Capitalism on Trial

Recently I shared an editorial from the Minneapolis Star Tribune which examined the growing economic disparity in the U.S. It reminds me of an interesting article that Jeremy Rifkin wrote for The Guardian in June of 2005.

In this article, Rifkin argues that in terms of a global economic system that’s fair, “the difficult task at hand is pursuing and maintaining a balanced tension between the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and the social solidarity of socialism without either vision vanquishing the spirit of the other.”

“We are, after all”, he notes, “each and every one of us, an embodiment of both spirits. We desire to pursue our own self-interests while mindful of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings.”

The full text of Rifkin's article is below. Enjoy.

_________________________________


Capitalism’s Future on Trial

By Jeremy Rifkin

The Guardian (UK)
June 22, 2005

The European Union's crisis has obscured the fact that it has come closest to balancing market dynamism and social protection, writes Jeremy Rifkin.

Europe has plunged into a crisis of meaning in the wake of the repudiation of the EU constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands – and the Brussels summit breakdown. At the root of the crisis is a deep angst over the dire state of domestic and European economic affairs.

The neo-conservatives argue that the only way out of the economic malaise facing Europe is to deconstruct decades of social benefits that have come to define the European notion of quality of life in a socially responsible society, and unfetter the marketplace so that competition can run free. If Europe does this, they say, the economy will grow and the people will prosper.

The socialists argue, on the other hand, that the unrestrained Anglo-American liberal market model rewards the rich by beggaring the working class and results in a meaner and more bereft social order.

In a curious way, what is really on trial is not the EU constitution but the future of capitalism itself. An increasing number of Europeans are asking themselves whether the liberal market model or the social market model is the best approach to charting the economic future.

Today, while corporate profits are soaring around the world, 89 countries find themselves worse off economically than they were in the early 1990s. Capitalism promised that globalization would narrow the gap between rich and poor. Instead the divide has widened. The 356 richest families on the planet enjoy a combined wealth that now exceeds the annual income of 40% of the human race. Two-thirds of the world's population have never made a phone call and one-third have no access to electricity.

The champions of capitalism pledged to promote sustainable economic development; yet we continue to squander our remaining fossil-fuel reserves, spewing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, destroying the world's ecosystems and habitats, with the prospect of catastrophic climate change.

Our business leaders decried the corruption that permeated the old centralized communist regimes, while many engaged in equally egregious corporate corruption, bringing down some of the world's “most trusted” companies.

Why have the two dominant ideologies of the industrial age so utterly failed? Because the central tenet of each was not sufficiently tempered by the antidote of the other. The central tenet of communism is best expressed in the oft-heard aphorism “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. In practice, however, communism created a form of paternalistic governance that robbed the individual of any semblance of autonomy. In the end, everyone was subject to the dictates of impersonal state-run bureaucracies.

The central tenet of capitalism is found in the words of the Scottish Enlightenment economist Adam Smith. He believed that an invisible hand ruled over the market place, guaranteeing that everyone would eventually benefit, if only the market mechanism were left unencumbered. Neo-conservative economists and politicians still believe this.

In reality, the invisible hand has turned out to be nonexistent. Left to its own internal logic, the unfettered market leads not to a bigger share of the economic pie for all but a “winner takes all” endgame.

Is capitalism salvageable? Yes, but only if we are willing to have a frank discussion. The strength of capitalism is, paradoxically, also its weakness. The market caters to the pursuit of individual self-interest, and is therefore almost pathologically innovative. The entrepreneurial spirit, technological innovation and productivity advances exceed any other economic system ever devised.

But capitalism does not fairly distribute the fruits of economic progress. That's because the logic in the boardroom is always to cut production costs in order to maximize profits and shareholder value. This means reducing, whenever possible, the share of the gains that goes to workers, as well as cutting the expense of preserving the natural environment upon which all future economic activity depends.

In a globally connected world, the hope for humanity rests on creating a balance that encourages and stimulates the entrepreneurial spirit of the market while tempering its inherent propensity to run wild and concentrate more and more power at the top. Countervailing forces, in the form of a strong trade-union movement, a diverse and healthy civil society and vigilant political parties, need to rein in the potential abuses and exploitation of capitalist practices by ensuring a just redistribution of the benefits of the market with the appropriate social programs – without, however, stifling market incentives. This is a tricky balancing act.

We ought to consider capitalism and socialism as complementary “visible hands” that continually balance individual self-interest in the market with a collective sense of responsibility for each other's welfare.

The social market-economy model practiced across the member states of the European Union comes closest to this mechanism. Unfortunately, the current economic debate in Europe threatens to polarize public opinion – pitting unrestrained market forces against the bureaucratic dictates of a welfare state.

The difficult task at hand is pursuing an intelligent and sophisticated course that maintains a balanced tension between the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism and the social solidarity of socialism without either vision vanquishing the spirit of the other. We are, after all, each and every one of us, an embodiment of both spirits. We desire to pursue our own self-interests while mindful of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings. A reformed European social economy that allows both aspects of human behavior to flourish is a model for the rest of the world to follow.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
R.I.P. Neoeconomics.

Image: Michael J. Bayly.

A Visit to the Koala Hospital

Yesterday, I accompanied my sister-in-law Ros and her friend Jerry to the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital.

Jerry had been asked by the hospital staff to photograph a group of baby koalas. One of his photos will be made into a Christmas card which will then be reproduced and sold to raise funds for the hospital.

I also brought my camera along and took the following shots.






Not long after the photo shoot had finished, the head veterinarian received a phone call from a colleague informing her that renowned conservationist and media personality Steve Irwin had been killed by a stingray off the Far North Queensland coast, in what was soon being described as a “freak accident.” Understandably, everyone at the hospital was shocked and saddened by this news.

Where Did All the Money Go?

Back in the US, the Labor Day holiday is about to take place. This particular holiday was originally established as part of the US government’s attempts to divert interest in and celebration of May Day – the international day of workers’ rights that’s commemorated around the globe on May 1.

This year in St. Paul, Minnesota, the annual Labor Day picnic on Harriet Island has been cancelled due to budgetary reasons, prompting an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune to observe that “it’s a fitting metaphor for a society that has consigned organized labor to the back pages of history and placed its faith in free markets to allocate the spoils of economic growth.”

Yet before totalling dismissing organized labor, the Star Tribune calls for Americans to “take a look at what is actually happening in the U.S. economy today,” and offers some important statistics for just such an examination.

Following is an extended excerpt from the newspaper's Labor Day editorial, presented with thanks to my friend Jim O’Leary who first alerted me to it.

_____________________________

Little to Celebrate on Labor Day
Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
September 4, 2006

[ . . . ] In the last 10 years, the productivity of the average worker has surged by 30 percent. Yet wages and salaries have risen just 11 percent. Total compensation (including pensions and health insurance) has climbed even less, and the household income of the median family is up just 7 percent.

Since the recession of 2001, the overall economy has been growing steadily for five years. Yet the income of the median household is down, the number of people in poverty is up, and the number of uninsured Americans is at an all-time high – trends that are unprecedented in previous postwar recoveries.

Where did all the money go? The distinguishing feature of the 2001-2005 expansion is the remarkable share of income that has gone to corporate profits and high-income households. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank with liberal leanings but impeccable math, reported Thursday that corporate profits this year captured the largest share of national income in half a century, and that the share of national income going to employee compensation (even including health insurance) is at its lowest level in nearly 40 years.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with an economy delivering healthy returns to capital and skill, for that rewards investment and ambition. For a century or more, American economic history has been a tug of war between capital and labor.

But at some point the pendulum swings too far. When average Americans can’t afford health insurance, when schoolteachers and firefighters can’t afford to live in average neighborhoods of average cities, when middle-class parents can’t afford college for their kids – that’s when a society finds its political cohesion and civic confidence unraveling.

For just this reason, most modern industrial nations – Japan, Germany, Britain, Korea, France, Australia, Italy, Canada – have what economists call “mediating institutions.” They take different forms in different countries – strong unions, family allowances, universal health insurance, a high minimum wage – but in general they make sure that economic progress produces the results that society wants. The United States stands out in this crowd: It is the world's richest big country, but also the one with the highest poverty rates, the worst inequality, the most uninsured people and the most fragile middle class.

Americans might have decided sometime in the last 30 years that unions were the wrong tool to insure the uninsured, give each worker a pension and secure a future for the middle class. But if so, then they need to find an alternative.


See also the previous Wild Reed post, R.I.P. Neoclassical Economics.

The Frog Tree

Images: Michael J. Bayly.

In the Garden of Spirituality – Zainab Salbi

“We are not on earth to guard a museum,
but to cultivate a flowering garden of life.”

– Pope John XXIII

As signs of spring burst forth here in Australia, I’ve decided to begin a series of reflections on spirituality. The first of these reflections is from Zainab Salbi, founder of the relief organization, Women for Women International.

_______________________

To me, spirituality is ultimately about seeing our Source – no matter what we each call It – as the same. It also involves acting on our responsibility to help others, especially those who are less fortunate. We must each do something to improve the world, even if it’s only that we pick up a piece of paper on the street. I feel very strongly about this.

No matter what your religion, if you live anywhere in the Middle East where I was raised, the teachings of Islam permeate the culture. There is no specific image or person that embodies the Islamic conception of God. God is everywhere, anywhere. God is part of you. Though I do not follow the teachings of Islam, I believe this as well. I talk to God in my heart. Depending on the situation, I ask, ‘Why is this happening to me?’ Or I say, ‘Thank you. Thank you, God.’ I feel comfortable and happy with this connection. We all have something we create for ourselves to make sense of things. This is what does it for me.

I don’t believe in nationalism or in grouping people only according to a geographical location or outer characteristic. Culture, religion, ethnicity are man-made social constructs that influence our lives, but we are more than these limited constructs. We are one humanity, the human race, and we have a responsibility to help each other regardless of what group we belong to. It’s only natural for people to drift towards others of like mind or color or geographical location, but I don’t think these things should restrict us from relating to everyone simply as human beings. If we act based on what we have in common with each other rather than on what’s different about us, we can really help one another.

I’m not trying to essentialize human experience, to disregard what makes us each different or unique – or to say that one way will help everyone. I realize that our experiences of race, ethnicity, and class do affect who we are and the challenges we face. But we have to act humanely toward each other. I can disagree with someone politically – and God knows I do! – but when it comes time to ensure that they have access to food, medical care, education, shelter, and so on, their political views become irrelevant to me.

I believe Spirit, or God – the name is not important to me – is influencing my life and [ . . . ] that this Spirit is everywhere all the time. Believing in God is what is important to me. This belief, more than any particular religious teaching, is what guides my life.

My spirituality is [ . . . ] a view I have about life that helps me make sense of the different experiences I go through [ . . . ] It helps me deal with the challenges and enjoy my happy times. I do pray every day and try to silently reflect on and contemplate my life. This strengthens my connection to God and my ability to deal with my challenges [ . . . ] Gratitude is also a big part of my spirituality. I’m grateful for the big things [ . . . ] and for the really small things. I don’t take anything for granted.



Excerpted from In Sweet Company: Conversations with Extraordinary Women About Living a Spiritual Life by Margaret Wolff.

Garden photos by my dad, Gordon Bayly.

A Spring Swim

Yesterday, on the first day of spring in Australia, I swam in the sea. It was my first time in the water since early June.


It was cold at first, but after a short time it felt wondrously energizing. I dived beneath the waves and floated on the ocean’s gentle swell - arms and legs spread, eyes to the sky. It was beautiful.

Later I laid my scrawny pale body upon the beach. On one side of me, a little further off, an extended Aboriginal family laughed and played. On the other side, a flock of terns huddled against the breeze, casting cautious glances my way.

Gulls wheeled above while beyond us all, almost lost in the expanse of the afternoon sky, hung a pale half-moon.

It's strange to think that back in Minnesota, summer is ebbing. Here, it's just beginning to stir with the first signs of spring.

If all goes to plan I'll return to the U.S. on October 2, just in time for the beautiful fall colors. The only downside, as a friend recently pointed out, is that I will have experienced three winters this year! Of course, a winter in Australia doesn't quite compare to one in Minnesota.

The Bayly Family (Part III)

Here are a few more snaps from when my family was together in the last week of July.

See also the Wild Reed posts:
Gunnedah (Part I)
Gunnedah (Part II)
Gunnedah (Part III)
One of These Boys . . .
A Lesson from Play School
Catholic Rainbow (Australian) Parents
The Bayly Family - July 2006 (Part I)
The Bayly Family - July 2006 (Part II)
The Bayly Family - July 2006 (Part III)
My Brother, the Drummer
Like Father, Like Daughter
A Rabbit’s Tale
Remembering Nanna Smith

Goulburn Revisited

Last week I visited the Southern Highlands of New South Wales and, in particular, the rural city of Goulburn – Australia’s oldest inland city.

Before my relocation to the United States, I lived in Goulburn from 1988 to 1993, teaching (and, in many ways, learning) at Sts. Peter and Paul’s Primary School.

Leaving my friend Garth's place in Wollongong on Monday, August 21, I drove a Budget rental car to the township of Exeter – 50 km northwest of Goulburn. Here I visited and stayed with my friend Kerry, who lives on a small acreage on the outskirts of Exeter.




Exeter is quite close to the beautiful Morton National Park and, in particular, Fitzroy Falls.






One of Kerry’s numerous creative talents is her ability to capture the beauty of Australia’s unique flora through photography. Below is an example.



Tuesday, August 22 and Wednesday, August 23 were spent in Goulburn, the “Wool Capital” of Australia.




While in Goulburn I caught up with a number of friends from my teaching days.


Above: With friends Annie and Joe, their daughter, Ingrid, and Cathy. I taught Ingrid when she was in both fourth and fifth class (1990 and 1991 respectively). She now has a successful career in law in nearby Canberra.



Above: With Gerry and Cathy. Gerry was a friend and colleague at Sts. Peter and Paul’s Primary School. He continues to dedicate his time and gifts to the young people at the school. Cathy is a good friend with whom I studied part-time at the Australian Catholic University in Canberra in 1990-91. When teaching at Sts. Peter and Paul's, I taught two of Gerry and Cathy's three children, Jacinta and Bernard.

Another good friend I caught up with while in Goulburn was Jackie, who served as assistant principal at Sts Peter and Paul’s when I was teaching there. Jackie’s now retired though keeps busy, in part, with her involvement in “Spirituality in the Pub” (SIP).

Founded in 1994 by Catalyst for Renewal, a group of Australian Catholics working for renewal within the Church, SIP has been described as informal dinner, speaker and conversation events held in suburban and country pubs.

As Muriel Potter of The Age notes, the SIP movement began in Sydney and is “quietly on the rise.” And the reason for this? “SIP,” writes Potter, “gives Catholics a safe and welcoming place where they can listen to each other’s ‘longings, insights, questions, needs and aspirations’.” Such a description reminds me of the ministry work of CPCSM back in Minnesota.

The growing Spirituality in the Pub movement , observes Potter, is also one more example of a version of “religionless Christianity” developing on the margins of the institutional church (or kyriarchy*) as it faces increasing numerical decline.

In Goulburn, my friend Jackie and others are planning a SIP event for September 12 – one which will feature theologian, author and broadcaster Paul Collins. I plan on returning to Goulburn for this event.


NEXT: Paul Collins and Marilyn Hatton.


See also: Goulburn Landmarks, Goulburn Reunion, and Remnants of a Past Life.


* Notes Catholic theologian Mary Hunt, “ ‘Kyriarchy’ is a term coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. It means, literally, structures of lordship. It denotes the interstructured forms of oppression – gender, race, class, nationality, sexuality and the like – that result in power differences and injustice. Kyriarchy is used to distinguish the hierarchical, clerical model of church from the larger Catholic community. Fiorenza includes a useful discussion of kyriocentrism in her Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001.”

R.I.P. Neoclassical Economics

In the July/August issue of Adbusters, Paul Ormerod interviews a number of economists outside of the neoclassical school.

One of those Ormerod interviews is Joshua Farley, a prominent ecological economist working in the department of Community Development and Applied Economics at the University of Vermont.

Here’s a little of what Farley has to say:

At my university, there are students who are engaged enough to say “wait a minute, this doesn’t make sense.” They often organize dialogues or debates between ecological and neoclassical economists. They’ve done ones on fair trade and globalization and a comparison of the overall disciplines. Through these debates I think both sides get to air their views and students get to hear both sides together. Of course, it’s fairly clear to me what side generally makes the better case. And I think the students feel that way too. We simply have a much better argument then the neoclassical economists.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are so bought into the neoclassical model, they can’t imagine anything else. We call it the Washington Consensus because it has the full weight of Washington behind it. Developing countries are told, “If you’re having an economic slow down, you should increase taxes, slash government expenditure, and raise interest rates.” Whereas when we have a slow down here in the United States we do precisely the opposite. We force other countries to do the exact opposite of what we do and demand insane requirements such as privatizing water supplies; which essentially means creating private monopolies . . .

The World Bank has tried to address poverty by introducing fees for public school and basic healthcare, which proves that economists don’t even understand their own discipline that well. If you introduce fees for public healthcare and people can’t afford basic prevention from contagious diseases, you increase the reservoir of contagious diseases in your society, and that actually increases expenditures on the part of the government. Same with the privatization of water. If you privatize water and people can’t afford to buy it, they drink cholera-laden river water and you create an epidemic that takes more resources to deal with.

Economists have such a narrow vision and they’ve bought into this faith-based assumption that markets are always best. So it’s not a science anymore, it’s a theology.

Right now, our society's major goal is to increase consumption. But there’s very little evidence that increasing consumption does anything to make us better off anymore. In the US, every generation consumes twice as much as the generation before. So, if our GDP fell by fifty percent that would put us back to the 1970s standard of living. Big deal! People were not living in misery then. I would argue that in spite of all our economic growth, the poverty rate has not fallen, so it has done nothing to make us better off.

Consumption cannot remain the core of our economic measures. We need something more like what Bhutan is doing. Try to measure the things that make people happy. There are fundamental human needs that are consistent across cultures. Things like affection, creativity, protection/security, independence, etc. Trying to measure these things would be a little sloppy, but it’s something we should at least be thinking about and pursuing.

For more information about Adbusters, click here.

Garth's Big Day

I'm back in Wollongong visting my friend Garth, who today bought himself a new motor bike, a Honda CBR 600 RR.



I went with him up to Sydney where he purchased "the beast" from a dealership in the western suburb of Blacktown. He rode it back to Wollongong while I drove back in his utility truck.

It was a big day, but at the end of it, Garth was one satisfied man!

And he looks good in leather, too!





See also the previous Wild Reed post: Travelin' South (Part I).

Classic Dusty

Okay, I’m a bit late, but August 7 marked the 9th anniversary of Woman of Repute, my website dedicated to the late, great British pop and soul singer, Dusty Springfield.

To mark this milestone, here’s a clip of Dusty in all her ’60s, black & white glory! . . . Enjoy.





See also the Wild Reed posts:
• Soul Deep
• Remembering a Great Soul Singer

More Propaganda Than Plot?

In a recent article on the World Socialist Web Site, Kate Randall writes that, "more than a week after the US and UK announcements that an alleged terror plot to blow up commercial airliners flying from Britain to the US had been foiled, the official claims are unraveling."

"Authorities," notes Randall, "have been unable to provide any concrete evidence to back up the story that police raids and mass arrests in Britain thwarted an imminent attack that would have taken the lives of thousands of transatlantic travelers. Significant details, in fact, have come to light that indicate the opposite. Not only has it been revealed that no bombs were actually in the process of being assembled, but none of the suspects—British-born Muslims, who at this point remain in custody without having been charged—had purchased airline tickets. Some did not even hold passports."

Randall then proceeds to offer an insightful analysis of the wider context of this most recent "plot", noting that, "it is becoming increasingly evident that the government-media hysteria about the alleged plot was prompted not by security concerns, but rather by a politically motivated desire to divert attention from the growing crisis of both the Bush and Blair governments. Under conditions of a deepening military and political debacle in Iraq, growing domestic opposition to the war, a deteriorating military situation in Afghanistan, and the unfavorable outcome for the US and Britain in Lebanon, the eruption of the latest alleged terror plot has served to 'change the subject,' while fostering an atmosphere of fear and panic that both governments hope will disorient the public and facilitate new attacks on democratic rights.

"It is now clear that there was no imminent attack to be thwarted. But the massive provocation unleashed by Washington and London has succeeded in creating a climate of near-hysteria, at least within official circles, the media, the airline industry, and police agencies, that has spawned a string of incidents in which minor occurrences were sensationalized and reported, replete with wild claims and lurid rumors, as new 'terror events.' "

Such "events," notes Randall, "follow a common pattern: allegations are leveled by the authorities; the media swings into action to uncritically promote and embellish the official line. In short order, the initial claims are abandoned and the stories drop out of the headlines, with no accounting for the initial false reports, while the media waits with bated breath for the next 'terror threat.' "

To read Kate Randall's article in its entirety, click here.

Award-winning journalist and host of Pacifica Radio's New York-based Democracy Now! program, Amy Goodman, has also been exploring this important issue. Last Friday she noted that "questions have been raised over whether British authorities were pressured by the United States to make the arrests last week in the alleged terror plot to blow up transatlantic airliners." She also reported that "a judge in Britain has ruled police have until next week to continue to hold 23 suspects arrested in the alleged plot."

Goodman then interviewed Craig Murray, Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, who suggested that the timing of the arrests should be viewed with skepticism. Said Murray: "The one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot."

For the full transcript of Democracy Now!'s interview with Craig Murray, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
"When Terror is the Foil"

Those Europeans Are At It Again

Now here's something you won't see on American or Australian screens. It's a clever, insightful, funny, and poignant French commercial promoting condom use. I'm guessing it's shown in cinemas before featured films.

Its message is simple and universal: "Live long enough to find the right one".





I particularly appreciate the filmmaker's depiction of childhood experiences of difference and ridicule around gender expectations, and the fact that standing up to such ridicule and condemnation can lead to deeper self awareness and acceptance. I mean, that knowing smile of the hero when we first see him as a young adult is just priceless!

And did you notice the rather overt (and negative) reference to God?

From my experience, however, God isn't to be found in any real or imagined finger condemningly coming down from the sky, but in our honest searching for right relationship with others. It's a search that, like our young hero shows, may well involve missteps and mistakes.

Nevertheless, such experiences can, without doubt, serve as vehicles for learning and transformation. I'm not advocating that we all go out and purposely do things we know are not life-giving for either ourselves or others. But what I am saying is that sometimes I have to find out for myself what is true and "life-giving" for me and those with whom I am in relationship. It's a journey, a learning process - and one that should be open to questions, exploration, and the possibility of mistakes along the way.

Having said that, I don't believe personal experience is the sole norm governing behavior. Yet this doesn't mean that personal experience, including the personal experiences of LGBT people, should be ignored completely when, for instance, the Catholic Church makes ethical and/or doctrinal judgments on matters related to human sexuality.

As Australian theologian Paul Collins reminds us, "Consulting the laity in the formulation of doctrine is part of Catholicism's theological tradition. Also, the whole Church's acceptance of papal and episcopal teaching is an integral part of testing the veracity of that teaching. The hierarchy does not have a monopoly on truth." Collins finds support for such claims in the writings of the great English theologian, Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90), "who said unequivocally that the laity have to be consulted in matters of doctrine, especially when teachings concern their lives so intimately". (Collins, P., Between the Rock and a Hard Place: Being Catholic Today, ABC Books, Sydney, 2004, p. 12.)

Wrote Newman: "The body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and . . . their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church". (Newman, J.H., On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, (1859), ed. John Coulson, Collins, London, 1961, p. 63.)


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Rejecting the "Lesser Evil"
The Non-negotiables of Human Sex
A Lesson from Play School

A Lesson from "Play School"

Flicking through the TV channels recently, I came across good ol' Play School – an educational show for children that’s been on Australian television since 1966.

Oddly enough, there’s never any actual children on the show, just a regular cast of toys (including Humpty, Jemima, Big Ted, Little Ted, Diddle, and Owl) and two adult hosts.

Over the years, some of Australia’s best know actors have hosted Play School – including Noni Hazelhurst, Lorraine Bayly, John Waters, and Benita Collins. My mum always thought that being a host on the show would have been a great job.

I watched Play School as a kid growing up in Australia. I certainly don’t remember, however, hosts like Teo. Or perhaps more accurately, I don’t remember consciously thinking the types of thoughts I did while watching, as an adult, the antics of this particular Play School host of today.

In the brief segment of Play School I recently came across, handsome Teo was clamouring over large pillows, singing a song about being a polar bear. I must admit fleetingly thinking: now here’s a guy who would be a lot of fun in the sack.

Then I got to thinking about the genesis of such sexual feelings, and soon realized that even though Teo wasn’t around when I was watching Play School, I do remember observing, as a child, certain males and certain images of males that triggered something within me – a feeling that I soon realized set me apart from the majority of other boys my age. In retrospect, I can recognize such feelings as the first stirrings of my sexual – my homosexual – awakening.

I think most people – gay or straight – can recall similar childhood experiences of this type of awakening. Of course, the difference with gay people is that at an early age we soon recognize the need for various self-protective strategies in a society that demands conformity to a heterosexual ideal. In other words, we build and then go into a “closet.” The journey out of this fear-based place of refuge can be a long and painful process.

One of my earliest memories of male intrigue/attraction was focused on the following image from the cover of a 1970 compilation album of pop songs, entitled 20 Dynamic Hits.


This particular man was never identified on the album cover and, as I grew older, I could never match for certain his image with the names of the various male artists listed on the back of the album. As a child, I always associated this mystery man’s face with the lead male vocalist in the group Tee Set. Their hit song, “Ma Belle Amie,” opens the album.

Of course, thanks to the internet and, in particular, Google, I’ve recently identified my Mystery Man. He’s none other than American singer Mark Lindsay. His song “Arizona” is featured on Side B of the album.

Among other things, this trip down memory lane reinforces my absolute disdain for those who insist that the homosexual orientation is somehow the result of environmental forces, and not an innate, God-giving gift to a minority of the human family.

I grew up with two brothers – both of whom, like me, observed the same things on TV, at the movies, and on album covers. And guess what? Neither of them is gay.

All of this reminds me of the recent controversy surrounding gay actor Chad Allen and the movie End of the Spear.

As the May–June 2006 issue of The Gay & Lesbian Review notes, “End of the Spear was being hailed by evangelical Christians as the next big movie to get their message out to the flocks. The drama about the 1956 murder of five American missionaries in Ecuador was poised for a zealous opening – until it was discovered that one of its actors, Chad Allen, was openly gay.

“All at once, what had been a must-see Christian movie was the target of a boycott (that evangelical weapon of last resort). The reaction seemed overblown even by fundy standards – could the private life of one actor really matter that much? – leading [gay commentator] Dan Savage to quip in The New York Times that these are the same people who think they can convert your gay son to heterosexuality, yet they don’t think Chad Allen can pull off acting straight for two hours in a movie. Once again, Savage is onto something.

“The religious Right is always saying that being gay is a choice, a lifestyle, perhaps just a phase you’re going through. But when it comes to discriminating against GLBT people, suddenly being gay becomes a fixed condition, a lifelong stigma, a basis for permanent exclusion. Logically, they should be happy that Allen got to play straight: who knows, it just might have stuck.”

Then again, it might not; especially if he's ever casually changing channels and catches Teo doing his polar bear routine.


Recommended Off-site Link:
Through the Window: Play School Turns 40 - Noni Hazlehurst and Rhys Muldoon (The Age, July 13, 2006).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Soul Deep
Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth

Pacific Skies

Images: Michael J. Bayly.

Dirk Bogarde (Part III)

Earlier this month I finished reading John Coldstream’s biography of British actor and author Dirk Bogarde (1921-1999).



I’ve also finally viewed my first Dirk Bogarde film – though it wasn’t one I found in a video store but rather one that was recently broadcast in the early hours of the morning by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC).

The film shown was 1958’s The Wind Cannot Read, which, says Coldstream, was “Richard Mason’s adaptation of his own novel about a doomed wartime love affair between a grounded RAF officer and a Japanese language teacher”.

The film, nicknamed “the illiterate fart” by cast and crew, was partly shot in India, where much of the story was set. “The Red Fort was visited,” documents Coldstream, “the Taj Mahal was swooned over, polo was watched, Indira Gandhi was met and a perfectly serviceable film made, its faintly risible action outweighed by [Bogarde’s Flight-Lieutenant character’s] tender romance with [the Japanese language teacher] – played by Toko Tani.”


The most interesting aspect of The Wind Cannot Read is the fact that, as Coldstream notes, the film “yields the prize” for “collectors of those few moments” when Dirk and his real life partner Tony Forwood (pictured at left) share a screen.

This “prize” is “an exchange of dialogue, with [Tony] as a senior officer, interrogation on his mind, telling Dirk as they enter a compound full of Japanese prisoners: ‘Shan’t keep you a minute. I’d like to take another crack at Corporeal Tanaka.’”

Yet the one Dirk Bogarde movie that I really want to see is the landmark 1961 film Victim.

According to Stephen Bourne in his study of homosexuality in the British cinema, Victim “had an enormous impact on the lives of gay men who, for the first time, saw credible representations of themselves and their situations in a commercial British film.”



According to John Coldstream, scene 112 of Victim “was, and remains, the most important of [Bogarde's] acting life. Much of it he himself wrote, or rewrote”. Coldstream then goes on to set the scene: “Confronted by his beautiful wife, Laura, [Dirk’s character, barrister Melville Farr] is asked to explain who this Boy Barrett was, how they knew each other, and why Mel stopped seeing him”.

In the film Mel eventually responds:

Alright – alright, you want to know. I’ll tell you – you won’t be content until I tell you, will you – until you’ve RIPPED it out of me. I stopped seeing him because I WANTED him. Can you understand – because I WANTED him. Now what good has that done you?

Notes Coldstream: “Originally the speech read: ‘You won’t be content till I tell you. I put the boy outside the car because I wanted him. Now what good has that done you?’ The force with which Dirk delivered his extra dialogue to [co-star] Sylvia Syms made it unforgettable. It was the moment when the matinée idol donned a new cloak of seriousness; when ‘Peter Pan’ grew up; when ‘Dorian Gray’ allowed us with him to take a peep into the attic.”

Writer Andy Medhurst notes that “Victim’s intentions were to support the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report, which advocated the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual acts, but the emotional excess of Bogarde’s performance [. . .] pushes the text beyond its liberal boundaries until it becomes a passionate validation of the homosexual option. Simply watch the ‘confession’ scene for proof of this.”

Sylvia Syms agrees that the film itself was a brave undertaking – even “revolutionary” – but, says Coldstream, “she does not sign up completely to the general view that it was an act of courage for Dirk to play Mel: ‘They say he was so brave to play this man with those feelings. But look at the lines he himself wrote. He was frightened of those emotions, and didn’t want to admit them, but, when he had to, he wanted to play them with great truth’”.

In his biography of Bogarde, John Coldstream writes that “[t]he ultimate accolade for what Dirk called this ‘modest, tight, neat little thriller’ would come to him in the summer of 1968, a year after the Sexual Offences Act passed through Parliament and into law. On 5 June Lord (‘Boofy’) Arran, who in 1965 had introduced the legislation in the House of Lords, wrote to Dirk that he had just seen Victim for the first time – on television – ‘and I just want to say how much I admire your courage in undertaking this difficult and potentially damaging part’. He said he understood that it was in large part responsible for a swing in popular opinion, as shown by the polls, from forty-eight per cent to sixty-three per cent in favour of reform. Lord Arran concluded: ‘It is comforting to think that perhaps a million men are no longer living in fear.’”

What a pity that this liberation from fear never fully extended to Dirk himself. Indeed, having completed Coldstream’s biography on Dirk, I’m left with a portrait of a gifted actor and author who, although capable of great graciousness and charm, was nevertheless, at a very deep level, an unhappy and embittered man.

“He had a lot of guilt in him and he carried it around like a sort of knapsack”, says writer Sheridan Morley. “And yet, when you pinned it down, there was nothing really for him to feel guilty about at all.”

Bogarde obviously saw things differently. Indeed, throughout his life he viewed and discussed matters relating to homosexuality, including his own, with at times a certain distaste (not unlike, incidentally, his biographer John Coldstream) and at other times, flat denial.

Victim co-star Sylvia Syms suggests that Bogarde had the characteristics of one who “loves to watch, to tell dirty stories, but who does not like the messiness, the untidiness of sex”. Not surprisingly, Dirk left the impression of being “a soul in incredible torment”, according to friend and colleague Charlotte Rampling.

Yet Rampling also acknowledges that Dirk “touched happiness sometimes”, and that “Tony was where the happiness came from.”

In fact, another friend and colleague, Faith Brook, described Dirk and Tony’s relationship as “a very perfect marriage”.



There was “a strength of bond”, acknowledges Coldstream, “which united these two men in a relationship that was admired by their friends and by the most casual of acquaintances as more secure than many a marriage. Indeed that word has been used by several of those friends to convey the constancy and the particular air exuded by complementary and equal partners.”

It's good to know that despite all the fear and unhappiness he harboured within, Dirk Bogarde was nevertheless open to experiencing and nurturing a loving relationship with another man - a relationship that for both men was mutually strengthening and sustaining.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Dirk Bogarde (Part I)
Dirk Bogarde (Part II)