An interesting case of how society perceives men and women when they engage in something that are unethical or immoral. Think of the case of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. In this case, I am looking at the case of Frank Llyod Wright and Mamah Borthwick Cheney. She left her husband and children to live with Wright. Similarly, Wright also left his wife and kids to share a life with her. But why a society had different reactions to their actions?
"In society's view, Wright was merely misbehaving, while Mrs. Cheney was doing something far more shocking: acting like an unnatural mother."
From the New York Times review of the book "Loving Frank"
Here is an interesting argument about the downside of "artificial" and "unfortunate" division among disciplines. This is what I learn from the book "Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach". Although they talk about traditional disciplines like economics, psychology, etc., the lessons can be applied to more recently established disciplines like information systems and computer sciences.
Why artificial? -- "Because it is hard to argue that economics has nothing to do with sociology or psychology, or the other way around." (p.1)
Why unfortunate? -- "Because these artificial scientific boundaries make it difficult to make a complete study of phenomena that have economic, sociological, and psychological aspects." (p.1)
Perhaps, this strikes at the core of what "interdisciplinary" program needs to do:
Break down the invisible walls between disciplines
Respect different approaches, theories, and methods to examine a phenomenon
Today, I read an Op-Ed piece from John Edgar Wideman in the NewYork Times:
This is a story about a black person (who is a professor at Brown University). He has to ride an AMTRACK train from New York city to Providence. Over the four years period, he learned that the seat next to him is almost always empty. Nobody really wants to sit next to him. Why?
His conclusion is "because I can’t accept the bounty of an extra seat without remembering why it’s empty, without wondering if its emptiness isn’t something quite sad. And quite dangerous, also, if left unexamined. "
Very disturbing evidence of why we tend to focus more on our differences than our similarities as human beings.
I read two different articles but I find the same truth between them on how to live peacefully among our differences. One article is a recent Op-Ed piece by the 14th Dalai Lama on how to create mutual understanding among different faiths. The other article is an interview with Mohsin Hamid, the author of a novel entitled "The Reluctant Fundamentalist". It is about why some Pakistanis join terrorist networks. Here are some of the things that I learn and I believe these lessons can be applied in many contexts such as a workplace, a community, a classroom, among others:
Open communication and honest interactions with others is a healthy process towards creating a mutual understanding
Respect, appreciation of others, open mindedness are key qualities that lead to peaceful coexistence
Everyone needs comfortable space to allow them to be themselves and to create a sense of belonging
Here are some of the quotes from Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama
"I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us."
"Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions."
Here are some quotes from Hamid's interview with NPR:
"A type of terrorists is a phenomenon of globalization. It is about two cultures touching each other and in the process of touching each other, generating this anger."
"You have people who come from one culture, live in another, enter a state of turmoil and then lash out. It is not just a Pakistani man who has come to America, it is a Pakistani-American man who can't stand being Pakistani-American any longer."
"More interaction between the two cultures, not less, is the key to a happier existence for those who might feel drawn by different loyalties."
"If we make a comfortable space for people to be Pakistani-American and similarly for people in Pakistan, who aren't Pakistani-American, to be comfortable having American cultural exposure--you know, wearing jeans, listening to rock music, etc.-- then we create a kind of safe space.
But as soon as we start saying that Pakistanis in America are suspect, then we start shutting down this positive space. So I think that this suspicion actually feeds off itself and sets in motion a kind of dangerous exclusion that leads to people like this feeling they have to choose one side or the other.”
