During Howard Zinn’s forty-five minute speech at Emerson last week, he suggested that we, students interested in the media, find inspiration in media professionals that live in the margins of the industry. These are the individuals that lie within the cracks of successful corporations, but also exist and partake in somewhat rebellious or progressive initiatives. John Lennon, who used corporations to express opposition towards them, or documentary filmmaker and activist Robert Greenwald, who works as a commercial director to fund his independent political documentaries, are two credible examples of individuals who have gained fame from using tactics – illegal or just against the “rules” – to create social impact. John Lennon was arrested and essentially banned from the United States for a period of time for speaking out. However, Lennon is more so known as an icon for his brilliant work and political activism. He is known for using music to create a revolution – a revolution that I believe was extremely important and changed our country for the better.
Just as fascinating are those that use prescription and illegal drugs to help them foster their brilliance. I recently read an article about the out of control use of Adderall as a “neuroenhancing” drug at Harvard University. Alex, a Harvard graduate, was a history major, ran a student organization, wrote dozens of papers for classes, and spent the weekends drinking with friends and going to dance parties. The author described him as “skinny and bearded, and wearing faded hipster jeans, he looked like the lead singer in an indie rock band. He was ingratiating and articulate, and smoked cigarettes with an ironic air of defiance.” In other words, he seemed extremely normal and quite brilliant, but keep in mind that Alex an active Adderall user. Alex explained that it would have been impossible for him to achieve all that he did without the use of the neuroenhancer. If Alex represents Harvard in positive light (for people that don’t know about his Adderall use), would they necessarily oppose his drug use?
It seems that the same way that our society shuns “living within the cracks” also shuns drug addiction, but secretly promotes it on the underbelly. It is like a slight wink and smile that you receive from a boss after doing something beneficial for the company, but slightly against the rules. I have snuck into hundreds of 21+ music venues and hid the blinking red light on my camera during events that were not supposed to be recorded – all of which have been planned by myself and the company that I am filming the project for to get quality footage. In other words, I am extremely familiar with that secret wink and smile of approval that I often get from my clients. I’ll admit to using tactics that can be described as “on the edge” or slightly illegal to produce quality documentary content. Documentary filmmakers are supposed to uncover things that many do not normally see, right?
I see a bit of myself in Alex, simply because he feels that Adderall in necessary to keep up his busy schedule. He is aware of his drug habit, but does not believe that it is harming him. How do you tell a Harvard student who scoring above average with an active position in multiple extracurriculars and a stable social life that his drug habit is a negative thing? How do you tell a documentary filmmaker that lying within the cracks to create a socially impacting film can be harmful? How do you tell someone who was as successful as John Lennon that using the mainstream media to act out against war and corporations is bad because it is going against the “rules”? Or better yet, my point, is it all that bad?
I know that Howard Zinn was not telling us to idolize illegal drug users, but I see some correlations between them. The AIG executives who made millions from bonuses, sports stars who use steroids (and get away with it), and everyone else who is extremely successful as long as they do not get caught are all examples. I am only able to mention these individuals simply because they did get caught, but there are hundreds of thousands of other individuals living in the cracks who have not.
I am growing up in a society that is completely full of people lying within the cracks. Maybe AIG was so successful, until now, because their executives were giving themselves huge bonuses. Rosa Parks’ refusal to go to the back of the bus was illegal at the time. For so long, she lived in the cracks, but when she acted publicly she went to jail. Now, however, she is known as an icon for Black rights. Let’s consider the idea that maybe Michael Phelps won so many gold medals because he has the ability to swim better than anyone else in the world, but is able to be so great because he also knows how to relax and light up a bong with college friends in his down time. Alex, the student living in the cracks of Harvard, and myself are no different. We are doing what we need to do to achieve our goals – even if that means putting on a fairly conservative front and using other tactics to keep up the identity that we have fronted. This does bring up issues of morality, but I am more interested on the social impact of living within the cracks – moral or immoral. For now, I am just presenting an issue that has had a strong impact on who I have become. Those that make change, lie within the cracks. Many times in order to create change individuals have gone against the rules or did something illegal. But if it is done with a wink and a smile, who will know?
After all, here I am sitting in the library of a higher education institution, writing this paper while slightly strung out on caffeine. Would my institution approve of my excessive use of caffeine? Well, in an e-mail they said that they are providing the coffee to help achieve higher and stay awake during finals. So aren’t they promoting the use of substances to “better youself”? I’m sure that they’d applaud me for all of the studying and writing that I have accomplished while on my Aramark-provided caffeine high.
