POLITICS OF MEANING” — it’s a movelment whose, time has come. And gone. Shhhh! Dont tell that to the 1,800 or so devotees who recently packed Washington’s Omni Shoreham Hotel for the Summit on Ethics and Meaning.
It’s been three years now since Hillary Rodham Clinton gave voice to Michael Lerner’s portentous little neologism, which was laughed out of the public arena shortly thereafter. But Lerner, editor of the Jewish bimonthly Tikkun (Hebrew for “to heal”), has aged and cured it. He has expanded an ephemeral thought into an ephemeral book titled The Politics of Meaning, not to mention a nonprofit foundation and a full-bore cult — at least to judge from the looks of the apostolic throng pressing around him like he’s about to multiply their loaves and fishes.
The first time around, “POM” (as it’s called by progressive hipsters) was problematic because no one was quite sure what it meant. And it’s still hard to find a succinct distillation. “A utopian vision of what is possible . . . a new paradigm for politics . . . to build a society that encourages mutual recognition, caring, ethical and spiritual sensitivity, and ecologically attuned social practices” are but a few of Lerner’s attempts to define his invention.
His followers’ efforts are just as elusive, as one Gordian-haired buttercup in a Metallica hat explained: “Our goal is to change perspectives globally. We’re trying to change all the s — that’s going on now in all the people’s f — up heads.”
Some may say it’s limp-wristed politics. Others might charge it’s de-fanged religion, because of POM’s association with groups like the Reconstructionist Jews and Unitarian Universalists who’ve managed to deemphasize some of the bothersome aspects of traditional theocratic patriarchal structures — like God, for instance.
But for this assemblage in any case, Lerner is their Moses (if Moses wore rumpled gray poly-blends and had a three-inch spread between his tie and belt buckle). And Meaning is their Canaan — they’re not quite sure what it is, but they just need to get there.
There are a number of ways one goes about conducting a meaningful summit. First, one attends candle-lit plenaries, singing along to “My Compafiero,” or just listening to bad Pete Seeger knock-offs (although Seeger, bad enough in his own incarnation, was also present).
Then one breaks down into task forces. There was the Families and Relationships task force — which hammered out language for the blindingly original “Covenant With American Families” to include samegender marriage and other “alternative family forms.” Then there was the Cynicism in Media task force, where participants resolved to foster understanding with media types by “adopting a reporter” (I had no takers).
One also attends Meaningful meetings, like “Men and the Politics of Meaning” — which, despite its macho connotations, was refreshingly free of robust, athletic types. Instead there were a lot of Birkenquirks wearing clogs — a disproportionate number of men in open-toed shoes.
Whenever someone new entered the room and introduced himself, we yelled back his name to “create a welcome space.” And then we formed a group circle, many of us with our feet hiked up Indian-style, where we gave our names and one word revealing the struggle about men and Meaning: “Jeff-Touch,” “Ted- Confusion,” “James-Sexuality,” and so forth.
“The struggle” is about rejiggering archetypes, specifically the destructive warrior archetype, or so we were told by one chubster with anemic mutton chops fresh from his Gender Studies class. “It’s about replacing Patton with Gandhi, Clint Eastwood with Thoreau — who are just as strong and powerful,” he said.
“It’s so important to take yourself seriously,” said Carmelira Madison, who wasn’t a man at all but whose advice was widely adhered to. “It’s about me coming alive, just to live my damn little life, okay?”
“Okay,” we said in unison.
Bold declarations were commonplace at the summit, such as those of a Robert Downey, Jr. lookalike from Vassar who warned of the need to diversify “the movement” to include minorities and youth. “Students need a place at the table,” he said. “But we’re not looking for salmon and dessert. We’re hungry for change, and that would truly be delicious.” True to form at any progressive event, the need for diversity trumped everything else. Other pleas for inclusion were made on behalf of Latinos, the elderly, transgenderists, the incarcerated — even Canadians.
But Lerner has more pressing concerns. His movement is still in the embryonic stage of developing ideas. Or at least new language for some very old ones. Lerner bemoaned the “ethos of materialism,” corporate “rip-off consciousness,” and used the Jewish year of Jubilee as a misinterpreted biblical precedent for the “radical redistribution of wealth.” During Q&A, a clergyman with the Revolutionary Communist party suggested the overthrow of capitalism, to be replaced with “something very liberating, which we think is communism.”
“On that we are agnostic,” said Lerner. “That debate is the language of the past which will not change anything. . . . But we’ve come up with probably the most effective anti-capitalist strategy that you could possibly wish for.”
Which is not to say Lerner is immune to good oldfashioned greenback charm. He is, in fact, dangerously close to a very old archetype himself, what we Baptists call the Fleecing Fundamentalist. The pass-the-plate-Sister-Margaret- and-dig-till-your-cuticles-bleed spiel practiced by powder-blue, blow-dried snakeoil salesmen on hayseed independent TV stations is worlds away from Reconstructionist Judaism. But Lerner’s methods are no more subtle during love-offering time.
“We’re not suggesting that you take 10 dollars out of your pocket,” he said. “We’re saying take a significant check out of your savings. How are you going to retire, what are you going to have for the future? This is the potential future.”
by Matt Labash
