Monday, December 22, 2014

Katharine Hayhoe and God's Fevered Creation.

For Guernica's final special issue of 2014, Religion in America, I interviewed climate scientologist Katharine Hayhoe. Here's a clip, below, or you can read the entire interview here.

Guernica: Actor Don Cheadle says in Years of Living Dangerously, before meeting you, “I’ve never heard of anyone like Katharine Hayhoe.” In popular culture we don’t often encounter someone who is both a scientist and a Christian. It’s like you’re a unicorn.
Katharine Hayhoe: It’s a common perception that science and religion are mutually exclusive. But there are many scientists who would consider themselves to be spiritual people. Not only that, but in the case of climate change—a scientific issue with strong moral implications and difficult decisions to be made—it’s essential to connect the science to our values. And for many of us, our values come from our faith.
For Christians, doing something about climate change is about living out our faith—caring for those who need help, our neighbors here at home or on the other side of the world, and taking responsibility for this planet that God created and entrusted to us. My faith tells me that God does want people to understand climate change and do something about it. And that is a very freeing thought: I don’t have to change the world all by myself, I just need to partner in the work God wants us to do.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Upcoming Events, October 2014

I'll be reading at two events this month. Please come say hi!

Monday, October 13
Greenlight Books, 686 Fulton Street, Brooklyn
Launch of the Guernica magazine Annual
With readings by Nick Flynn, Rachel Riederer, Saeed Jones, Ann Neumann
And a Q&A with Guernica Editor in Chief Michael Archer
7:30 pm

Sunday, October 26
Unnameable Books, 600 Vanderbilt Avenue, Brooklyn
With readings by Dania Rajendra, Nathan Schneider and Ann Neumann*
Hosted by Robert Eshelman
6 pm
*I'll be reading from my forthcoming book, to be published by Beacon Press next year

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Death to Preserved Land by a Thousand Dirty Pipelines

I'm tickled to have an Op-Ed in the New York Times Sunday Review section this morning about something that's dear to me: the hollow I grew up in. Right now a natural gas transporter, Williams, is threatening to run a pipeline through it.

Lots of folks are asking what they can do to help. Here are some options:

Leave a comment at FERC, docket PF 14-8:

Write a love letter to PA Governor Tom "Frackers own me" Corbett or call him at 717.787.2500:

Share this far and wide. We're all getting fracked.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

On the Blog Train.

A couple of writer friends have tagged me on what they're calling a blog train, a series of questions about what projects and processes we're engaged with at the moment. I'm a little late to this but I have a good excuse: I just got back from a month in the south of India and, well, jet lag is for real. But Brook Wilensky-Lanford and Mary Valle are rock stars as far as I'm concerned. Some calls for participation shouldn't be ignored. Besides, its always helpful to think about how I organize and describe my own work--and here's a chance to engage in that exercise. Through the dissipating fog I hop on the blog train.

What am I working on?

A Book! With a capital B. Next year Beacon Press will publish a project that I've been researching for about six years, SITTING VIGIL: IN SEARCH OF A GOOD DEATH. I've known Amy Caldwell there for a few years and I'm delighted to work with her. The books starts with the question: Why do so few Americans die the way they want to? For the past 50 years, medicine, culture, and law have made it increasingly difficult to know what's coming and how to plan for it. It's my first book and the manuscript is due this fall so I'm excited to be diving deep into the writing phase.

I also write a monthly column for The Revealer, a publication of The Center for Religion and Media at New York University, called "The Patient Body." Because the material in the column overlaps with much of the book, I get to think freely, to test ideas, to ask questions without requiring that they fit into a larger structure. It's good fun and the editor there, Kali Handelman, has been super smart about making me go deeper, think harder, explain more clearly. And I'm also happy to be a contributing nonfiction editor at Guernica magazine, although to be honest, they're getting more writing out of me right now than editing because of my book deadline. These things are great for book procrastination, even as I use the book to procrastinate them! I'm always cheating on one project with another and I think that keeps me from getting stale. I recently started a series of tragic short stories--about suicides, car accidents, runaway trains--which have turned out to be incredibly enjoyable.

How does my work/writing differ from others in its genre? 

Re: SITTING VIGIL: Most books about the social and cultural aspects of death are clinical and academic or sentimental. While there are some really great exceptions (Sherwin Nuland's 1995 bestseller How We Die or, say, Jessica Mitford's classic 1963 take down of the funeral industry The American Way of Death), I find a lot of the books out there to be informative and great for research but not necessarily a good read. I first thought of this project as a memoir; the experience of caring for my father until he died in 2005 rocked me and, as someone in my late thirties, I wanted to know why I was so unprepared for it. My approach from the beginning has been fueled by intense investigative curiosity. I became a hospice volunteer in order to describe the dying process first hand. I spend a lot of time with doctors, bioethicists, nurses, preachers, home health aids, lawyers and of course people who are dying and their families. Because I started out writing poetry, I think I'll always begin with personal experience--told with as much detail as I can muster--but I really like the big hard questions, often those that come from tearing apart terms that go unexamined even as they are used as placeholders in our conversations: hope, dignity, a good death. And I'm scrappy; I like to dabble in theory and policy, but ground those knowledges and facts in the stories my patients tell me. I try to break down the big words and ideas into concrete details, to ask the questions we often consider too impolite: What is love, really? What is care? Quality of life? Choice? I figured the best way to examine how Americans die was to go out there and watch them die, to dispense with the euphemisms, to pull back the pale blue hospital curtains, to ask patients what they were physically feeling, seeing, fearing, and expecting. And I'm wedding those narratives to deep reporting. SITTING VIGIL is story driven and it's incredibly personal, even as it comes out of years of research. What I hope is that the writing is creative and engaging even as the social justice aspects of death and dying are.

Why do I write what I do?

The simple answer is I write about death and dying because I'm fascinated and often perplexed by how individuals reckon with it. I don't think it's false humility for me to say that it's easy to write about dying; death is inherently profound and dramatic. Sure, losing patient after patient, always grieving takes a toll--I'm constantly in awe of hospice workers, doctors and nurses--but I've never had to explain why this project matters or why we should care about how we die. It's impossible to write about someone's death and the challenges they've encountered without getting emotionally involved, without encountering pain and struggle, without being schooled on empathy and sympathy all the time. In an environment where decisions are so limited and poignant, I have been taught by my patients and interviewees what setting priorities is all about. I joke that my next book will be about puppies and butterflies but I doubt it. I like the weight of this subject. And I have to admit that it's a subject, like religion, that makes people squirm. I like that.

How does my writing process work?

I'm terribly neat and organized, I think because I'm afraid of losing details, afraid that I won't recall an experience or emotion. I'm kind of flighty and I don't want to miss anything important so I can't go anywhere without a notebook. That wealth of material often leads to culling details or incidents that later, in context or on the page, lose their vitality or become redundant. I've got a building pile of clippings, notes, and articles for each chapter and because I've been working on this project for so long, some of them have had to shift around until they found a home. But I did, at least for this project, have to start with a fairly refined outline. Of course, I'm always proving myself wrong, always rearranging things, either in the process of writing (which is definitely the best way of thinking/explaining/discovering for me) or with new research. Because I have this kind of organization and structure, I'm able to experiment with how to best juxtapose different issues and contexts. For me the adage is true: form is liberating.

Right now, with a deadline looming, my schedule is really structured. I work at home and control my schedule and environment as much as possible. When I'm cranking, I'm pretty much 9 to 5. I don't get online till noon, I have daily and weekly goals. And I'm happy like a kid when I meet them. I've never been good on limited sleep so I try to have strict wake and bed times. I'm kind of like an old lady that way. And I have to edit on paper. If I try to read my own stuff online, I get lost. So I have to print out a draft, spread it out on my dining room table or the floor. Then I can see it.

I'm lucky to have a great writing community, from the talented and astute members of my writing group to fellow travelers who are engaged with death and dying, to my agent, Laurie Abkemeier, who has turned out to be a brilliant reader of my work. Often, I find myself writing something and running it through a couple of lenses: a bioethicist, a great long-form journalist, my sister, an academic friend. It's not that I'm trying to write for everybody (although I hope what I am doing is broadly engaging) but that I want to be sure I'm thinking in the round rather than coming at anything with a destination already in mind. Doing so keeps me from making assumptions, and that's the purpose, right? To see and record, to describe and explain as honestly as I can.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Spring Sprung.

I just got back from India which means I'm constantly groggy with jet lag. But it's been a tremendous spring with lots of new writing and events. It helps to sum it all up; proof that I've been happily busy. 

The best and brightest news is that the book I've been researching for about 6 years will... become a book! SITTING VIGIL: IN SEARCH OF A GOOD DEATH will be published by Beacon Press in 2015. No small thanks goes to my brilliant agent, Laurie Abkemeier, for finding me, for believing in this project from the beginning, and for holding my hand through the process. I'm so tickled. And I'm so on lock-down. The deadline for the manuscript is this fall.

A host of other little successes and articles have kept me busy. Here are some links:

My time in India straddled the conclusion of the national election in which the Congress party, in power almost uninterruptedly since the time of Indian independence in 1947, was defeated by the BJP. The new Prime Minister, Modi, represents an extraordinary overthrow of political philosophy. I wrote about Modi, and an Indian yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, who aided Modi's election, for Killing the Buddha, "Whose 'India First'?".

As a new contributing nonfiction editor at the online literary magazine, Guernica, I was lucky enough to help edit an article by academic Wendy Pearlman on the Syrian uprising and how it has affected individual lives there. Read Pearlman's "Fathers of Revolution" when you can. It's stunning.

In April I got to read, along with Alia Malek and Erika Anderson, at a Big Umbrella/Guernica sponsored event. It was fantastic fun--even though I was nervous to be reading... about kidneys. I read "What's a Kidney Worth?" one of the earlier installments of my column at The Revealer, a publication of The Center for Religion and Media at New York University. Writing the monthly "The Patient Body" column has been pure joy. And it's ongoing so keep an eye on The Revealer if "issues at the intersection of religion and media" are your thing.

I wrote two book reviews for Bookforum this spring. The first (FEB/MAR 2014) was of Megan Hustad's More than Conquerors: A Memoir of Lost Arguments and the second (APR/MAY 2014) was of Charles Marsh's Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. If you don't subscribe to Bookforum, well, you should. Both, so far, are only in print.

On April 3 I was honored to speak at Colgate University's Lambert Institute for Civic and Global Affairs. Hamilton, New York, is so charming and the drive up and back were so gorgeous. But the best part was meeting faculty and students who were perfect, curious and insightful hosts.

For Guernica's special issue on the American South in March, I wrote about the increasingly Southern practice of execution. You should check out the entire issue, which will soon become an ebook, here.

In February I got to write about marijuana and hospice for OnFaith. Here's a little excerpt: "The ironies of how we regulate moral behavior were not lost on me. Nor would they have been lost on most anyone who happened to observe our smoking through the window of her luxurious apartment on Central Park West."

Also in February I was asked to present a talk for the Columbia University Seminar on Death. The conversation was so lively and smart that I came away with insights that continue to inform my work.

A special issue on End of Life was printed by the New York Law School Review in February. You can read my contribution, "The Limits of Autonomy: Force-Feedings in Catholic Hospitals and Prisons" online.

Now on to summer!

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Dying with Class

It's out! Yesterday Living with Class: Philosophical Reflections on Identity and Material Culture came off the presses. It's edited by Ron Scapp and Brian Seitz and includes essays by bell hooks, Stanley Aronowitz, Lisa Nell, Henry Giroux and others.

I've got an essay in the book that looks at class, race, religion and hospice use called, "Dying with Class."

You can by it here.

Read more about Living with Class at the Palgrave Macmillan site.

Here's the book's table of contents:

Introduction: Working Class; Ron Scapp and Brian Seitz
1. Class Dismissed: The Issue Is Accountability; bell hooks
2. Letter from a Lovelorn Pre-Radical: Looking Forward and Backward at Martin Luther King Jr.; Kevin Bruyneel, 
3. In Search of a New Left, Then and Now; Dick Howard
4. The Status of Class; Stanley Aronowitz
5. 'Fix the Tired': Cultural Politics and the Struggle for Shorter Hours; Kristin Lawler
6. Literary and Real Life Salesmen and the Performance of Class; Jon Dietrick
7. Money Changes Everything?: African American Class-Based Attitudes toward LBGT Issues; Ravi K. Perry, Yasmiyn Irizarry, and Timothy J. Fair 
8. Democracy without Class: Investigating the Political Unconscious of the United States; M. Lane Bruner
9. Re-Forming Class: Wealth, Culture, and Identity in South Africa; Lisa Nell
10. Whiteness as Currency: Rethinking the Exchange Rate; Emily M. Drew 
11. Dying with Class: Race, Religion, and the Commodification of a Good Death; Ann Neumann
12. New Materialisms and Digital Culture: Productive Labor and the Software Wars; Ted Kafala
13. Feminist Theory and the Critique of Class; Robin Truth Goodman
14. Criminal Class; Eric Anthamatten
15. Consuming Class: Identity & Power through the Commodification of Bourgeois Culture, Celebrity, and Glamour; Raúl Rubio
16. When Prosperity Is Built on Poverty, There Can Be No Foundation for Peace, as Poverty and Peace Don't Stand Hand in Hand; Pepi Leistyna
17. Solon the Athenian and the Origins of Class Struggle; Thomas Thorp
18. Memories of Class and Youth in the Age of Disposability; Henry A. Giroux

A Closely-Held Business

You can read the latest installment of my "Patient Body" column at The Revealer! I look at the current cases pending in the US Supreme Court, brought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, that challenge employees' rights to full health care coverage. Here's an excerpt:

Conflating Conestoga Wood Specialties with the Hahn family, which the repeated use of “closely-held” means to do, is a way to erase the separation between the family and the corporation. Non-profits are exempt from some general laws that are otherwise meant to protect the rights of workers. Why aren’t “closely-held” corporations? The real question before the US Supreme Court then, despite the other many arguments for and against the “contraception mandate,” is this: whose beliefs are more important, an employer’s or an employee’s?
The Conestoga appeal states:
The question presented is exceptionally important. Our nation was founded on freedom of religion, and our free-enterprise system allows entrepreneurs to pursue profit while also serving the common good. But the decision below puts these two foundational principles at odds. Must religious believers check their consciences at the door of their businesses, or may they generally live integrated lives of faith at work?
In other words, you own the business, you decide what “lives of faith” look like there. In a dissenting opinion of the district court decision Judge Kent Jordan wrote, “The government takes us down a rabbit hole where religious rights are determined by the tax code, with nonprofit corporations able to express religious sentiments while for-profit corporations and their owners are told that business is business and faith is irrelevant. Meanwhile, up on the surface, where people try to live lives of integrity and purpose, that kind of division sounds as hollow as it truly is.”
But what of Conestoga employees’ “integrity and purpose?” What must they check at the door? While contraception–and abortion, for that matter–are legal, and discrimination against employees for race, gender, disability or religion is clearly illegal, the question of an employee’s rights is swept away in the structural details of the case.