”

On discharge day five, I woke up with a six-square-inch pool of blood seeping through three layers of bandages from the donor site (“Fine, nothing unusual,” came the text back), which during surgery had been covered with thin skin shaved from my other thigh with an instrument like a motorized cheese slicer, then laid over and stitched into the edges around the exposed muscle of the donor hole. On day seven, blood soaked through two additional layers of bandages and another of gauze. (“Looks good,” the doctor said when I had my friend emergency-drive me back to the city.) Every morning, I got up, after trying to sleep perfectly still on my back with my penis propped and my hips and my legs aching fire, and hobbled with the help of a cane to the toilet, where I used one hand to keep my penis level and the other to reach over to the sink and fill a bowl with warm water, then slowly, gently wash my genitals. Still, my whole lap smelled unrecognizable, not-human seeming, like a cross between hospital air and a livestock barn. (“Everyone freaks out about that,” a different nurse said over the phone, laughing a little, when I asked if I was okay.) For more than 30 days, my donor thigh oozed fibrinous fluid from wet holes, which became big, open red gashes where the skin graft hadn’t taken. (“It’ll close. It’s just like any other wound,” said Dr. Andrew Watt, the other microsurgeon, at my fourth weekly post-op appointment — to which I’d responded, “Is it?”) My other leg, the one the graft had been taken from, had dried blood always flaking from the sometimes burning, four-by-seven-inch skinned site trying to regrow itself, and at some point my penis started to separate a bit from my body.

It was a tiny gap, the littlest hole, between the base and my pelvis at the underside where the stitches hadn’t closed, small compared with many people’s wound separation, as it’s called, which happens “90 percent of the time” and is self-resolving. But it was so distressing that I mostly just refused to look at or touch it for two weeks, the panic spreading harsh electricity through my whole torso, even worse and for much longer than the time I stood alone in my kitchen, hyperventilating, holding my penis level in one hand and my phone in the other as I Googled, “What does gangrene smell like?”

“The whole process is constant body horror,” Berrian said at one point — after he’d told me that the penis-tip discoloration I was worried about might just be sloughing tissue that’s dying off, which is also fine. And this was a recovery with no complications that required surgery. The overall proportion of phalloplasties that need surgical revision, while lower for some surgeons (including mine), is about one in two. The highest number of corrective follow-up surgeries needed by anyone I know personally is 12.

This is what some people do for their penises. And though phalloplasties that survive a couple of weeks tend to survive, period, through all manner of regular penis life and then some, I was hysterical over the possibility that mine wouldn’t. If it died, I felt certain, I would die. I had pushed myself up against the absolute limits of enduring life without it, and I wouldn’t go back to before.

I couldn’t go back to before.

One day, in that first week out of the hospital, I stood with my leg in a brace and my weight on a cane, thudding the tip of it rhythmically into the floor while listening to upbeat Billie Eilish. It was the closest thing to dancing I could do, but I understood then, for the first time, that what dancing is about is that Our. Bodies. Are. Spec. Tacular.

Another day, I lay on a couch staring into a shaft of sunlight coming through a window, listening to “Can’t Find My Way Home” on repeat, tears quietly streaming. The sensation was foreign so a little bit scary, but I think the feeling I was feeling was what people mean when they say calm.

At other moments, I was so overwhelmed by floods of repressed rage and grief that all I could do was open my mouth and start screaming.

When you release an animal you’ve been keeping too long in a cage, a therapist of mine used to say, it tends to emerge snarling. “It all comes swirling out after surgery,” oliver flowers, a caregiver with T4T Caregiving, an all-trans caregiving service, texted after I reached out one night in despair. Barely able to move, I tried breathwork and meditation and a soothing bedtime-story app before, out of desperation, I started making up lyrics to “The Sound of Silence” (Hello, penis, my new frieeennd), cry-singing out my struggle through an epic that ended up probably 17 verses long. “So many of us have had to put up walls of protection to get us to this point, then the intensity of the experience breaks it all down,” flowers said. I don’t use the words trauma or torture flippantly; I know from both. And you don’t escape four decades in a body that feels simultaneously dead and like an eternal wellspring of agony without either. “It’s just that we’ve had to hold in so much for so long — and this process frees us from that … but not before feeling it all.”

Around day 50, I realized I couldn’t remember the last time I’d thought about killing myself. The first story I ever wrote — in my head, building chains of memorized sentences, same as I compose to this day — was about committing suicide by walking into the Atlantic Ocean. I hadn’t yet started kindergarten.

Able to move around a little better, I washed my bathroom sink. Not the whole bathroom — just the sink. And though I have always run a tight bathroom, I stood back and beamed at it, at myself, as though I’d just discovered penicillin. Almost every time I made myself a plate of food, though I’d been feeding myself (and sometimes additional adults/husbands) for decades, I said, often out loud, “I did that!” Everything was a miracle. Everything was different now that I lived this existence I’d been violently and thoroughly socialized to believe was an impossibility. At day 60, my open wounds finally, unimaginably, closed.

In the beginning, the nerve connection growing in slowly, I could feel my penis in my hand, as I incessantly had to hold it while limping around my apartment, or against my wrist as I hunched over to rest it there like some kind of penis sommelier, freeing my fingers. But it couldn’t feel me.

“I’m always bashing it into things,” I told someone early on. After it was healed enough that I could finally stop propping or holding it, I’d walk up to the kitchen sink to do dishes and bash my penis into the cupboard knob. Raising my hands to gesture while I talked, I’d drop them back into my lap and punch myself in the dick — which, before long, I definitely felt. For a while, I was most comfortable relatively nonconstricted (I see you, Jon Hamm), and I sent a barrage of texts to a guy I knew with similar endowments asking where he put his, spiraling about how I was never going to fit into any pants or underpants or, ultimately, society. One day, I rounded a tight corner into the tea aisle at the grocery store and, misjudging my proximity to a display table, knocked a wine bottle over with my dick, feeling a hot flush of embarrassment that I didn’t know the dimensions of my own body.

One night in the shower, though, my right thigh, finally in one piece but still unfamiliar, caught my attention. I had a (trans) friend who said once that his reaction to seeing thigh phalloplasty scars was “That’s a nice penis. But look at your leg.” I looked down at it: a raw, raging pink rectangle, scaly from the hole-punching machine they’d fed the skin graft through, flesh made mesh to cover the exposed muscle, and another long line of scar like railroad track angling toward my groin. And it struck me, immediately and only, as another incredibly specific thing I got to love about myself, and I collapsed into the wall, sobbing.


It’s interesting to see how you’re different,” a friend of mine said ten months after the surgery, when I went to visit him.

It was possible, of course, that I was going to wake up different—in a bad way. Some of the best men I know don’t have penises, and plenty who do are hardly role models. I’ve been on the abuse/harassment/condescension/denigration/objectification/crimes end of enough penis-havers to have worried about it, however far back in my consciousness. I had a partner once who terrorized me about his sexual “needs,” and some time before starting to transition, I spent an afternoon on mushrooms crying against his dick, silently telling it I knew it wasn’t its fault. It was probable I was going to wake up more me. And I feared, from my most scared place, that would mean more harmful.

“There’s a gentleness,” my friend said about me now. “It was always there,” he added, having known me for many years. “It just wasn’t … first.”

No. It wasn’t. But when penis is self, as penis is a gift to self, it’s a gift, too, to others.

A few months prior, I’d sat on the couch with my boyfriend having a contentious and difficult conversation. At any other point in my adulthood, I would have shut down hard with defensiveness. That day, though, even still healing, wounded and broken and terrified that my leg would never really work again, I stayed soft and open and kind.

You, he said, eyes wide, are being so generous.

I was surprised too. As a child growing up in the Midwest in the 1980s, I never could have known, but somehow must have believed, that there was a way a man could, even frightened and unsure, stay grounded in love for himself. No matter how unexpected or unaccepted that self was.

A few years ago, a year after I started transitioning, I sat at a red light in my car, which I was getting ready to sell, and thought suddenly, What kind of a man doesn’t have a car? A belief I didn’t even know I’d absorbed from somewhere (an early episode of The Love Connection, I am almost positive) was floating around my consciousness, wreaking insufficiency. A year after that, I joined a gym, wondering if now that I was teeming with testosterone, I might enjoy gym workouts (answer: no. Every few minutes, the personal trainer I signed up with directed me to do an exercise, and every time, I thought, Why? Why would I do that?). One day, after my trainer had me pick up some dumbbells, I expressed doubts that I’d be able to press them. “You picked ’em up, you gotta put ’em up,” he said so automatically that I asked, “Is that what masculinity is?” (He laughed, surprised, before responding, “I guess so!”) Allegedly, masculinity isn’t the sound of my voice, because though its pitch (130 hertz, whatever that means) is “within the normal male range” (whatever that means), the overall effect, an actual medical doctor told me once, is female because I talk like such a girl.

It’s not a penis that makes someone a man, either. And a vagina does not make a woman. Most people who are having phalloplasty, though, do get their vaginas removed during the procedure. Broadly, I get it: I could not have gotten my boobs cut off fast enough, and I spent weeks before my 2019 hysterectomy up late in bed, hot and sleepless, fantasizing about the moment the medical-waste-disposal team at UC San Francisco would batch-incinerate my uterus, which swirled with dysphoria like nausea from the depths of my soul. But just as you might feel an automatic no if a doctor offered to cut one of your healthy arms off for you, when I thought about cauterizing, excising, and sewing closed my vagina, my whole body cringed: wrong.

“Do you have to get rid of your vagina?” I’d asked the first phalloplasty recipient I’d ever met when he came over to my house for macaroni and cheese one night before my first consult. He’d generously offered to share his surgery experience, and I’d maybe surprised myself by asking but definitely surprised myself with my response when he said no: I involuntarily fist-pumped.

Using plastic-surgery methods that were developed because so many people’s faces were blown off during the First World War, the first phalloplasty was performed in the 1930s. A couple of decades later, trans-surgery centers started opening at several American universities. But in the ’80s, most of the university surgery centers closed or went private, and by 2000, the going rate for a phalloplasty was $80,000, cash only. Those surgeons often held “a very rigid view of what our transition should be,” says trans elder, activist, and policy consultant Jamison Green; they aimed to make good, regular straights out of us, and it was known in the community that if you weren’t one, you’d better lie about it. They excluded people who had given birth because real men, Green says, “wouldn’t let themselves have kids.” One transmasculine pioneer, Lou Sullivan, wrote long letters to Stanford’s clinic for rejecting him because he was gay.

“I’ve been trying to just live without a penis for a very, very long time,” I wrote in a journal after my first consult in early 2020. “No one’s holding me back but me.” But that cliché isn’t true, is it? That’s a survival adaptation of the oppressed: to take on responsibility for their own suffering so they don’t give up against impossible odds or lash out in ways that further endanger them. The midwestern state I grew up in still explicitly excludes trans health care from state insurance coverage. This year, more than 100 bills in 35 states targeted trans people’s access to civil and medical rights. In 2020, to get phalloplasty covered in the great(est) state of California, which has legally mandated state trans health coverage since just 2013, in addition to the usual bullshit of spending a part-time job’s worth of hours and energy getting and then wrangling insurance and doctors’ offices and prerequisites, I needed letters from three separate medical professionals, not counting my three world-class surgeons, declaring that I wasn’t insane. Currently, there are only about a dozen phalloplasty teams in the whole country — mine started putting their world-class skills to phalloplasty use partly because they could get paid for it by insurance — and up until recently there was still at least one surgeon who wouldn’t allow patients to keep their vaginas, not because it was medically impossible but because he didn’t think it was right to have both.

“The pain is not just that I’ve been ignoring myself but that I still am,” my journal entry continues. But it isn’t true, either, that the attempt to erase my existence originated with me. One day, lying on my couch in quarantine before surgery, I watched a Ben Stiller–Eddie Murphy movie recommended by HBO Max — until the point when, apropos of absolutely nothing, a character makes a joke about a real-life trans guy who, in real life, was brutally raped and shot to death. Shortly after that, Hulu recommended a Keanu Reeves–Winona Ryder movie from 2018, in which Reeves’s character says trans people are deluded untouchables. While I was recovering, I watched a Jennifer Lopez rom-com from the same year, happily zoned out like a normal person until 29 minutes in, when she does a bit where she tells a guy someone is trans(masculine); the joke is that the guy used to have sex with that trans person, and now that he knows he fucked one, he is disgusted.

Months later, this latter scene popped into my head while I was making hummus and made me cry. I get messages like this in some form every day. In a break from working on this story, I turned on a hotel TV, and within minutes Chandler on Friends was saying he finds his transfeminine parent revolting. This is a recurring feature of this show, which I watched all through my teens. Seven months into recovery then, I felt, like all the other times, the knife of it through the center of my chest: You are not welcome here.

As I had with my penis length, I second-guessed my “unique surgical goals” (Okay but what if I did just let them sew up my vagina?) from the moment I knew they were possible, but the morning I walked into the hospital, I trusted my instincts. If there was anything I had learned in transitioning, it was that what was right for me was rarely what, according to my patriarchal, heterosexist, racist, capitalist acculturation, “made sense” — which, obviously, could only be to live as a sexually available cute-lady vessel capable of carrying white babies. It’s impossible to articulate and maybe even to know exactly why my vagina is integral to my power and my personhood. “I cannot wait to be more masculine so I can be more feminine,” I used to write in journals as I started transitioning and realized, though I didn’t quite understand why, that was what I needed.

An intuitive once told me that in a past life I was a priestess. Whatever it is that made me this, given, finally, the remarkable chance to embody it, which technically has been available since decades before I was born, I stopped withholding myself from myself, even if much of the world is aligned against who that is.

I’ve never seen or heard of a book or show character or even another person who is an asexual gay man with a penis and a vagina. But after I got out of the hospital, standing in the bathroom washing my hands, with most of my body, much less my genitalia, well outside the mirror’s frame, I looked up and suddenly, for the first time in my life, recognized my own face.

Not everyone does. Sometimes I get misgendered — sometimes even by people who are trying their best. Just last week, someone at the photo shoot for this article misgendered me repeatedly, not noticing at first, then, after I’d corrected him, cursing himself, apologizing sincerely. I took a moment outside, letting the loneliness sink in. Only days prior, I had been misgendered and responded, in a hard-dying habit, by blaming myself — if only my voice were deeper; if only I were less femme — instead of the systems that had worked to erase me and people like me for centuries.

This time, I refused to internalize it. There isn’t, I breathed deep, anything wrong with me. I got myself ready and walked on set and stood, nearly nude, compassionate and angry and proud. Whatever was happening around me, I was centered, in my body and in the shots I could see on the monitor, beautiful, accurate — perfect. Days before my penis’s first birthday, the warmth and weight of it lay against my vulva, each supporting the other, holding me.


Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Five Lingering Questions About ‘The Beatles: Get Back’

 Five Lingering Questions About ‘The Beatles: Get Back’

Nearly three weeks after the docuseries’ release, there are a few things we can’t shake: What did ‘Get Back’ teach us about the Beatles? And should we lament the band’s breakup?

By Ben Lindbergh  The Ringer


I’ve had a hard time putting The Beatles: Get Back behind me, and not only because it’s eight hours long. Almost three weeks after the docuseries’ debut on Disney+, a piece of me is still stuck in 1969. Get Back’s got a hold on me partly because the Beatles, in addition to having many other virtues, were a really great hang. Their charisma and rapport can’t be separated from their recordings—the former influenced the latter—but their appealing (if partly performative) public personas have almost as much to do with their undimmed legend as with the music they made. When soon-to-be Beatles manager Brian Epstein watched the band perform for the first time in 1961, he was struck not just by their appearance and sound but by their sense of humor and “personal charm.” Even though the band was approaching the precipice when it made Let It Be, Get Back is bursting with Beatles allure. (Note: I know some of you must be sick of hearing and reading about the Beatles by now. Give it a few centuries for the fuss to die down.)

The intimate nature of the three-act epic, which director Peter Jackson presents without the distancing effects of 50-years-later talking heads or narration, deepened my parasocial bond with a band that broke up long before I was born. Watching Get Back is a passable facsimile of sitting in a studio with an engaging group of friends who happen to be some of the best songwriters ever. Spend enough time bathed in the incandescent creativity at the nexus of ’60s culture, and the present can’t help but seem drab by comparison. To trot out an overused expression, The Beatles: Get Back is a vibe, one that’s difficult to forget and impossible to replicate in real life.

I’m also still savoring Get Back because I’m worried that I’ll never see something quite like it again—not just about the Beatles but about anything. In an era when most media is instantly accessible, popular IP is endlessly recycled, and virtually every archive has been picked clean—when every album from rock’s heyday, including Let It Be, has been reissued and remastered and adorned with demos and rarities as many times as Baby Boomers’ checkbooks will bear—Get Back is a rare rich and untapped treasure. Watching it is like discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, except instead of snippets of text on brittle parchment, it’s crystal-clear audio and video that looks like it could’ve been captured last week. Get Back’s fidelity is deceptive—it took years of painstaking work with proprietary technology to make the decades drop away—yet it still seems miraculous that most of this footage sat almost unseen until now. This is the world’s most celebrated band in one of its most momentous months, extracted from amber and brought back to life (in a nonthreatening way).

And so, instead of consigning Get Back to my towering pile of completed content, I keep turning it over in my mind. I’m left with some silly, inconsequential questions, such as: Should I be eating more toast? And: If the Beatles hadn’t voluntarily left the rooftop, would those beleaguered bobbies still be awkwardly waiting for them to stop playing? Or: Which was original documentarian Michael Lindsay-Hogg’s worst suggestion of a venue for a rock concert, an orphanage or a children’s hospital? But the docuseries stirs thoughts about some more substantial subjects, too. So before we close the book on the Beatles—until their inevitable next revival—let’s consider five lingering questions prompted by Get Back.

What did Get Back teach us about the Beatles?

If there’s anyone in the world who wouldn’t have stood to learn a lot about the Beatles from Get Back, it’s Mark Lewisohn. Lewisohn, a leading Beatleologist, is the author of a shelfful of books about the band, including The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions and The Beatles: All These Years, an in-progress, three-volume, comprehensive chronicle that makes Jackson look like a dilettante. Yet even Lewisohn had his eyes opened.

“No one knows everything about anything,” he says via email. “Even in this instance, where I’d listened to close-on 100 hours of the audio spools from the month, I knew that seeing the footage in Get Back was going to tell me a huge amount. If anything, I underestimated that. It’s nothing less than the Beatles education primer, ultimately instructive to me and anyone else who really wants to see and hear who they were and how they worked. Get Back provides an immeasurable contribution to our understanding of what made the Beatles so remarkable.”

Like everyone else alive (including, probably, Paul and Ringo), I know less about the Beatles than Lewisohn, and I found Get Back revealing in some respects too. Just not necessarily in the way that much of the prerelease hype promised.

Much of the coverage that set the scene for Get Back focused on the series’ potential to reshape the public’s long-standing conception of the sessions that led to Let It Be and the Beatles’ breakup in general. The former members of the Beatles had helped create that impression by slagging the sessions and the resulting documentary for half a century or so; in 1970, John called making the movie “hell” and “six weeks of misery,” and early this year, Ringo dismissed the doc as a “very narrow” view with “no joy in it.” Get Back contradicts the idea that the sessions were a depressing slog. Then again, so does Let It Be, which is available in various formats via Archive.org. Although Let It Be features a couple of the contentious exchanges that show up again in Get Back, Ringo’s review doesn’t really ring true. Lindsay-Hogg’s response to Ringo is right: There’s plenty of levity, ridiculous voicework, and productive collaboration in Let It Be, and its balance between tension and silliness, fractures and affection, doesn’t strike me as meaningfully different. As Jackson acknowledged, Get Back is in some respects actually a “lot tougher movie than Let It Be,” which didn’t even note that George had briefly left the band.

Lewisohn says that Get Back is “honest” and “maintained maximum integrity,” which suggests that Jackson didn’t distort what went on (even though Paul, Ringo, and the widows of John and George served as producers). For all its cinema-verité trappings, Get Back is still a work created by practiced performers who knew they were being observed, so what we see might not accurately reflect the way the Beatles experienced the sessions. Outwardly, though, they appeared to have a lot of love (or at least cheerful tolerance) left for one another, and despite their growing grudges, they were still largely working well as a band. The idea that Let It Be was an unrelenting downer was mostly a myth born of negativity bias, the mid-breakup context in which the original documentary came out, and the inaccessibility of the original print over the intervening years.

Whether or not Get Back corrects a real record (as opposed to a vaguely and selectively remembered record), it’s still a useful counterpoint to people printing the legend. By the time the band convened at Twickenham, most of its members had been close companions and collaborators for more than a decade. They’d endured the crucible of Beatlemania together, matured together, and made amazing art together. Theirs wasn’t a bond that could be broken overnight—or ever, really. Yes, there were years of estrangement, diss tracks, and sniping in the press, but most of the Beatles still socialized and recorded with one another both immediately and long after the breakup, and even Lennon and McCartney eventually reconciled to some extent. As bad blood between former bandmates goes, the Beatles don’t really rank with Simon & Garfunkel or Waters and Gilmour.

If anything, Get Back reinforced my preexisting impressions of the understandable strains that would soon splinter the group, a natural death caused by outgrowing a group formed when they were no-name teens: John’s drug use and devotion to Yoko; George’s frustration with being underestimated as a songwriter; Paul’s sometimes domineering attempts to keep the trains running. The movie isn’t a definitive document of the Beatles’ breakup, because the band’s relational low point didn’t come during the sessions that produced Let It Be. The Beatles made another album after that—Abbey Road followed Let It Be but preceded it in stores—and until their business differences drove them apart, they intended to make more. In early ’69, the worst was still ahead, foreshadowed in Get Back by John Lennon’s fateful infatuation with Allen Klein. Ultimately, though, it’s much more rewarding to analyze how the Beatles blossomed and why they burned as brightly as they did during their decade of continual reinvention than it is to obsess over why they weren’t partners for life. (Nothing drives home how quickly the Beatles remade music than to hear them revisit their oldies as if they were artifacts of an ancient time, less than six years after recording Please Please Me.)

Fortunately, Get Back is much more than a ticktock of the band’s decline. It’s an extended, singular look at the act of creation—both the magical moments when inspiration strikes, and the more tedious stick-rubbing sessions when those tenuous sparks are fanned into flames. The series brings the Beatles’ late-’60s creative process to the screen in a much more nuanced and compelling package than the 80-minute Let It Be, which lacks Get Back’s narrative structure, riveting visuals, and carefully cleaned-up dialogue. It doesn’t really write a new story so much as it enriches and adds depth to an old one, the ending of which the world has been hearing for years. But well worn as these songs are, it’s still wondrous to see them be born.

Get Back showed me how memories are made. It reminded me that history is haphazard, and that the lyrics and tracklists and performances that seem preordained to those who came along later were actually in flux up until the second they were set in stone. (As George says, “You just go into something and it does it itself. Whatever it’s gonna be, it becomes that.”) It emphasized that the Beatles weren’t ahead of their time only as music makers but also as multimedia artists who made their mark from fashion and album art to movies. (Although they thought they were shooting a more conventional TV special and documentary, the Beatles composing and recording an album on camera was essentially reality TV before An American Family, or streaming 40-plus years before Twitch.) And it also drove home how aware at least some of the Beatles were of where they had been, where they were going, and how they would probably be remembered long after the fact. The interpersonal problems that fans and scholars still debate today aren’t subtext in Get Back; they’re discussed by the band in real time. But even though the Beatles were aware of what was pulling them apart, they couldn’t undo the damage. Life can be cruel like that.

Who looks the best in Get Back?

That’s easy: George, when he wore this pink suit.

But I’m not talking about who had the best outfit. Which Beatle’s stock climbed the most because this footage finally came to light?

It could be a coincidence, but Get Back’s biggest Beatle beneficiaries are the two who survived to see it. I wrote last week about how Get Back boosts Paul: He has the most luscious hair, the most ambitious vision, the most indomitable work ethic, and most of Let It Be’s best songs. It’s not surprising that Paul is pumped about Get Back, because it’s helped him walk back a PR misstep he made in 1970 that helped create a lasting perception that he’d broken up the band. In reality, he was the last to leave and the most committed to keeping the group together. Get Back makes clear that while Paul’s controlling tendencies were pissing off George and John, they were also the impetus for the Beatles to be where they were, making music and movies for us to enjoy. And no, he wasn’t looking at Yoko when he was singing “Get Back.”

And then there’s Ringo, the Magic Christian star, who quietly conveys why he was the missing piece that put the group over the top. As Linda McCartney observed, he was the easiest Beatle to be around: the oldest, the most mellow, and the quickest with comic relief. Some people might find it humbling or maddening to be the mere mortal plunking out the chords to “Taking a Trip to Carolina” while your pals are composing “Something” and “Let It Be.” That disparity in songwriting skill didn’t seem to bother Ringo, who was happy to be in a beloved band and to make its music better. He showed up on time, open to input and prepared to play. And when he wasn’t catching some shut-eye or passing some gas, he was working out the chords to “Octopus’s Garden” (with a little help from his friends). Ringo was the glue guy and an invaluable buffer between the more combative Beatles. The way he took his band’s drama in stride helps explain why he looks about 60 at age 81.

Is Get Back the ideal length?

When Let It Be… Naked came out in 2003, it was accompanied by a 22-minute bonus disk called Fly on the Wall, which cut together assorted studio chatter and excerpts of songs from the Let It Be sessions. I found Fly on the Wall so seductive that I tracked down the Beatles bootleg Thirty Days, a 17-disc collection of the “best” of the same sessions. Twenty-two minutes wasn’t nearly enough, but as it turned out, 17 discs (and 18-plus hours) was way more than I needed. Is eight hours the sweet spot?

Jackson was the one with unfettered access to almost 60 hours of video and more than twice as much audio, so he has the best sense of the directorial roads not taken. On the one hand, anything Beatles-related is historically significant, so it must have been difficult to stick most of the footage back in the vault. On the other hand, Jackson isn’t known for his economical editing, so whatever he couldn’t find room for must have been boring or redundant indeed.

Jackson is ultra-enthused about all things Beatles, and it’s clear that he made Get Back with fellow Fab heads in mind. Beatles fans are a big demographic, but there’s still a significant barrier to entry here. Some people aren’t willing to watch eight hours of anything. Others would be down for a standard-length doc about the Beatles but would balk at devoting a third of a day to the making of a middling album (by Beatles standards). And even as a Jacksonian Beatles obsessive, I’ll admit that a trim here or there could have kept my mind from wandering. Look, I like “Don’t Let Me Down,” but I know how it goes. (Given that approximately 18 takes of that song survived, I’d love to know what wound up in the digital trash bin.)

This sounds like a stretch, but all in all, I’d argue that eight hours isn’t far from the optimal length. An eight-hour run time makes Get Back an event, a gourmet meal to be digested and discussed over several sittings. It’s long enough to include the unproductive days that provide a more complete picture of the Beatles’ time at Twickenham, and it’s long enough for viewers to feel like they’ve taken a trip and been immersed in a milieu. The length also sets it apart in a saturated Beatles nostalgia market: There’s no shortage of regular-length movies about the Beatles already out there if that’s what you want, and it would have done a disservice to those with bottomless Beatles appetites to bury much more of this gold again. Plus, once you’re seven hours in, what’s another hour? Heck, who am I kidding: I’d watch the extended edition and re-live it in VR.

Would Get Back’s format fit anything else?

Get Back is a testament to the brilliance of the Beatles. But its message is more universal than that: Music is amazing. No, that’s not news. But I can’t recall a more persuasive illustration of what makes music special than this series.

I’m sure you remember the moment when McCartney starts strumming, borrows a line fragment from Harrison’s “Sour Milk Sea,” and suddenly finds himself singing the song that would soon be “Get Back.” It’s the most jaw-dropping documentary moment since Robert Durst’s faux confession in The Jinx, though this one is as thrilling as that one was chilling.

Even among the songs on Let It Be, an album slapped together quickly, “Get Back” is a bit of an outlier. Although the movie makes it sound as if the Beatles were starting from scratch, many of the songs that ended up on the album (or on Abbey Road) had been bouncing around their brains for months or years. But when Paul played “Get Back,” he really did do it live. It’s the clearest look at music history happening in the studio since Bruce Dickinson demanded more cowbell.

Granted, it’s not as if you or I could make cranking out a hit look as effortless; this is Paul McCartney, whose combination of genius and practice helped him write timeless songs in his sleep. (“I had one this morning,” he says before playing the complete melody of “The Back Seat of My Car.”) So yes, the Beatles set a high bar. But bands will be formed because someone saw Paul write “Get Back” or Harrison stroll in and announce that he wrote “I Me Mine” or “Old Brown Shoe” overnight. You can’t write a book or make a feature film or (probably) program a game by yourself in one night. But if you’re diligent, talented, and lucky, you can write a song on the spot that people won’t stop singing for 50-plus years.

Which work of art do you wish you could watch springing into existence, the way we can lurk in Let It Be’s delivery room? Even if every artist had hired a Michael Lindsay-Hogg, the Get Back model wouldn’t work for everything. You could film a novelist in the midst of a masterpiece, but it wouldn’t be fun to watch someone sit silently and type. The magic of making music, as depicted in Get Back, is that it’s an intoxicating, spontaneous spectator sport: You can see and hear it happening, whether it’s Paul (“Tucson, Arizona!”) or George (“Attracts me like no other lover!”) fumbling for a line or the whole band trying out a faster tempo for “Get Back.”

Watching Bob Ross paint can be calming, but I don’t know whether one could make a compelling equivalent of Get Back—a chronicle of creation that speaks for itself—about any other kind of art. There’s already too much TV to keep up with, and a lot of documentaries are too long as it is. But here’s hoping more bands will keep their cameras on when they’re working, just in case inspiration strikes.

Should we lament that the Beatles broke up?

Sometimes it seems as if the Beatles never called it quits. Get Back is the latest in a long line of recent reasons to re-celebrate them: The Beatles Anthology, or 1, or Love, or The Beatles: Rock Band, or their catalog gracing music streaming services, or Yesterday. Yet even though they’re inescapable, Get Back is bittersweet—not only because it documents the Beatles getting very near the end of their formal alliance but because it’s a portrait of four spiritual siblings on the verge of falling out of friendship, at least for a while. It’s hard to hear McCartney tell Lennon, “Probably when we’re all very old, we’ll all agree with each other, and we’ll all sing together,” and not regret that he and Lennon would (almost) never sing together again after the Beatles broke up, or that Lennon didn’t get to grow old at all. It’s also hard to hear the Beatles run through inchoate or nearly fully formed versions of future solo songs such as “Gimme Some Truth,” “Jealous Guy,” “All Things Must Pass,” “Another Day,” and “The Back Seat of My Car” without dreaming about the Beatles albums that could’ve been. Combine the highlights of the albums that John, George, and Paul put out in ’70 and ’71 alone and you’d have the makings of the best Beatles album ever (if not the top two).

I’d rather dwell on what we gained than what we lost. Here’s my more positive take: I don’t think we missed out on much music because the Beatles broke up. If the band had stayed together for a few more years, they would have separated themselves even further from their closest competitors in the musical career rankings. But it’s not as though the Beatles could be much better regarded than they already are. Say the group had mended fences, stuck it out for five years, and kept recording at something close to their previous pace. They might have had six or seven solid albums in them after Abbey Road. Individually, though, the ex-Beatles made roughly 13 albums over that period that I would classify as good to great. (Your mileage may vary.) I’d argue that the pressure to succeed as solo artists and the urge to one-up each other contributed to that productivity. Even if the average quality of those solo albums is lower than the average quality of the hypothetical Beatles albums would have been, it’s hard for me to imagine the Beatles together making much more good music during that span than the ex-Beatles did on their own.

The fact that the Beatles got together during their formative years as musicians made it possible for them to reach the heights that they did. But by ’69, they were mostly writing separately. (In Get Back, some of their songs improve with input or significant contributions from others, but most are fairly fully formed when they’re introduced to the group.) On top of that, they all sang their own songs. Granted, it would have been nice to hear what the other Beatles brought to the others’ solo songs, but although the Beatles had a distinctive sound, the absence of that sound was arguably less costly and transformative than, say, the Stones or The Who splitting up at the same time would have been for early-’70s Jagger, Richards, or Townshend solo songs. The Beatles together would have written some music that never actually came to be. But would Beatle John have felt free to record the screams and confessional lyrics of Plastic Ono Band? Would Beatle Paul have brought the band to Scotland to preserve the pastoral beauty of Ram? Would Beatle George have convinced John and Paul to make room for every strong song from All Things Must Pass?

More broadly, would it have been better if the Beatles had plateaued, slumped, and fallen out of favor in the ’70s or ’80s, as most of their peers (and their own solo output) did, instead of ending on an ever-evolving upswing? Could there have been a more appropriate ending than “The End”? There may be a better Beatles timeline than this one in the musical multiverse, but as McCartney once sang, “This wasn’t bad, so a much better place would have to be special. No need to be sad.” Especially not now that whenever we want, we can time travel back to where the Beatles once belonged.

Monday, December 13, 2021

What’s So Great About Great-Books Courses?

What’s So Great About Great-Books Courses?


The humanities are in danger, but humanists can’t agree on how—or why—they should be saved.

By Louis Menand The New Yorker


Critics argue that academic careerists have derailed the true purpose of college—the pursuit of self-knowledge.Illustration by Cristiana Couceiro; Source photographs from Getty; Library of Congress

Roosevelt Montás was born in a rural village in the Dominican Republic and immigrated to the United States when he was eleven years old. He attended public schools in Queens, where he took classes in English as a second language, then entered Columbia College through a government program for low-income students. After getting his B.A., he was admitted to Columbia’s Ph.D. program in English and Comparative Literature when a dean got the department to reconsider his application, which had been rejected. He received a Ph.D. in 2004 and has been teaching at Columbia ever since, now as a senior lecturer, a renewable but untenured appointment. He is forty-eight.

Arnold Weinstein is eighty-one. Although he was an indifferent student in high school, he was admitted to Princeton, spent his junior year in Paris, an experience that fired an interest in literature, and received a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1968. He was hired by Brown, was tenured in 1973, and is today the Richard and Edna Salomon Distinguished Professor of Comparative Literature. These two men started on very different life paths and ended up writing the same book.

They are even being published by the same university press, Princeton. Montás’s is called “Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation”; Weinstein’s is “The Lives of Literature: Reading, Teaching, Knowing.” The genre, a common one for academics writing non-scholarly books, is a combination of memoir (some family history, career anecdotes), criticism (readings of selected texts to illustrate convictions of the author’s), and polemic against trends the author disapproves of. The polemic can sometimes take the form of “It’s all gone to hell.” Montás’s and Weinstein’s books fall into the “It’s all gone to hell” category.

Both men teach what are called—unfortunately but inescapably—“great books” courses. Since Weinstein works at a college that has no requirements outside the major, his courses are departmental offerings, but the syllabi seem to be composed largely of books by well-known Western writers, from Sophocles to Toni Morrison. At Columbia, undergraduates must complete two years of non-departmental great-books courses: Masterpieces of Western Literature and Philosophy, for first-year students, and Introduction to Contemporary Civilization in the West, for sophomores. These courses, among others, known as “the Core,” originated around the time of the First World War and have been required since 1947. Montás not only teaches in the Core; he served for ten years as the director of the Center for the Core Curriculum.

Although Montás and Weinstein are highly successful academics at two leading universities, where they are, no doubt, popular teachers, they feel alienated from and, to some extent, disrespected by the higher-education system. As they see it, they are doing God’s work. Their humanities colleagues are careerists who have lost sight of what education is about, and their institutions are in service to Mammon and Big Tech.

It will probably not improve their spirits to point out that professors have been making the same complaints ever since the American research university came into being, in the late nineteenth century. “Rescuing Socrates” and “The Lives of Literature” can be placed on a long shelf that contains books such as Hiram Corson’s “The Aims of Literary Study” (1894), Irving Babbitt’s “Literature and the American College” (1908), Robert Maynard Hutchins’s “The Higher Learning in America” (1936), Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” (1987), William Deresiewicz’s “Excellent Sheep” (2014), and dozens of other impassioned and sometimes eloquent works explaining that higher education has lost its soul. It’s a song that never ends.

So, although Montás and Weinstein seem to think that things went wrong recently, things (from the point of view they represent) were wrong from the start. The conflict these professors are experiencing between their educational ideals and the priorities of their institutions is baked into the system.

That conflict is essentially a dispute over the purpose of college. How did the great books get caught up in it? In the old college system, the entire curriculum was prescribed, and there were lists of books that every student was supposed to study—a canon. The canon was the curriculum. In the modern university, students elect their courses and choose their majors. That is the system the great books were designed for use in. The great books are outside the regular curriculum.

The idea of the great books emerged at the same time as the modern university. It was promoted by works like Noah Porter’s “Books and Reading: Or What Books Shall I Read and How Shall I Read Them?” (1877) and projects like Charles William Eliot’s fifty-volume Harvard Classics (1909-10). (Porter was president of Yale; Eliot was president of Harvard.) British counterparts included Sir John Lubbock’s “One Hundred Best Books” (1895) and Frederic Farrar’s “Great Books” (1898). None of these was intended for students or scholars. They were for adults who wanted to know what to read for edification and enlightenment, or who wanted to acquire some cultural capital.

The idea made its way into universities after 1900 as part of a backlash against the research model, led by proponents of what was called “liberal culture.” These were professors, mainly in the humanities, who deplored the university’s new emphasis on science, specialization, and expertise. For the key to the concept of the great books is that you do not need any special training to read them.

In a great-books course of the kind that Montás and Weinstein teach, undergraduates read primary texts, then meet in a classroom to share their responses with their peers. Discussion is led by an instructor, but the instructor’s job is not to give the students a more informed understanding of the texts, or to train them in methods of interpretation, which is what would happen in a typical literature- or philosophy-department course. The instructor’s job is to help the students relate the texts to their own lives. For people like Montás and Weinstein, it is also to personify what a life shaped by reading books like these can be. “The teacher models the still living power of the book,” as Weinstein puts it.

You can see the problem. Universities like Brown and Columbia make big investments in training scholars and researchers in their doctoral programs, and then, after they are credentialled and hired as professors, supporting their work with office and laboratory space, libraries, computers and related technology, research budgets, conference and travel funds, sabbaticals, and so on. Why should an English professor who got his degree with a dissertation on the American Transcendentalists (as Montás did), and who doesn’t read Italian or know anything about medieval Christianity, teach Dante (in a week!), when you have a whole department of Italian-literature scholars on your faculty? What qualifies a man like Arnold Weinstein, who has spent his entire adult life in the literature departments of Ivy League universities, to guide eighteen-year-olds in ruminations on the state of their souls and the nature of the good life?

It’s not an accident or a misfortune that great-books pedagogy is an antibody in the “knowledge factory” of the research university, in other words. It was intended as an antibody. The disciplinary structure of the modern university came first; the great-books courses came after. As Montás says, “The practice of liberal education, especially in the context of a research university, is pointedly countercultural.”

Montás is using the term “liberal education” mistakenly. Virtually every course at an élite school like Columbia, from poetry to physics, is part of a liberal education. “Liberal” just means free and disinterested. It means that inquiry is pursued without fear or favor, regardless of the outcome and whatever the field of study. Universities exist to protect that freedom. But Montás is right about the countercultural part. Great-books courses tend to be taught against the grain of academic disciplinary paradigms.

This has obvious educational value. Many students who take a great-books-type course enjoy encountering famous texts and seeing that the questions they raise are often relevant to their other coursework. And some students experience a kind of intellectual awakening, which can be inspiring and even transformational. For students who are motivated—and motivation is half of learning—these courses really work. They are happy to read Dante in translation and without a scholarly apparatus, because they want to get a sense of what Dante is all about, and they know that if they don’t get it in college they are unlikely to get it anywhere else.

Undergraduate teachers, whatever their training, can play a role as a transitional parent figure, someone students can talk to who is not privy to their personal or social lives, someone who will let them have the keys to the car no questions asked. And students profit from learning how universities operate and arguing about what college is for. It opens up the experience for them, gives the system some transparency and the students some agency.

So why the tsuris? At this point, great-books-type courses—that is, courses where the focus is on primary texts and student relatability rather than on scholarly literature and disciplinary training—are part of the higher-education landscape. Few colleges require them, but many colleges happily offer them. The quarrel between generalist and specialist—or, as it is sometimes framed down in the trenches, between dilettante and pedant—is more than a hundred years old and it would seem that this is not a quarrel that one side has to win. Montás and Weinstein, however, think that the conflict is existential, and that the future of the academic humanities is at stake. Are they right?

Between 2012 and 2019, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded annually in English fell by twenty-six per cent, in philosophy and religious studies by twenty-five per cent, and in foreign languages and literature by twenty-four per cent. In English, according to the Association of Departments of English, which tracked the numbers through 2016, research universities, like Brown and Columbia, took the biggest hits. More than half reported a drop in degrees of forty per cent or more in just four years.

The trend is national. Some departments have maintained market share, of course, and creative-writing classes seem to be popular everywhere. But, in general, undergraduates have largely stopped taking humanities courses. Only eight per cent of students entering Harvard College this fall report that they intend to major in the arts and humanities, a division that has twenty-one undergraduate programs.

The decline in student interest affects doctoral programs as well, and this fact is crucial, because doctoral programs are the reproductive organs of the entire system. Fewer graduate students are admitted, because the job market for humanities Ph.D.s is contracting. More important, no one is sure how to teach the students who do get in. If courses in the traditional subfields of literary studies (medieval poetry, early-modern drama, the eighteenth-century novel, and so on) are not attracting undergraduates, shouldn’t new Ph.D.s be trained differently? If so, given that faculties are mostly trained in the traditional subfields themselves, who is going to do it?

And, even if you could completely redesign doctoral education, it takes at least six years to get a Ph.D. in the humanities (the median time is more than nine years) and another six years, minimum, to get tenure. An academic discipline is a big ship to turn around, especially when it is taking on water.

Montás and Weinstein don’t cite these figures. They don’t cite any figures, actually, because even if business were booming it would make no difference to them. But this is the real-world context in which they are publishing their books. This is the moment they have chosen to inform readers that academic humanists are not doing their job. “Liberal education is impaired and imperiled,” Montás reports. “Too often professional practitioners of liberal education—professors and college administrators—have corrupted their activity by subordinating the fundamental goals of education to specialized academic pursuits that only have meaning within their own institutional and career aspirations.” “Corrupted” is a pretty strong word.

What humanists should be teaching, Montás and Weinstein believe, is self-knowledge. To “know thyself” is the proper goal. Art and literature, as Weinstein puts it, “are intended for personal use, not in the self-help sense but as mirrors, as entryways into who we ourselves are or might be.” Montás says, “A teacher in the humanities can give students no greater gift than the revelation of the self as a primary object of lifelong investigation.” You don’t need research to learn this. Research is irrelevant. You just need some great books and a charismatic instructor.

For the advocates of liberal culture a century ago, the false god of literature departments was philology. Today, the false god is “theory.” Montás complains that contemporary theory—he calls it “postmodernism”—subverts the college’s educational mission by calling into question terms like “truth” and “virtue.” A postmodernist, in his definition, is a person who believes that there is no capital-T truth, that “true” is just the compliment those with power pay to their own beliefs. “This unmooring of human reason from the possibility of ultimate truth in effect undermines all of Western metaphysics,” he tells us, “including ethics.” (He blames this all on Friedrich Nietzsche, whom he calls “Satan’s most acute theologian,” which is an amazing thing to say. Nietzsche wanted to free people to embrace life, not to send them to Hell. He didn’t believe in Hell. Or theology.)

Weinstein’s criticism of theory is somewhat less apocalyptic. For him, theory represents a desperate and wrongheaded attempt—he calls it “the humanities’ ‘last stand’ ”—to introduce rigor and objectivity into literary studies. He doesn’t think rigor and objectivity have a place in an undergraduate literature course. “You won’t find very much of them in my classroom,” he assures us. “In my crazier moments I think that rigor may be akin to rigor mortis.”

But questioning the meaning of accepted values has been a major theme in Western thought since Socrates, and “truth” and “virtue” were never exempt. Postmodernism is not a license to shoplift. People who see “truth” and “virtue” as functions of power relations tend to be hyperethical, because they see power disparities everywhere. Postmodernists do not run more red lights than evangelicals do.

And if, as these authors insist, education is about self-knowledge and the nature of the good, what are those things supposed to look like? How do we know them when we get there? What does it mean to be human? What exactly is the good life?

Oh, they can’t say. The whole business is ineffable. We should know better than to expect answers. That’s quant-thinking. “The value of the thing,” Montás explains, about liberal education, “cannot be extracted and delivered apart from the experience of the thing.” Literature’s bottom line, Weinstein says, is that it has no bottom line. It all sounds a lot like “Trust us. We can’t explain it, but we know what we’re doing.”

In the creation of the modern university, science was the big winner. The big loser was not literature. It was religion. The university is a secular institution, and scientific research—more broadly, the production of new knowledge—is what it was designed for. All the academic disciplines were organized with this end in view. Philology prevailed in literature departments because philology was scientific. It represented a research agenda that could produce replicable results. Weinstein is not wrong to think that critical theory has played the same role. It does aim to add rigor to literary analysis.

For Montás and Weinstein, though, science is the enemy of ethical insight and self-knowledge. Science instrumentalizes, it quantifies, it reduces life to elements that are, well, effable. Weinstein can see that students might think that science courses are useful for a successful career, but he thinks that “success” is just another false idol. He writes, “One has read a great deal about ‘quants’ being gobbled up by investment firms, hired on the strength of their mathematical prowess, hence likely to add to bottom lines. What actually does a bottom line mean? Is anyone asking about judgment? Does any university or graduate school transcript even whisper anything about judgment? Values? Priorities? Ethics?”

Weinstein won’t even call what students learn in science courses “knowledge.” He calls it “information,” which he thinks has nothing to do with how one ought to live. “Life is more than reason or data,” he tells us, “and literature schools us in a different set of affairs, the affairs of heart and soul that have little truck with information as such.”

For Montás, the trouble with science is that it answers the important questions—Who am I? How shall I live?—in “purely materialistic terms.” He blames this on a writer who died in 1650, René Descartes. “Today, the heirs to Descartes’s project are perhaps most visible in Silicon Valley,” Montás says, “but the ethic that informs his approach is pervasive in the broader culture, including the culture of the university.”

What did Descartes write that set us on the road to Facebook? He wrote that scientific knowledge can lead to medical discoveries that improve health and prolong life. Montás calls this proposition “Faustian.” He says that it implies that there is “no higher value than the subsistence and satisfaction of the self,” and that this is what college students are being taught today.

Humanists cannot win a war against science. They should not be fighting a war against science. They should be defending their role in the knowledge business, not standing aloof in the name of unspecified and unspecifiable higher things. They need to connect with disciplines outside the humanities, to get out of their silos.

Art and literature have cognitive value. They are records of the ways human beings have made sense of experience. They tell us something about the world. But they are not privileged records. A class in social psychology can be as revelatory and inspiring as a class on the novel. The idea that students develop a greater capacity for empathy by reading books in literature classes about people who never existed than they can by taking classes in fields that study actual human behavior does not make a lot of sense.

Knowledge is a tool, not a state of being. Universities are in this world, and education is about empowering people to deal with things as they are. Students at places like Brown and Columbia want to make the world a better place, and they can see, as Descartes saw, that science can provide tools to do this. If some of those students make a lot of money, who cares?

Isn’t it a little arrogant for humanists like the authors of these books to presume that economics professors and life-science professors and computer-science professors don’t care about their students’ personal development? The humanities do not have a monopoly on moral insight. Reading Weinstein and Montás, you might conclude that English professors, having spent their entire lives reading and discussing works of literature, must be the wisest and most humane people on earth. Take my word for it, we are not. We are not better or worse than anyone else. I have read and taught hundreds of books, including most of the books in the Columbia Core. I teach a great-books course now. I like my job, and I think I understand many things that are important to me much better than I did when I was seventeen. But I don’t think I’m a better person. ?

Monday, December 06, 2021

Why Today’s Republicans Hate The New York Times So Much

 Why Today’s Republicans Hate The New York Times So Much

by Akim Reinhardt 3 Quarks Daily



When I was growing up during the 3 Quarks Daily 1970s, America still had a vibrant and thriving newspaper culture. My hometown New York City boasted a half-dozen dailies to choose from, plus countless neighborhood newspapers. Me and other kids started reading newspapers in about the 5th grade. Sports sections, comics, and movie listings mostly, but still. By middle school, newspapers were all over the place, and not because teachers foisted them upon us, but because kids picked them up on the way to school and read them.

Of course when dropping coins at the local newsstands and into boxes, us youngsters typically picked up tabloids such as the New York Post and Daily News, not those fancy papers so big you had to unfold them just to see the entire front page: the New York Times and the indecipherable Wall Street Journal. Those were for adults, and usually white collar ones at that.

My father was blue collar and not a big newspaper reader. But my mother was a high school English teacher and she made a family ritual of going out to buy the massive Sunday Times when it first hit newsstands on Saturday evenings. Mostly she just wanted the Book Review. We’d also pick up a Daily News because they too had a formidable Sunday edition; not cut into sections like the Times, but in a single massive tome like a phonebook. It had the best comics section of any NYC paper. After my sister and I had our way with the News, I’d occasionally thumb through the Times. No comics, but they did have an entire sports section.

As I rambled towards adulthood, I continued buying the tabloids for their local sports coverage and hilarious front page headlines. However, I also found myself reading more of that Sunday Times. Never all of it, of course. I was far too young, and anyway, never trust anyone who does; no one’s interests are really that far ranging.

Eventually, I even began occasionally picking up the friendlier, skinnier, four-sectioned New York Times that appeared Monday through Saturday. After all, it was a local New York City paper. However, I moved out of New York just before the internet took off, and largely gave up on the New York Times and the city’s other dailies, reading them only during visits back home. The Times of course soon ended up online, but by then I was getting my news from other sources: various national magazines, the radio, and local papers wherever I lived. As the worldwide web flourished, I grazed the news from a panoply of sources. For the last several years I’ve been an avid reader of the Associated Press. Aside from the occasional article recommended by friends, I haven’t read the Times much during the past couple of decades. So my memories of it are decidedly 20th century.

Based on those memories, I’d been a bit surprised at Republicans’ ever increasing hostility towards the New York Times. Yes, its Op Ed pages had always been more Democratic than Republican, more Liberal than Conservative, but rather centrist overall, and of course its news reportage was usually (though certainly not always) top notch. So why were growing numbers of Republicans openly despising and even attacking the paper, deriding it as propaganda for “the left”? It struck me as truly odd because the New York Times, at least as I remembered it, was:

-Center-right on economics

-Politically centrist

-(In)Famously supportive of Israel despite occasional mild critiques. This last point is worth noting, I believe, because of the religious rights’ bizarre, glassy-eyed fascination with and militant support for Israel.

Was the Times liberal? Yes, but mostly on social issues, not economic ones. It championed a mainstream, middle aged liberalism that was not at all radical. It generally favored “respectable,” establishment politics and moderate policies that gently pushed the status quo for modest change. Or at least that’s how I remembered it.

Then my employer recently got us digital subscriptions to the New York Times, and I started reading it daily.

In today’s political environment, that last sentence sounds like a setup for something like: Since the more innocent days of my tender youth, the New York Times has turned into a flaming leftist rag.

But that is not at all where I’m going. Because after reading the Times for a while, and boning up on its recent history, I find the accusation is simply not true.

First I reviewed the Times’ political endorsements for the 21st century. Yes, the paper supports Democrats far more often than Republicans, and hasn’t endorsed a GOP presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower. However, during this century it has endorsed Republican nominees, plural, for New York City Mayor (Rudy Giulliani and Michael Bloomberg when he was a Republican) and for New York State Governor (George Pataki). Furthermore, when endorsing Democrats, the Times is much likelier to support moderate Democrats than any actual leftists. For example, it gushingly endorsed Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, calling Sanders’ reform plans unrealistic.

Editorially, the Times has also been a stalwart supporter of free market capitalism, which is unsurprising given that it’s a private, for-profit corporation that occasionally gets tough with its own workers’ union. True, it does not promote the GOP’s radical right anti-tax agenda, but it has consistently supported free trade and various forms of deregulation. Since the 1990s, it has largely promoted the Clinton-Obama policies formulated by Wall Street big wigs. The paper is clearly no friend of socialism (meaning, the actual economic left).

On foreign policy, it has been a stalwart of liberal interventionism, which often dovetails with neo-conservative interventionism. We could go into much detail on this one, but the brief version is that the Times supported America’s entry into both Gulf Wars. The actual American left staunchly opposed both of those wars.

And finally, the Times’ roster of columnists has included prominent conservative voices dating back at least to legendary conservative libertarian William Safire, who began writing for the paper in 1973. Recently, some of these conservative columnists have complained about working at the “liberal” New York Times, but all of them continue to write for the paper unless they quit of their own accord; specifically Bari Weiss, who has since founded a conservative university that is neither accredited nor offers any degrees. No conservative columnists have ever been fired. Though the paper did dump a freelance editor for her glowing tweets about Joe Biden’s inauguration (The standards of public behavior for columnists and editors is different because the former are paid to have opinions and the latter are committed to objective news coverage.). And anyway, can you name a conservative newspapers that regularly features even one reputable liberal columnist?

I concluded that, politically and economically, the New York Times is basically the same paper I remembered, more or less occupying the same political space it had at least since the 1980s. But one element has noticeably changed: its elitism.

Let me be clear.

I am not saying that Republicans revile New York Times more than they used to because the paper is more elitist than it used to be. It is not. The Times has always been elitist. However, the nature of its elitism has changed. It has evolved in ways that turn the paper into red meat for today’s increasingly populist and authoritarian right wing.

The New York Times elitism that I grew up with during the 20th century was a very specific, regional, even iconic elitism: New York City elitism. Central to New York Times elitism back then was the cliché of New York City navel gazing. It was a newspaper that, aside from its national and international news coverage, still embodied the old New Yorker view-of-the-world map, and catered to people who got and even relished that reference. Much of the paper dealt with local concerns: politics, restaurants, the arts, sports, the boroughs, etc. Indeed, if you bought a national edition elsewhere in the country, it was markedly skinnier; a lot of the New York material had been removed because, honestly, who cares?

There wasn’t much to like about New York City elitism if you lived anywhere else, as I discovered when I moved to other parts of the country. But it was also a very specific style of elitism that was very well established in American culture, very familiar to all Americans, and (this is very important) localized. Kinda like LA’s shallow beauty obsession or Las Vegas’ devotion to vice.

Yes, the New York Times had a national circulation, dryer prose, a haughty self-styled nickname (“the paper of record”), and it cost a little more and than other newspapers. But in many ways it was still a local paper. Consequently, the Times’ elitism was fairly inoffensive to much of the nation’s blue collar and conservative white collar readers because the paper mostly stayed in its regional lane. “New York” is literally most of the paper’s name, and it reported substantially on New York City, so its elitism could be written off as New Yorkers being New Yorkers. Uppity New Yorkers doing their New York thing, prattling on about the opera and museums and novels that no one reads. Even the Sunday edition’s daunting Real Estate section could reinforce the rest of America’s decision not to live in New York, along the lines of “Glad I don’t have to pay those prices to live in a noisy crowded city.”

The moderate New York Times, the mainline Protestant denomination of newspapers, was indeed elitist, but it fit a well known niche of elitism that the rest of the nation grudgingly accepted because, well, it was a New York City thing. And for every starry eyed Southerner or Midwesterner looking to move to the Big Apple, there were another half-dozen content to make fun of the city with their own cliched jokes and predictable complaints, and maybe even visit it one day as a tourist.

But that was the 20th century. Here in 21st century America, “elitism” has become a catchword for things many Americans hate. Any kind of elitism is now bad. And coinciding with this, the Times’ own elitism has blossomed from a New York City trope into something far more grasping and expansive.

When I read the New York Times now, it feels less like a high falutin’ New York City newspaper and more like a high falutin’ national newspaper. Not because of the Page 1 news coverage, which has always had a national and international focus, but because of all that other stuff, which is no longer the irrelevant highbrow prattling of elite New Yorkers.

Twenty-first century digital age marketing strategies have moved the The Times far beyond the five boroughs. It very consciously and obviously positions itself as a paper for the nation’s social and cultural elite. It’s annoying elitism is no longer just New York inside baseball. It is now broad and far reaching, designed to appeal to sophisticated urbanites and suburbanites across the United States. It’s very much a newspaper for all of America’s well-to-do parents of over-achieving children.

To illustrate this I will not discuss its news coverage, editorials, or columnists, which I have argued essentially add up to political and economic centrism, and so would not explain the right’s growing hostility. Rather, I’m looking at the puff pieces. Stories and tidbits about, well, whatever, man.

And whatever, man is a really big box. Different people fill it with different things. Here is a sampling of how the New York Times has been filling it recently. All examples are pulled from the opening screen of its digital edition over a period of just two weeks in November:

Career Coaching: Forget the Corporate Ladder and Find Yourself.

Why don’t we have a Covid vaccine for our pets?

Someone with a Ph.D lectures you about how to do a better job raising your children.

A celebrity chef with with immigrant parents tells you how to make your traditional Thanksgiving recipes less “boring.”

Influencers make home shopping more fun by mocking ugly houses.

The woman who helped start vegetarianism.

Why you probably shouldn’t have kids.

Is the Four Day Work Week Finally Within Our Grasp?

Personally, I think most of these articles are boring pablum. Nevertheless, they are obviously designed to appeal to any family with a six figure income, maybe a kid or two in private school or at an elite college, and perhaps a general disdain for low culture unless it is presented ironically, sarcastically, or satirically. For Times readers who are either oblivious to their own multi-generational elitism, or swimming in new money and striving for it, these pieces are a daily dose of reinforcement: You’re living the tip top life, and we’re helping you shine!

Unfortunately for the Times’ stewards, the puff pieces seem to have moved in this direction around the same time that American conservative anger reached a boiling point, eventually spilling over into Donald Trump’s smoking brew of anti-elitist, right wing populism.

For much of today’s raging GOP, the enemy is simply The Other: anyone who is different or disagrees. In this context, “liberal” has become a byword for those Others. In Republican circles, Liberal is the bogeyman’s official name. And these liberals/others/enemies need to be smeared with standard Conservative insults and name-calling such as Snowflakes, libtards, and more recently, Elites.

Hating “elites” is now a common refrain in a party otherwise known for embracing corporate honchos and nominating the richest white guy they can find. But it fits the GOP right now because populism, by definition, frames itself as the common people’s attack on “elites.” Left wing populists usually attack the wealthy and corporations. But right wing populists usually attack groups of people that are “wrong” and don’t belong. Either because they’re foreign invaders, or because they’re already among us, weakening, corrupting, and rotting our pure and precious culture from within. They’re immigrants or decedents of the immigrants we never wanted; they are homegrown elites betraying us and causing great harm from above by saddling us with the wrong values and belief systems.

They’re illegal aliens. They’re Black Lives Matter. They’re New York Times readers.

For today’s right wing populists, reading the New York Times isn’t simply a sign of someone’s bad politics. It marks someone as a bad person. A goddamned elite. A reader of sinful stories that say my Thanksgiving recipes, handed down from my grandmother and absolutely beloved by my family, are tasteless. And I’m raising my kids wrong. And I’m not watching the right TV shows. And my house is ugly because I have Biblical scenes or adages on display. And I drink cheap beer instead of these fabulous red wines they’re recommending for the holidays. And I should be a crazy person who worries my cat will die of Covid. And I was wrong to have children. And these fuckers are only working four days a week now!

I am not arguing that this alone explains Republicans’ rabid hatred of the Times. Of course there are many other factors at play, including a long and steady beat of anti-Times vitriol from right wing propaganda organs on cable TV and the internet, and the Republican Party’s extreme rightward drift, which leaves many of its members thinking the center is the extreme left. But setting itself up as the newspaper of America’s self-admiring, self-important, la-di-da class is, I believe, one strong element currently pushing the Times into the maw of right wing populist resentment.

Akim Reinhardt’s website is ThePublicProfessor.com