Good morning!
I was struck by an essay about
Kenneth Grahame, author of The Wind in
the Willows (1908). He also wrote a
short piece on the joy of solitary walking.
Nature's particular gift to the
walker, through the semi-mechanical act of walking — a gift no other form of
exercise seems to transmit in the same high degree — is to set the mind
jogging, to make it garrulous, exalted, a little mad maybe — certainly creative
and suprasensitive. . . . Not a fiftieth
part of all your happy imaginings will you ever, later, recapture, note down,
reduce to dull inadequate words; but meantime the mind has stretched itself and
had its holiday.
I confess
that I don't do much solitary walking. I
did a fair amount of it just walking across campus, sometimes a short walk,
sometimes a little longer, but unless I consciously decide to go for a walk, I
don't do it much anymore* (see below).
Grahame's description, however, hit home with me, because I've had the
same experiences over the years.
Given the
large number of people I see walking around with headphones or earbuds, surely the
reflective gains from walking are no longer experienced as widely as in the
past. I don't bemoan the technology but
I do wonder why people never seem to take any time simply to think, without the
distraction of music or a podcast or listening to a book or checking something
on their cell phone. Do very many just
let their minds wander? (Without meaning
to sound condescending, I suppose there are people who haven't anything to
think about, but that must be the rare bird.
Just watching the birds and squirrels and architecture of homes is worth
a little time, if for no other reason to let the brain "rest." I have no idea if there's any clinical
justification for a brain to "rest," but if there isn't, there should
be.
Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, a
fossil, but I've "discovered" or thought of things that I never would
have if I hadn't indulged in woolgathering as I walked along. Grahame is right that only a tiny part of my
thoughts ever make it to word or act, but a few do, and in the meantime I've
had a brain rest.
I'll make two concessions about
technology and walking. One, cell phones
do serve a very useful purpose while on a walk:
if you have an inspiration that will set the world on fire, but no pen
and paper, you can always stop and send yourself a text or an email. My inspirations don't rise anywhere near the
level of setting the world on fire, but I have my own little ones—and I have
used my cell phone to send a message to remind myself later. (And on second thought, later, I've discarded
some of them!)
Two, the yield in knowledge, and
perhaps even wisdom, from listening to a good podcast or book shouldn't be
gainsaid. There's a good argument that
any learning from such narratives or discussions outweighs the benefit of
letting your mind wander. At least some
of the time. Nonetheless, I'd argue that
daydreaming benefits all of us.
What is the
world losing in the way of inspired or creative ideas because people don't
indulge in musing undisturbed by distractions?
* * *
*I
have—metaphorically—stumbled over "anymore" for some time. I finally went to the dictionaries. Cambridge
Dictionary: "Especially in
American English, any more, as an adverb, can be written as one word, anymore." Merriam-Webster: "Although both anymore and any more are
found in written use, in current writing anymore is the more common styling." Oxford
English Dictionary, North American English:
"Definition of anymore in US English: "anymore (also any more) . . . To any
further extent; any longer." The
website Grammarly:
When spelled as two words, any more
refers to quantities.
Are there any more
cookies?
You already ate
seven; you don't need any more!
When spelled as one word, anymore
is an adverb that refers to time. It means "at present," "still,"
or "any longer."
Why doesn't Mom
bake cookies anymore?
She doesn't bake cookies anymore
because you always eat them all and don't leave any for her!
Writing "anymore" as one word has never seemed
right to me, but it appears that for Americans, in the right context, it's now
one word.
* * *
Apropos of
the exchange about the 1960s and the increased social divisions we've seen
since that time, which a drafted military could help overcome, a friend wrote
that the military isn't the only social construct to achieve socio-economic
class integration.
The slice of life that your
enlisted friend learned by his military experience was also provided to some
young Americans by something else that is disappearing--small town life. I grew up in "small town American,"
a town with a population of 4,000, with a single school for all of the
children, and two competing Boy Scout troops (for the campers and the
tinkerers). We all knew people from all
walks (and classes) of life. We all
worked after-school and summer jobs at places with ordinary adults with various
skills and education. . . . There was no
unemployment in my home town. If
somebody lost his job and couldn't find another one, the mayor might walk down
Main Street, stopping in at the various shops suggesting to the owner that the
unemployed individual might be helpful in some way; by the end of the day he might have a job, or
several part-time jobs, or, if all else failed, there would be some new project
in the park. This was a remnant of the
Depression and Dust Bowl days, when the school district had issued bonds to
build a fancy high school it didn't really need, just to create jobs for
unemployed or underemployed farmers and other workers. But it was also a result of the fact that
everybody knew everybody else, and they knew their children and cousins, and we
were all a very extended "extended family." If somebody needed help, it came--usually in
an unobtrusive way.
We don't learn that in the big city
today!
It still exists in some
places. One of our sons lives in [a
small town in Minnesota] with his family.
We see it when we visit there.
That way of life is still practiced there, but small towns (not suburban
towns) are a diminishing part of the population. We need to find ways to replicate that sense
of community.
I reacted
to my friend's comments with ambivalence.
The first thing I thought of was Sinclair Lewis's Main Street, which didn't present a favorable view of small-town
life, to say the least. Having not lived
in a small town, I'm not in a position to make any factual assertions on the
basis of my own experience. However: I wonder if the Lewis's description of
small-town life hasn't been moderated by the Internet and faster
transportation. Access to "the
world" is no longer restricted if you have an Internet connection (which
connections are not as widespread in rural and small-town America as in
metropolitan areas, but there are more than in 1920!).
In browsing
a few websites that have discussions about small-town versus large-city living,
I found that the themes recur. In some
cases, a fact of small-town living can be both a blessing and a curse.
-- Everybody knows
everybody. As my friend pointed out,
that can mean a support system and a warmer social environment than a city
provides. At the same time, because
everyone knows everyone, and perhaps because at least some people have nothing
else to do, gossip can flourish and there can be a lack of privacy. "If you get laid off at work, cheated on,
divorced or even pulled over by a cop, you will be the topic of conversation
for the next few weeks." Here's the
positive take:
You can feel a lot of difference
between the natures of city and town dwellers.
City inhabitants are unfriendly, rude, are always in a hurry and no form
of sense of community can be seen in cities.
In small towns people have more time to be engaged in others lives. They are genuinely interested in you and have
the time to talk to you. People know
each other by first names, which builds up a sense of belonging in a
person. You know each others family
backgrounds and kids can mingle freely with each other. There isn't any concept
of a stranger in a small town.
-- For those in the
typical age range, dating is difficult.
The pool is small and everyone knows that you're interested in
someone. A dating relationship that ends
badly has ramifications for relationships all through the town. (As I think about it, there's no age range on
this potential problem; presumably those who've lost a spouse or are divorced
might want to date as well, whether they're in the 30s or 40s or older.) Depending on how homogeneous the town is
(e.g., on race or religion), being different can be a challenge.
-- There is nothing
to do. Restaurants, movie theaters,
theaters, etc., are in short supply.
Unless you live reasonably close to a city, and are willing to drive
some distance for a social event, the choices are limited and may be
unappealing. If one values a night life
or cultural events, a small town isn't a good choice. "If you like a life of quiet solitude,
then life in a small town is right up your alley."
-- There are usually
few professional jobs with a reasonable salary.
Unless the small town is a bedroom community for a larger town that has
organizations with professionals (e.g., a hospital, a college, a manufacturing
plant), one is either the town doctor or dentist—if the town is lucky enough to
have either one—or the lawyer. Almost
everybody else's income will be lower.
(One exception that occurs to me is the college town; Northfield, MN,
comes to mind, with two colleges that have been around a long time and will
almost certain remain, Carleton and St. Olaf.
In that case, there are well-paying jobs and a certain level of cultural
events that go hand-in-hand with a college.)
-- The lack of jobs
in general—well-paid or not—can drive youngsters to leave or to engage in
dangerous behavior because they have nothing else to do. "Small towns tend to have a really high
percentage of teen pregnancies and drug use. Why is this? Because there's really nothing else to
do. Substance abuse is high in rural
America, and it comes from isolation and high risk behavior, among other
factors." Young people may also
drop out of high school at a higher rate than in metropolitan areas. (I do *not* have data to support that claim.) It may be that working from home in a
professional job offsets to some degree the lack of jobs in the town
itself. If you live in a small town an
hour away from the physical location of your employer, maybe going in twice per
week isn't as much of a hassle as going in all five days. (But there are studies suggesting that
working from home isn't quite the prize some may believe it is; the lack of
regular in-person interaction with peers and superiors can put a dent in career
advancement.)
-- Housing costs are
invariably lower in a small town.
Presumably that's because there is less demand. Even in our driving through small towns, we've
seen some homes for sale at prices that seem unbelievably low compared to what
the same homes would fetch in the Twin Cities metro area. Taxes are also usually lower; one site claims
that food and clothing cost less in a small town. I'm not so sure about the former, but in any
event Amazon is levelling the field on the cost of purchasing most goods.
-- The claim is also
made that K-12 education in small towns is inferior to that offered in cities. Andreas Schleicher (a high-level executive
with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) wrote
an article for the Huffington Post (no date that I can find) commenting on the
results of a regular survey—PISA—that OECD does in its member countries. What they found was that "on average,
across OECD countries, students who attend schools in cities of more than 100
000 people perform better in PISA than students who attend schools in villages,
rural areas, or towns with up to 100 000 inhabitants." (The OECD consists of "35 member
countries . . . describing themselves as committed to democracy and the market
economy. . . . Most OECD members are
high-income economies with a very high Human Development Index (HDI) and are
regarded as developed countries."
Wikipedia) A quick glance at the
research literature tells me the evidence is mixed; in some ways urban schools
are superior but in other ways rural schools are.
-- Daily life is less
hectic in small towns. There are few
traffic jams and much less noise pollution.
And less air pollution (unless the town is near an agricultural or
manufacturing plant that produces smelly emissions, such as a large hog
farm). There also tends to be less
crime, so it's not so worrisome if you forget to lock the door on your house
when you run to the store.
-- Some contend that
with more green spaces, and much lower housing and population density, there's
a greater sense of peacefulness in small towns.
-- Access to services
(hospitalization, better/higher education) can be difficult because they are a
ways away from the small town.
As anyone
who has read the news for the last decade or more knows, however, the prognosis
for small towns isn't good. Mark Muro
and Jacob Whiton, at the Brookings "Metropolitan Policy Program"
recently provided data on economic growth in the U.S. They write that one "aspect of the
underlying economic dynamics in the country that bears noting: that they are all about size. Quite simply,
the sharp divergence of large and small communities' economic fortunes since the
financial crisis . . . is becoming even starker than it has been."
Purely in
terms of population, the metro areas of over 1 million (there are 53 of them) saw
over 93% of population growth since the recession—and over 96% since 2014. Those metro areas only make up 56% of the
U.S. total. They also "generated
fully two-thirds of output growth on the economic front and 73 percent of
employment gains between 2010 and 2016—figures that actually have increased
since 2014, when they reached nearly 72 and 74 percent. . . . Fully half of all of the country's employment
growth took place in just 20 metropolitan areas, home to about one-third of
Americans."
At the
other end of the scale, the 9% of the population who live in metro areas of
less than 250,000 contributed a negative 6.5% to economic growth. The rural areas, which would include small
towns, did even worse. Boosted for awhile
by oil and gas exploration and mining, that bump has disappeared. Muro and Whiton summarize.
What does all this mean for the
country? Surely nothing good. To be sure, most Americans now live in big
metropolitan population hubs that tend to be more economically efficient than
other places. But for all of that, 9
percent of the population lives in smaller metros that are stagnant or slipping
as a group and another 14 percent live in rural places that are almost all
declining. And these places are losing
their economic purchase.
Obviously there's no right answer
about whether it's best to live in a small town or a large city. Offhand, it seems to me that small towns are
great for small kids and for relatively sedentary retirees. Unfortunately, usually there are parents where
there are children, and the data and trends are troublesome for those parents
who want to live in a small town.
(I figured out I've lived in 11
places in the Twin Cities, from birth to present, counting living on campus
during college. Of those 11 places, one
accounted for 15 years—growing up—and another counted for 29 years—where I am
now.)
* * *
Coincidentally,
as often happens, I stumbled upon this graphic from the marketwatch . com
website, in an article titled "This is what success looks like to the
average American." It doesn't have
a lot to do with small towns, but whatever.
"They" polled 2,000 people, the article author reports. Right away I'm suspicious because there's no
indication of how they conducted the poll; 2,000 is a good sample size for the
U.S. population, but if the poll was done badly, the results mean little. The website is published by Dow Jones, so I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the data have some relationship
to reality.
There are
some interesting tidbits in the results (some of the ones I cite are buried in
the article).
-- Being married is
seen as having "made it" by nearly 80% of respondents; only 46% of
them *were* married. About the same
percentage said having children is part of making it. If the polling was tilted against Millennials,
I suspect that number would be lower because they seem to be less interested in
having children. It's nonetheless interesting
that such a high percentage of the population sees marriage (presumably that
could be heterosexual or not) as an essential part of making it.
-- The education data
are a little confusing. 15% of their
respondents have an advanced degree (Master's or more) but 50% say they would
have "made it" if they had one. Nonetheless, 47% of respondents believe they
have made it in terms of education. So
some large percentage don't strive for an advanced degree. That's probably right. (According to Census Bureau data reported last
year in The Hill, "9.3 percent
of adults over 25 have a master's degree.
Almost 2 percent of Americans have a doctoral degree, and 1.5 percent
have earned a professional degree that requires study beyond a four-year
bachelor's course." So that more or
less jibes with their 15% number.)
-- The actual trip
data are 3.1 (what they have) and 3.8 (what they would have if they'd made
it). I wonder where they want to go—inside
the U.S. or to places abroad. (One of
the disadvantages of a small town is that they are typically quite a distance
from an airport.) I also wonder what
counts as a "trip." For me living
in Minneapolis, would Duluth be "a trip"? Chicago?
It's hard to tell what the hopes include.
-- The average hours
worked per week is 34; people wish it were 31.
The poll obviously included those who work part-time, whether or not
voluntarily. They have 2.8 weeks of
vacation but wish for 5.3—so Americans set their aspirations lower than what's
common in much of Europe, about 6 weeks.
The average commute is 17 minutes; the standard deviation on that one
must be large.
-- "Amusing"
is the term that comes to mind when people say they have 3 best friends but
would have 4 if they made it. You can't
purchase a more expensive house or car unless you have the income, and you can't
summarily get married, but it seems to me most people could add a "best
friend" without any concomitant salary increase or romantic relationship.
Apropos of
small towns, to the extent income and higher education are critically important
to you, small towns may not be the ideal location. I suppose you could get your education
anywhere and then settle in the small town.
If it's true that K-12 education is inferior, parents may be wary about
living in a small town.
* * *
Along
toward the end of January I usually re-read everyone's Christmas/holiday
card/letter before putting them in the recycle bin. This year's had a couple of noteworthy
comments.
One friend's card summed it up
about as well as can be: "2017 is
likely to rank as one of the best and one of the worst years of your lives."
Another, whose eloquence I have
always admired, wrote thus, summing up my sentiments superbly:
Without the sustenance of those
people and places [friends and places they visited], I'd be feeling totally
overwhelmed by the sad realities of this current mini-era in our country. As it is, I've found I need to limit my daily
online dosage of news, now that demagoguery and dysfunction unleashed by the
last election loom up in every direction. . . .
Meanwhile, let's all take better care of our children and elders and the
otherwise vulnerable, and whittle away at our carbon production, and stand up
for fact-based journalism, and demand human rights regardless of faith or skin
color—and let's keep saying other things that ought to be obvious, because they're
not as obvious as some of us liked to think.
Another
friend wrote a marvelous reflection on routines and patterns and
curiosity. I cite it because it
describes my life as well as hers, although it took her description to make me
realize it. I quote it because it's
wonderful writing as well as clear thinking.
Some of the beauty of the reflections is lost because of my
abbreviation, but the flavor remains.
On a recent morning, as the
electric kettle began to boil water for my first cup of tea and I moved through
my "start the day" yoga poses, my gaze moved out the window to our
backyard bird feeder. I was thinking
about the pleasure I take in routines—which I intentionally create and
repeat—and patterns, by which I mean repetitions that I might observe but don't
influence. . . . One of the threads
running through the past year is the usefulness of trying to stay curious about
what's going on, to access what I've gained from similar times in the past, and
try to stay alert to what I can learn in the present situation, even if it's
undesirable. . . . So maybe for me, that
thread running through my reflections on 2017 is the value of keeping both my
mind and heart as open as possible, through all the day-to-day routines and
patterns as well as any wild and unexpected occurrences, or the inevitable
losses and changes I'd never choose for myself.
Reading
many of these notes and cards was painful (and perhaps wasn't all that
wise). One friend's note in particular
evoked the sadness of the events, but at the same time it touched me profoundly
even the second and third time that I read it.
I have read your memories of
Krystin several times and am moved deeply with each reading. I hope this doesn't sound trivial or trite
but she packed a lot into a too short life and clearly had an impact on and
touched a vast number of people. . . . I
don't think we ever met and if we did, I would guess it was when she was a very
young child, but your writing captures for me the person I never knew and gives
me the chance to "enjoy" her through your stories. The most poignant story for me was the one
about the maple tree raised in your very own backyard. Incredible.
I had a good sob when I got to that one and still find myself tearing up
as I write this. Clearly, Krystin was "a
good one," Gary. I am so sorry that
she is gone and that you did not have many, many more years to enjoy her.
Me, too. A friend of
mine, who's seen grief, wrote to me that "it is amazing how grief can 'sneak
in' when we aren't expecting it." I've
certainly found that to be true. As I
was lying in bed last night, drifting off to sleep, a thought that recurs often
came again: I can't believe she's gone. (Yes, from time to time I'm likely to include
references to Krystin in these messages.)
Mostly,
however, my days are back to being reasonably cheery.
Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment