Lessons from a Stone-cutter

One of my favorite quotations is by Jacob Riis: "When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stone-cutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without so much as a crack showing in it. Yet, at the hundred and first blow, it will split in two; and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before." I love the image that Riis conjures here and the lesson that's provided. His words are a reminder of the importance of perseverance and dedication, and they offer a hopeful interpretation of failure. It seems clear that, for Riis, failure is only a temporary condition on the road to success. It's necessary for accomplishing virtually anything -- even the mundane task of splitting a stone.

I looked to these words often during the past two years. After my knee began giving me trouble in September '09, I've tried relentlessly to find a solution that would allow me to run again. I went to orthopedists; I saw chiropractors; I tried physical therapy; I received cortisone injections; I endured painful massages; and I did far more cross-training than I ever would have liked to. In as many months, I sought the opinions of 18 doctors and specialists. With the stone-cutter in mind, I kept hammering away, hoping that I would be rewarded for my persistence. There were many times that I tired of my efforts; but I invariably convinced myself that this stubborn stone just needed a few more blows before it cracked.

Finally, though, I'm admitting defeat. Things just don't seem to be working. After a 7-mile run last Saturday, my knee pain is back. It's fine for walking and it'll be okay for recreational activities, but it's definitely not going to hold up for a summer's worth of collegiate cross country training. At this point, I'd probably be able to train seriously for another week or so and then the discomfort would become unmanageable. I know my body well enough by now to know that that's the reality of the situation.

So I'm officially done with my college running career. I had very high hopes of competing for one final time this upcoming season, but apparently it's not in the cards. My knee simply refuses to handle the training that's required of me. I'm tempted to keep pushing on and trying to fix it, but all these efforts have been very emotionally draining. Repeatedly getting my hopes up and committing to treatment after treatment -- only to see them all fail -- has been incredibly demoralizing. I don't have any huge desire to go through that again.

I was fairly depressed about this decision last week. Running has been the most constant thing in my life for over ten years. It's given me a true sense of identity and has been enormously influential in shaping the way that I view the world. I'm not sure what I'll do without it -- even if this hiatus is only temporary. At this point, I'm trying to convince myself that a lack of running will open up a whole new world of opportunities for me. If I really think about it, I have no doubt that this is true. Running has always held me back in some regards: it's limited my social life, it's made me more cautious about the physical activities that I partake in, and it's always taken up a huge portion of my time. But, to be honest, I'll sincerely miss these "disadvantages" of being a runner. I absolutely love the discipline that running demands. Over the years, I rarely found myself yearning to enter the party scene or to stop making the sacrifices that I'd become so accustomed to making. It really became central to who I was. It will be strange to lose that dimension of my life.

Even worse, though, is the feeling that I'm giving up on something. I'm a stone-cutter that's learned to see the futility in his hammering. Considering how much I've admired Riis's quotation, it kills me to admit that. But, at the same time, I'm reminded of another saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." I think I've reached the point that a hard-headed refusal to accept defeat would only be holding me back in other regards. This, far more than the emotional exhaustion, is the reason I'm going to start moving on.

It's slightly comforting to know that my personality won't change drastically just because I step away from running. I always think in terms of discipline, of endurance, and of teamwork. I'll find another way to channel those energies; I'm sure about that. I cannot separate myself from the sport I love, even if I can no longer do it seriously. I've been largely formed as a person through running, and I know that the lessons it's taught me will carry over to every other aspect of my life.

Now, it's just a matter of finding something else to be passionate about. The search will be a little bittersweet, as I was always entirely content with running occupying that position. But there are bigger stones that I can begin hammering away at; and there are stones that are not so contingent on physical limitations. With failure and frustration on my mind, I'm far hungrier than I otherwise would have been.

These days, I have every intention of finding something significant to do with my life and splitting that stone down the middle -- even if it takes me a thousand blows to do so.


PS -- Happy birthday, Katie!!! <3

"Commonality of Civilizations?"

The world envisaged by Huntington
(click to enlarge)

This past academic year, I became very interested in the “Clash of Civilizations” argument, which originated in 1993 when Samuel Huntington attempted to predict the changing nature of world conflict. In his controversial essay – “The Clash of Civilizations?” – Huntington contended that global politics in the post-Cold War era would be dominated by cultural conflict, and he divided the world into a handful of distinct, potentially contentious “civilizations.” According to his paradigm, the fault lines between civilizations were especially dangerous and were most likely to be the sites of major conflict. Some of the most convincing arguments in support of the thesis were that differences in civilization are fundamental, making them less mutable, and that increased interaction in today’s globalized world inevitably leads to an enhancement of “civilization consciousness.”

The other side of the debate was spearheaded by Edward Said, who insisted that such ways of thinking inaccurately portrayed the world and mobilized dangerous nationalist passions. Moreover, Said argued against the assumption that there is complete homogeneity between culture and identity, and maintained that such categorization misses what is so rich and fertile about culture.

At UPEACE, I’ve had the opportunity to consider this question in a much different context. During a typical day, I engage with individuals from at least five of Huntington’s civilizations – sometimes up to six or seven, depending on who’s around. Obviously, this is quite a change from the predominantly Irish-Catholic Stonehill College. Indeed, with so many new perspectives present at any given time, I’ve gained a much better understanding of how people think about and relate to each other. Here are some observations I’ve made:

1. Some people seem to very much believe in the “civilization” paradigm despite its obvious shortcomings.

          One woman, for example, frequently serves as a landlady for UPEACE students and has hosted Americans, Europeans, Africans, and Asians over the years. During a conversation earlier this week, we discussed her experiences with each group, and I quickly realized that she had the tendency to assign very rigid identities to all of them. Americans, she told me, had a “better” culture than Latinos and, therefore, she loved hosting them. (By “better,” she apparently meant that Americans tended to be hard-working and on time, in contrast to the very laid-back attitude of Costa Ricans.) Europeans were somewhat rude and intrusive, however, and they were extremely wasteful. Africans never wanted to pay their rent and caused big problems for anyone brave enough to host them. And, Asians, finally, were a pleasure, as they were always diligent and polite.

          Of course, such stereotyping fails to account for the huge number of tardy Americans, thrifty Europeans, respectful Africans, and lazy Asians. And it clearly allows no room for differentiating between the Alabamans and the New Yorkers, between the Ugandans and the Congolese, and between the Bengalese and the Cambodians (although even these categories dangerously collapse populations into restrictive labels).

2. If you’re not careful, it’s easy to start believing in the “civilization” paradigm.

          As much as I'd hate to believe that these labels are accurate, I found myself being somewhat persuaded by this landlady's argument. It does seem quite obvious that there are different cultures at play here. The American mindset is very different from the Costa Rican mindset; the Costa Rican mindset is very different from the Egyptian mindset; and the Egyptian mindset is very different from the Australian mindset. It's useless to pretend that this is not the case. Our personalities are very clearly influenced by the contexts in which we're raised, even if this influence allows for some variation in thought. I believe that was the point this landlady was trying to make -- not that there is uniformity within every culture. And I can't disagree with this reasoning.

          But I don't believe that this reality substantiates Huntington's claims. There is a vast difference between acknowledging the impact of cultural forces and suggesting that culture locks individuals into predictable behaviors. Failing to recognize this nuance can lead to very dangerous territory -- this is the heart of Said's argument.

3. Other, non-cultural factors have the potential to unite people, sometimes in more meaningful ways than a common heritage.

          At UPEACE, I've found myself relating to people for very different reasons. There are some who I relate to because of culture, like the Americans and the Canadians. We have much in common and seem to think about the world in a similar way. Then, there are individuals (mostly men) who I relate to because of sports. Others I relate to simply because they are nice people. And still others because we have corresponding academic interests. The point, here, is that I've formed friendships with people from virtually every corner of the world for many different reasons. Culture certainly plays a role, but it far from dictates who can share common interests. And, more importantly, culture does not appear to make "clashing" an inevitable outcome among people. Instead, I believe that cultural interaction has the potential to paint a clearer picture of the world and to improve one's critical thinking skills.

So how have these experiences affected my understanding of the "Clash of Civilizations" debate? For one, it's shown me just how different cultures can be. Before coming to UPEACE, I naively and idealistically subscribed to Said's school of thought. I had little experience with people of different cultures, but nevertheless maintained what I thought was a well-informed opinion about them. In these first few weeks here, I'm beginning to realize just how much I didn't know about the civilizations debate. I'm realizing that I thought about this issue in largely abstract terms, never having any true basis for what I was saying. Indeed, people are very different; cultures most certainly shape identities; and particular qualities are likely to clash with others. There is more to Huntington's argument than I gave him credit for.

However, none of this should mean that global conflict is bound to be dominated by the "clash of civilizations." The responsibility is on policymakers and heads of state to look for sources of commonality among their peoples. They are certainly there -- they just might not manifest themselves in the context of culture or ethnicity. Like my personal experiences, these commonalities can be based on virtually any quality (although, I will admit, some are obviously bound to be more lasting than others). Rewriting national narratives with these sentiments in mind should be an important goal in today's world. If we begin to substitute the word "clash" for "commonality," I think that Huntington's civilization paradigm can begin to be debunked. And I think that a lot of important problems can begin to be solved.

Monkeys and Machetes

A view of the farm with dozens

of acres of forest behind

 I spent the last two days on a fairly rustic farm in the northwestern province of Guanacaste. The property belonged to my boss Pablo’s mother, and he kindly invited me to come along while he did some monthly maintenance work on it. We left at 6 o’clock Thursday evening with a four-hour drive ahead of us – a drive that Pablo comically prefaced with the sincere warning: “Just so you know, I can get very sleepy on car rides so make sure you poke me or something if I start to drift off.” Needless to say, I made every effort to maintain a constant flow of conversation and succeeded in keeping Pablo conscious; but the drive was slightly terrifying nonetheless. The majority of Costa Ricans could pass as NYC taxi drivers, so any time spent on the roads here is a bit nerve-wracking. Dealing with these motorists in the dark, though, during torrential downpours, on winding, pothole-ridden roads (and after just hearing about my boss’s narcoleptic tendencies) certainly made for some very tense moments. But we got there in one piece!

We went to bed soon after arriving at the farm, and, the next morning, I was woken up at about 5 o’clock by the loud, persistent crowing of a rooster. This natural alarm clock wasn’t entirely unwelcome, as I’d already been planning to get up at 5:30 to run. But, I definitely wouldn’t opt for it every day. The absence of a snooze button on roosters must have gotten an awful lot of them killed prematurely over the years!

The run I had was interesting – and, again, slightly terrifying. Costa Rica is very much alive at 5:00 in the morning, and I spent most of my six miles trying to identify all of the strange noises surrounding me. The deep groans from the trees creeped me out until I remembered Pablo mentioning something about howler monkeys the day before (to listen, click here). And the aggressive, very fast dogs that kept chasing me forced me to be on my guard at all times. I eventually resorted to running the final three miles with a large branch in my hand to fend off the many canine attackers. (It worked…and I’ll definitely be doing that more often!)

Danilo leading the way 

with machete in hand

Once we started working, I felt much safer.
Not only were the dogs gone, but I wound up trekking around with three Costa Ricans – each bearing a machete or a chainsaw. The farm was very far from what I had envisioned. There were no crops anywhere to be seen; it was just an enormous property composed of 170 acres of rich forest. Our task was to clear any dead or fallen trees that were obstructing the perimeter fence. Given the property’s size, this made for a lot of hiking and roughly eight hours of work. It was a nice break from working at UPEACE and it was an even better way to see a beautiful part of the country. During the day, I saw dozens of wild howler monkeys and a handful of white-faced monkeys; I got within ten feet of a tree full of American black vultures; I saw from a distance Mel Gibson’s enormous ocean-side mansion; and I took in some gorgeous views of volcanoes and the Pacific Ocean. I also learned how to use a machete and witnessed some very creative ways to cut down trees and sharpen a chainsaw blade. (Our guide, Danilo, was something like Aragorn from Lord of the Rings with all the tricks he had up his sleeve.) All in all, it made for a fun trip and gave me an authentic glimpse of life in the Costa Rican countryside.

On the agenda for tomorrow: buckling down and studying some Spanish!