So now I am a post-doc. It's a good life, I must say. While there is the potential for extreme solitude, I find that it forces me to be proactive about meeting people. And I have done that--there is one other post-doc, who seems quite nice, and I have met a few faculty members. I am sure I will meet more as the semester gets underway.
I am also travelling back and forth from Happy Valley to Philadelphia, which is...interesting. It might be good practice for the future, since neither Alison nor I really know where we will end up, or what kind of arrangements we will need to make in order to keep living together. And the drive is beautiful. But it certainly feels a bit schizophrenic to live in the middle of a large city and out in a rural area within the same week, every week.
Luckily, I have been fairly productive so far in my post-doc. Two of my papers (with co-authors) have been submitted in the past month, and I am in the finishing stages of a couple more. Currently, I am revising one of my chapters from my dissertation. It is in good shape, but I need to push the theoretical contribution more. This is what I end up needing for pretty much any paper I write. I am timid when it comes to stating my "theoretical contribution", having a strong inclination to state my claims narrowly. But I am trying to re-frame the introduction to make broad claims. I am in that place where I'm not sure whether I'm making it brilliant (okay, maybe just smart) or incomprehensible. It's one or the other, and I'm really not sure which.
Lastly, I recently read this article in NY Times magazine. It's fascinating, and disturbing. Basically, it reviews the history of the decisions made to euthanize several patients at a New Orleans hospital in the days after Katrina. In early press coverage of this topic, I thought I supported the doctors and nurses who made these (difficult, I'm sure) decisions. But this article was deeply disturbing, particularly as the doctors' decisions to end some patients' lives did not appear to be based on comfort, but on a patients' quality of life. Now, of course, quality of life is important when considering comatose patients. But the problem is that doctors (and lay people) seem to mentally assign "quality of life" on a sliding scale, preferencing ability over disability, even where patients have full mental function. And of course, other potentially discriminatory factors weigh in--race, sex, age, and class. But mostly it's the disability issue that bothers me (full disclosure--my mother uses a wheelchair). Just because someone loses some motor skills, or their sense of sight, hearing, etc. does not mean that their lives are worth less. In our fear of difference and our near-obsession with fitness, Americans are two quick to dismiss the disabled as sub-normal, dispensible, and pitiable (in the worst sense). As my mother occasionally calls us, the "temporarily able-bodied" seem to have a pathological fear of disability. And support for living wills, DNR orders, and even assisted suicide protection (all of which I advocate) can sometimes quickly devolve into "I would kill myself if X", where X is usually a non-life threatening disability (e.g. loss of the use of legs). Which of course makes people assume that everyone else with X does not value their own lives. Let me assure you, they do.
Of course, I also have found NY Times magazine to be unnecessarily sensationalist in the past. So I don't know how much trust I put in the article. But it's an interesting (if long) read.
Cranberry Sauce with Candied Oranges
4 days ago