Nathan Taylor

Like many young Australians, I spent a lot of time as a kiddie playing Monopoly. Never once did it strike me that the purpose of the game was to teach good old fashioned communist values. But apparently that was exactly the purpose of the original version of the game.

Christopher Ketcham, via Andrew Sullivan, claims that Monopoly started as The Landlord’s game in 1906 and was designed as a teaching tool for the philosophy of Henry George, a nineteenth-century writer who had popularized the notion that no single person could claim to ‘own’ land. The game became the one we know when a professor:

“taught it to his students at Wharton in order that they might learn, in his words, “the antisocial nature of monopoly,” and in particular “the wickedness of land monopoly.” The students apparently taught it to their friends…The game spread widely over the next several years, to the hometowns of Nearing’s students and to other universities. It would slowly lose its anti-monopolistic message, however, as players came to the conclusion that Magie’s vision of Georgist redistribution was not nearly as entertaining as ruining one another.”

I have to say, not once did my brothers and I come to the conclusion we should cooperate to collectively own the factors of production while playing monopoly.

This is the background information I have on the commedia dell’Arte, most of which is derived from here.

What I like about this particular art form is how it came to represent some pretty basic characters that were archetypal to human society at the time. The fact that for almost two hundred years they characters performed pretty much the same stories is fascinating.

It’s not like humans have changed. The Simpsons is the longest running prime time show in the US, running for 23 seasons while a feature length film, The Simpsons Movie, grossed over $527 million. Despite all that time there has been no real character development, no change in the characters circumstances or anything else. Bart should have graduated from college by now and have his own family, or at least have left high school.

Despite the lack of change or progression, and the fact that each episode is pretty much just like the last one, people still watch Bart and Homer do almost exactly the same things they has always done, just is mildly different settings. The fact that Homer Simpson’s fictional beer, Duff, can be purchased in Richmond, Melbourne far from Springfield indicates how pervasive their stories are.

The commedia dell’arte was simply the Simpsons of its day – only it was played continuously for almost 200 years!

Commedia dell’arte was improvised around the interactions between three basic characters, the elders, lovers and the servants. The basic story line is that the lovers want to be together, but the elders want them to be kept apart. Both parties employ the help of servants to thwart the others ambitions.

What is interesting is how the characters of commedia dell’ arte developed such distinctiveness that uneducated audiences throughout Italy could instantly recognise them.

Zanni was the generic name given to the servants in the commedia dell’art. There behaviour can be guessed in that it resulted in the English word zany. Unfortunately for the zanni, they were at the bottom of the social peaking order, at the beck and call of the other characters.

The stance of the zanni resulted from their physical labour and represented their social status. They had a lowered centre of gravity. They would stand with an arched back, knees bent and apart and feet splayed. The support knee is bent with the other leg extended, toe pointed. The zanni would change feet repeatedly while talking or listening within the same position and without his head bobbing up and down. The elbows are bend and the arms half lifted. The elbows are bent and arms half lifted.

The distinctive poses of the zanni were to be: crouching with elbows on knees and chin in hands; collapsing completely into a puddle; feet being splayed, bent forward at hips with the elbows slightly raised; and finally, to be asleep while standing up.

Bart and Homer Simpson are modern representations of the zanni. Good natured but stupid.

One of the main elders, or vecchio, was Pantalone. He was always an old man who loves money more than anything and, typically, would try to marry off his daughter to a wealthy man and avoid giving her a dowry.  When things do not go his way he quickly slips into emotional extremes, particularly enraged petty tyranny.  He has a long memory and never forgets or forgives the slightest past transgression. While he uses him money to exert power, he rarely parts with it leading him to often promise the zanni funds but never pay them for their efforts.

The stance of Pantalone represents his age and desire to hoard his wealth. His back bends the other way to the zannis, giving him an old man’s stoop, protecting his purse and effectively restricting the motion of his legs.  The feet are together, toes apart, knees well bent and facing apart creating a focus on the crutch.

The distinctive poses of Pantalone were to be stooped over as if his spine just went out and he would support his upper body with a cane. He would also often lean slightly forward with his nose in the air. While his head might dart about like a bird, the rest of his body is lethargic, as if he is moving through water.

In the Simpsons, Pantalone is Mr Burns.

The final category of characters is that of the lovers, the Innamorati. Unlike every other character in the commedia dell’arte, the lovers did not wear distinctive masks but relied on heavy makeup for both sexes, with distinctive beauty spots. While the lovers have high status, they are brought low through the hopelessness of their infatuations.

The stance of the lovers was to suggest that they lacked firm contact with the earth. Their feet were invariably in ballet positions, creating long lines leading to their pelvis or chests. They are full of breath, but then take little pants on top.  Sometimes when situations become too much for them, they deflate totally.  The lovers were also extremely vain. Their vanity means they often look in a hand mirror, only to become upset by any minor imperfection they discover.  Even in extreme situations they will want to ensure that everything about them was perfect.

You might say that Marge Simpson comes closest to the lovers. Like these lovers, she is constantly being dealt a harsh hand that she must endure for the betterment of the family. Unlike the commedia dell’arte lovers, Marge is not matched in her love.

These simple characterisations were enough for generations of Italians, from all walks of life, to engage with and instantly appreciate the comic nature of the performance. The simplicity of the characterisations enabled them to be told and retold for generations.

Despite our material wealth, despite our intellectual progress, at heart we are still the same people who marvelled at the antics of the zanni, the scheming of Pantalone and the naivety of the lovers. For over 503 episodes we have watched some yellow four fingered folk go about their dysfunctional ways.

Many fundamentalist Christians condemn homosexuals, justifying their bigotry on the basis of a ‘literal interpretation’ of the bible. Yet any sort of objective assessment of their beliefs quickly reveals how they reinterpret scriptures in their own favour all the time.

Take Maragret Court as one example of someone who vocally condemns gay and lesbian people. The majority of Christianity (for instance the Catholic Church) completely reject women in meaningful roles, while other denominations, such as the Anglican community, is ripping itself apart over the issue.

For Ms Court the issue is settled.  The verdict is in her favour.

I happen to agree with Ms Court, but that is because I consciously choose to interpret the bible in a life affirming way. But it takes a conscious interpretation of the bible to acknowledge that. Ms Court presumes her interpretation is accurate, despite its fundamental disagreement with almost two thousand years of tradition and the beliefs of generations of Christians.

Take another example, the ‘prosperity’ theology of some churches, particularly American churches. This theology takes explicit exhortations of Jesus Christ for his followers to embrace poverty and replaces it with a belief that his followers are uniquely blessed and should expect financial rewards in this world. This represents a complete turnaround from almost 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice. But no matter, it makes it a lot easier to be a Christian in this day and age!

It has been speculated that the prosperity theology contributed to the Global Financial Crisis!

It is interesting how each instant people who profess to believing the literal word of God reinterpret generations of understanding and practice in their own best interest. Good on them I say, but don’t pretend it is not motive by self interest.

Take Ben Wyndal’s response above. I don’t judge him for his inability to deal with the issue of homosexuality. After all he has a family to feed, a career to pursue. His self interest is caught up in not rocking the boat. The Christian church has a long history of turning its back on those who disagree with accepted theology.

Matt Glover, a Lilydale Baptist pastor who supports gay marriage, was sacked as a consequence from a church he had pastured for over 10 years. The response from his fellows was that:

“Some in the church felt he was ”opening the door to sin” and activist Christian group Salt Shakers asked followers to pray that God would ”improve or remove” him.”

(A comprehensive response from Glover is available here. )

No wonder most Christian leaders are too afraid to take a stand against the bigotry of the mainstream Christian perspective. They know which side their bread is buttered on!

It takes a brave person to go against the social tide, particularly when their income depends on it. This helps give context to responses such as Ben Windle’s.

While such attitudes are perfectly understandable, they are hardly adequate when the beliefs been perpetuated have a detrimental effect on those who are really vulnerable to social pressures, teenagers. Gay and lesbian teenagers commit suicide at much higher rates than other groups.

They deserve better.

Commedia dell’Arte is a form of improvised street theatre that begun in the 16th century. It involved a troupe of actors who improvised endlessly around basic stories and, in so doing, tapped into something pretty universal in human nature, that humans understand the world through stories. Our brains are primed to tell stories to understand the world.

Generally these stories follow pretty basic paths. However, there are billions of variations as each individual person tells their own version of the underlying plot. Successful companies are those that explain their purpose and reason for being through a simple story that hits key values of their customers.

In Commedia dell’Arte the troupe of commedia players would improvise comedy around a pre–established scenario. Responding to each other, or to audience reaction, the actors made use of the lazzi http://italian.about.com/library/weekly/aa110800b.htm (rehearsed routines that could be used, as required, to heighten the comedy) and impromptu dialogue would vary the performances.

The classic traditional plot is that the lovers (or innamorati) are in love and wish to be married, but one elder (vecchio) seeks to prevent this from happening. The lovers ask a servant (or zanni) for help.

Typically the story ends happily, with the marriage of the lovers and forgiveness for any wrongdoings. There are countless variations on this story, told endlessly with minor improvised variations. Since the actors would wear masks, they were forced to project the thoughts and emotions of their character through their physical actions and the costumes they wore.

The English version of Commedia dell’Arte is a Punch and Judy show. The stock characters of Italian are replaced by stock puppets.I’ve never seen a Punch and Judy show myself, having grown up since the enlightenment (ie the invention of TV). However, I have seen a modern version – rock ‘n roll wrestling!

Rock ‘n roll wrestling has stock characters that are clearly defined, easy to understand and go through simple narratives. Sometimes these are redemptive narratives, such as when The Rock transformed from being an evil character into a leader and so forth (don’t believe me, check out this blog for how The Rock defeated Mankind through dastardly deeds!).

How does this relate to business? Simple. The most successful businesses stand out from their competitors by telling a coherent and comprehensive story.

For businesses to stand out from their competitors, to create a brand that is meaningful in the eyes of its consumers, and delivers a good or service that connects with people, it must tell a story. It must tell it strongly, vividly and with emotion. This is not Shakespeare, but it must tell a simple story that elevates its operations from the competitors.

The Body Shop focuses its business around the story of how it is environmentally sensitive and that their products make the world a materially better place by helping those who are less fortunate. The Body Shop’s narrative is that it is not limited to profit (it doesn’t deny the implicit assumption that profit drives entrepreneurs) but by socially responsible principles. The Body Shop says:

At the heart of our business are our values. In everything we do we are committed to helping protect the planet, defending human rights, activating self-esteem, supporting community trade and remaining strong on our stance against animal testing. It is not just part of our jobs – it is part of our corporate DNA!

The founder, Anita Roddick herself said:

“they would offer a two-for-one sale no other cosmetic company could ever hope to match: buy a bottle of ‘natural’ lotion and get social justice for free.”

They exemplify this strong narrative through a number of key ways; the use of recyclable materials; not testing cosmetics on animals; by campaigning to save Brazilian rain-forests and so on.

All these actions reinforce the central story that the Body Shop is telling. The more powerful a story, and the greater resonance it has with your customers, the more they will turn to your products or services rather than those of someone else.

People buy into stories that tell and retell a basic situation, just with various variations on the central theme. What is the story you or your business are telling?

Consciousness imbues the mundane with the miraculous. Take rock and roll wrestling.

I was struck today, while watching rock and roll wrestling, that one of the boons of consciousness is the capacity to impart depth and meaning to activities that are intrinsically meaningless. The principle way we do this is through the stories we tell ourselves about the world around us.

Narrative is one critical form of human thinking failure (link to past post). But is also a source of meaning in life.

In the book, Flow: the psychology of optimal experience, psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, describes a series of studies in which people experience extreme hardship and transform their lives rather than have them crushed and destroyed by the experience.

The examples of people with extreme handicaps were collected by Professor Fausto Massimini of the psychology department of the University of Milan. One study found that paraplegics, generally young people who lost the use of their limbs as a result of an accident, described the experience as both the most negative and most positive experience of their life. For instance:

Lucio, one of the members of this group, was a twenty-year-old happy-go-lucky gas station attendant when a motorcycle accident paralysed him below the waist. He had previously liked playing rugby and listening to music, but basically he remembers his life as purposeless and uneventful…Upon recovery from the tragedy he enrolled in college, graduated in languages, and now works as a freelance tax consultant. Both study and work are intense sources of flow; so are fishing and shooting with a bow and arrow. He is currently a regional archery champion – competing from a wheelchair.

(This example is cited from Flow, page 194). In the same pages, Csikszentmihalyi describes how people can transform negative events :

The integrity of the self depends on the ability to take neutral or destructive events and turn them into positive ones. Getting fired could be a godsend, if one took the opportunity to find something else to do that was more in tune with one’s desires.

It is not the event, but the interpretation of the event that determines whether it is good or bad. The story we tell ourselves.

Now, back to rock and roll wrestling.

Wrestlemania (and I am sure you already know) has been described by its supporters as the grandest stage on earth. When I watched it for the first time today, I was struck by how vivid the characters are, how extreme they are, and how they create tension and excitement in what is so clearly a staged event. Awesome.

I dug around the inter-webs and found this write up that highlights the narrative tension of the spectacle. Melanie, the Editor in Chief of this site, wrote the following describing a regular week in Wrestlemania:

With all of the Divas now in the ring, it’s time to get this bad boy started as former BFFs, Eve and Kelly face off first. The two Divas lock up as Eve takes early control, backing K2 into the ropes and kneeing her in the midsection. Eve whips Kelly into the ropes but Kelly slides through her legs and manages to flip Eve onto her back using her arms. Nice move! Kelly follows up with a hurricanrana and a pin attempt but Eve kicks out.

Eve comes back firing with shots to Kelly and whips her into the corner as the crowd chants “Hoeski”. Eve misses a clothesline in the corner and Kelly takes advantage, smashing Eve’s head into the turnbuckle several times. Kelly riles up the crowd now for her patented handspring elbow but Eve wisely holds up her knees, driving them into K2′s back. Eve goes up top for a moonsault but Kelly manages to get to her feet and cuts Eve off, knocking her down to the mat. Kelly tags in Maria and the pair hit a double stinkface on Eve. Maria then realises why she shouldn’t have worn white, as Eve’s make-up leaves a questionable stain on the butt area of her pants.

As the referee restores order by seeing Kelly back to her corner, Beth hits Maria with a cheap shot, kicking her in her injured ribs. Eve has the advantage now, laying into an injured Maria. As Eve distracts the referee, Beth again hits a cheap shot on Maria. Eve then applies a nice body-scissors, applying pressure to Maria’s injured ribs. The crowd, however, is still not happy about the way the opening contest ended, chanting, “Daniel Bryan” and “YES! YES! YES!”

The review continues in a similar vein for quite a while. A couple of things to note:

1. There is such a thing as a moonsault, stinkface, and a ‘booty pop standing moonsault.’
2. There are referees involved in this. Although it appears they only have a limited level of involvement.
3. This was a pay per view event. Presumably people actually paid to view the event. It really does take all sorts.

Without the capacity to transform the menial into the sublime, humans would be little more than earthworms. Creatures with no purpose but to transform the fruits of the earth through our beings and return them, little changed. Taking the dross that is our life and making meaning from it may be no more than a mental affection, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Creating a meaningful narrative of your life is a sign of good mental health. Having said that, believing the narrative of rock and roll wrestling might negate that!

Opponents of gay marriage often claim it will fundamentally transform the institution, eroding a bedrock of society. To take just one random Google search for use of this argument:

To sacrifice institutions, on the whim of the current generation, is to deny the dead and to plunder the inheritance of the unborn.  It is to forget that our cultural and moral ecology reflects the workings of nature.  Abuse it and the results will not be benign.

Similar claims have been made from the beginning of the gay marriage debate and, for most of the time, there was little objective evidence to weigh up their veracity.

That is changing and it turns out they are correct. Gay relationships have been formally recognised in the UK for a little while now, and the most recent evidence from the UK Office of National Statistics, as noted by Marina Adshade,  finds that homosexual couples that joined in 2005 were significantly less likely to have filed for dissolution four years later than heterosexual couples were to have filed for divorce. Approximately 2.5 per cent of homosexual couples dissolved their relationship compared to 5.5 per cent of heterosexual ones.

As Hattersley points out, this difference is because male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female ones. By the end of 2010, 1.6 per cent of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 per cent of female partnerships.

Gay men are changing the institute of marriage. They are making it more stable.

Few Christians seem to have the courage of their convictions. They would rather impose their beliefs on others than question themselves.

This is an extract of an email that I sent to a ‘Facebook friend’ who I had known years ago, Ben Windle (his blog is accessible here). Like many such acquaintances, I had known Ben somewhat but had fallen out of meaningful contact years ago. When he was promoting what he represented as a ‘Christian’ response to same sex marriage, I engaged him in the following conversation:

I responded to your post because it hurt me personally. I enjoyed attending CCC in the West End as it was a great community and I had some awesome friends. However, I also was struggling with intense suicidal thoughts, constant depression and abject loneliness.

Interestingly, when I came out to myself (at 31) everything changed. Life is now worth living. You might say I had a meaningful conversion experience!

I’m married (your opinion on its legitimacy is irrelevant) and have been for the past 5 years.

I’m not telling you this to change your view (you lack my subjective experience to have a meaningful perspective) but you probably have more people like me in your congregation. You may think your taking a ‘christian’ perspective on your actions. Be aware of the consequences for those in your congregation. Check out these two blogs – one of mine and one on the topic from a pretty good writer. Here and here.

Windle’s response? To de-friend me from Facebook. An apt, concise summation of the moral and intellectual arguments of the Christian Church.

Sadly, this lack of capacity to engage is typical of all fundamentalist Christians I know. I believe it is not possible for them to reconcile the emotional hurt caused by their beliefs with living and breathing human beings. So, rather than grapple with their beliefs they de-friend them.

Personally, I would consider this an excellent time saver all round if it was not for the large number of young gay and lesbian Christians struggling with the false dichotomy of their sexuality and their spirituality.

If they could be spared the years of aching loneliness and despair that I endured, it is worth while trying to talk with bigots.

PS. Windle has been offered an opportunity to respond formally.

When I first read John Shore’s blog, a number of years ago, I was initially drawn to his insight into the emotionally isolating experience traditional Christianity imposes on its gay and lesbian members. He consistently highlights the hypocrisy of those that represent themselves as being in a state of contact with a divine being of love while denying a minority its experience on this earth.

John has a whole series of riffs, such as this or this, on the failures of traditional Christianity to convincingly mount an argument that deal with the reality of living and breathing homosexuals. When ‘Christian’ beliefs are considered in light of the lived experience of gay and lesbian people theology collapses revealing its latent cruelty.

I should know as I tried to live according to those beliefs for almost a decade and a half. The consequence was emotional despair, years of loneliness and struggling with suicidal thoughts.

Not happy Jan.

Shore has recently compiled a series of testimonies from gay and lesbians and their experiences with Christianity and his own pithy rebuttals to common contemporary Christian attitudes. I contributed my experiences as a gay Christian.

Key quotes from my experiences:

As the oldest son of Pentecostal Pastors who founded eleven churches throughout Australia, the church was the closest thing to a home I ever knew. My first memory was crawling on the floor of a meeting hall during a worship service while my mother played the piano and my father exhorted the congregation to engage in the Pentecostal two-step.

With a deep and abiding sense that ‘something’ w as wrong with me I never pursue d my involvement with the church. That was until my late twenties. Despite the beginnings of a successful career as an economist, I left the Reserve Bank of Australia to study theology. My primary motivation was to try and change myself so that I could have what my social circle considered a proper relationship. But so much of my energy was focused on maintaining the proper social facade there was very little behind the image to give to another human being.

…After 15 years everything changed for me when a friend pushed me to consider that I could be gay and remain a Christian. This was a radical thought.  I was able to come to terms with my sexuality when I realised that my heart would, without any conscious volitional control, fall in love with men.

What point worshiping a God of love if it means denying the ability to experience it?

From the point I accepted my own ability to love, and receive it, everything changed in my life. I have met, and married (to the limits of the law) my life partner. We’ve been together for over six years and in that time I can unequivocally say that I’ve become a much better person. A better Christian.

John Shore’s response to Christian arguments about sexuality is here. The book can be purchased here.

I highly recommend it!

One of the best articles I have ever read on the topic of gay marriage was by Raimond Gaita, an emeritus professor of moral philosophy at King’s College London. He puts his finger on the reason for opposition to gay marriage:

“Many opponents of gay marriage do not see depth at all in gay sexuality. They think gay relationships are, at best, loving friendship plus sex. The sex and the loving friendship, they believe, can never be integrated in a way marriage requires them to be. Implicit in the marriage vow is a requirement to seek an ever-deepening understanding of the way love and sexuality enrich one another. It is an understanding of the place of sexuality in our sense of what it is to be human, and the requirement to seek it has no end. ”Marriage”, one might say, is a verb rather than a noun.

Obviously people who find gay sex disgusting or immoral do not think gay sexuality can rise to that requirement. But the kind of blindness to the meaning of gay sexuality that I have just described is pervasive, I believe. It lies behind the emphatic ”is” when people say marriage is between a man and woman – by definition, they are tempted to say. For them ”gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

That is a more radical position than the one that judges gay sex to be immoral. Even the most severe moral condemnation of anal sex cannot make ”anal sex” an oxymoron. But the belief that gay sex, of its very nature, cannot have the depth that would enable it to rise to the marriage vow, implies that nothing the state can do can make a marriage out of a gay relationship.

From this perspective, even if the law were to permit gay marriages, these would be marriages in inverted commas only. The state cannot do what is, so to speak, conceptually impossible.”

Raimond goes on to provide one of the most beautiful articulations for empathy that I have ever read:

“Our sense of a common humanity is premised on seeing in all human beings their capacity to make meaning that we respect of the big facts that define the human condition – our mortality, our vulnerability to misfortune and, of course, our sexuality. To be blind to that in others is to be partially blind to their humanity.”

History is replete with horrific examples of times when humans have been blind to the humanity of others. Nazi Germany is only the worst example of what can happen when we deny the humanity of our fellows
The truth is we are small children, struggling together through a foreign country. Out of our depth, lost and alone except for each other. The world may be teeming with humanity, consciousness is still a rare and potent gift in this amazing universe.

You know this guy is following his passion. Dr Fred Gurgel is a researcher at Adelaide University who spends his time undertaking genetic barcoding for seaweed (or marine macroalgae if you insist). Thus far he has collated close to 4,000 species.

Love it!

The reason for his interest:

“The role of marine seaweeds is equivalent to that of trees in rainforests,” Dr Gurgel said.

“If you take away a tall tree in the forest, all the animals and birds and ants that use it will go as well.”

Then what would spongebob squarepants eat?