I wrote this post when I was in the process of getting my Master's. Here it is again--with some edits.
* * *
The problem with getting weary of academese is that one continues to get weary of it--there's no plateau stage at which one has heard as much academic cant as possible and it simply stops registering.
I was reading about the Grand Canyon last night in one of my course tomes. The middle part of the article wasn't bad, but the author spent the first part of the article making academic noises about imperialism and nationalism. Apparently, the Spaniards saw the Grand Canyon as just a big hole in the ground; it wasn't until us Westernized, romantic, nationalistic Anglos came along that the Grand Canyon gained any special significance: the reason (white) people visit the Grand Canyon is to convince themselves that nationalistic conquest was a justifiable endeavor and to sustain an image of superior nation-building against the world writ large.
Considering that numerous Native American groups formed a reverential relationship with the Grand Canyon, this academic nonsense is yet another example of how theory creates the very thing the theorists claim to be against, namely insular, parochial, "we are superior to all others, even in our badness" dumbness.
Unfortunately, condescending theories so focused on mea culpa hand-wringing that they ignore everyone else in the picture are fairly common in the kind of stuff I read—personally, I find it odd that an entire generation of academics continually uses Westernized, white, European, (usually) dead people's theories (Marx, Freud, deconstructionism) and language to explain modern American issues. I kind of figure if you want to know why people go to the Grand Canyon, you should ask them...but then I don't have the kind of serious, profound mind that comprises academic navel-gazing.
I'm in the striped shirt--surrounded by men! |
The first and only (remembered) time I saw the Grand Canyon was on one of our family vacations. Once every two to three years, we would drive from upstate New York to California to visit relatives, specifically my paternal grandmother. I don't remember to this day whether we were on the incoming or outgoing leg of our trip; we were headed somewhere through the Southwest. My father—the scientist—had determined that we should see every canyon between California and the Mississippi River, and the Grand Canyon was the last of our stops that day.
We got there late in the afternoon. My brothers were complaining about having to see "ANOTHER canyon." ("Once you've seen one, Dad, you've seen them all.") I was twelve so my primary consideration was whether or not the gift shop sold polished stones (it did) and whether or not I would be able to buy some (I don't remember). I was also concerned about whether or not the motel we would stay in that night would have a pool (since it was probably a Motel 6, then answer is probably, "Yes.")
"You might hit campers," she said.
I was a fairly paranoid child and became convinced that the "happy campers"—as my brothers began to call them—were collapsing from head injuries as we spoke. I was also worried about the lack of guard rails (in some areas) and felt sure my brothers would tumble to their deaths at any moment.
We were there about a half hour; then we got into the car and drove off. The rain started to splatter on the windshield, and we hit a speed-bump.
"What was that?" someone said, and I said, "Maybe it was the happy camper," which amused my brothers, although I don't think it amused my parents terribly.
Oddly enough, I took away from that brief excursion an eidetic memory of the Grand Canyon. Many memories are narratives, stories we tell ourselves about events in our past (much like this post), but the memory I have of the sky and the (rail-less) rocks is imprinted in my neural pathways as an image. I could not detail it adequately. I could, if I had the skill, paint it. I won't pretend that the result wouldn't involve some confabulation. People who insist on pure memory are kidding themselves. Yet the image is there, something that I rarely think of and has certainly not inspired me to go live in the Southwest or, for that matter, go see the Grand Canyon again. And yet, the image is fairly stunning: tremendous boulders and spires of rock and a long reach of sky. And rain.
I suppose you could blame my glorified memory on the long day or the lack of guard rails or the happy campers or my age at the time (anything but the canyon itself). But it's hard to claim that imperialistic, romantic training is responsible for my reaction. The people who claim such things would claim that I was trained subconsciously simply by being white, middle-class and owning a TV...except, oops, we didn't own a TV. Must have been all those coffee table books.
Of course, the people who claim such things are fools. It's far more likely that I remember the trip because of the perishing happy campers, which just proves that children are basically morbid at heart.
4 comments:
Ultimately, I think people go to the Grand Canyon to be awed. I never liked the Grand Canyon though I was maximumally awed by Masada and the Dead Sea.
(One problem with the Grand Canyon is that unless you go to the right place, you don't get an immediacy of it's depth and hugeness. It's like being in a place where the tall, jagged, windswept mountains are blocked by boring little rounded foothills. For some reason I just thought of Tom Hanks on the raft looking at the huge Moon. Still love that scene.)
Kate, that particular summer trip took place in August 1983. We were taking Henry out to college and you, Henry and I were the only kids. The car was less crowded than past trips but it was also a smaller station wagon. What I remember most about the drive west was somewhere in Oklahoma, Henry and I started playing the alphabet game and we kept playing until we got to Los Angeles. I think I finished with 25 complete alphabets. Henry and I kept coming up with rules about when the game was active or paused and what qualified as a legal letter. I don't believe we ever fought. We were joined in the quest for devising the most perfect alphabet game contest.
I don't remember being at the Grand Canyon on that trip. I only know I was there because there are pictures of me being there. I have a much deeper appreciation for the Grand Canyon now - I visited this spring and it is grand. But as a teenager it was just a hole in the ground.
I very much remember going to the Grand Canyon as a child and loving it. I think as Anonymous said you go to be awed. I think it may be a deficiency of academics that they don't realize that is why people go to the Grand Canyon. (That and the lack of logic in their premise.) That they can only see things through the Marxist/deconstructionist/whatever lens is telling.
We visited The Grand Canyon many years before. I found it boring; still do. On the other hand, I found Bryce Canyon spectacular.
On a side note, I find it both fascinating and annoying how upset some people get if your tastes don't match theirs. I once had a work colleague scream at me without humor or irony because I didn't particularly like a TV show he adored.
PS. I was awed by Masada and The Dead Sea. Read a recent blurb by someone who wasn't. That's fine; I was underwhelmed by The Sea of Galilee. Arc de Triomphe, boring, Eiffel Tower, unexpectedly cool. A joy of life is that our tastes differ.
Post a Comment