Thrown

There are roughly fourteen-thousand newly minted J.D.’s each year. For as many lawyers as there are in the country (about 1.5 million according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007), there are probably as many ways to use a law degree. But figuring out how to use one's legal education can be stressful, and may often leave one feeling replete with self-doubt. Personally, I know the battle is between my ears; what my heart wants and what makes the most logical sense do not always coincide. In search of insight on the decisions in front of me, I have spent some time reflecting on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. I find that thoughtful reflection on philosophy and theology are useful tools when anxiety begins to creep into my days.

Heidegger postulated that we are shaped by the environment into which we are born. In his terminology, we are all thrown (Geworfenheit) into the unique nexus of situations (“worlds”) within which we dwell. In Being and Time, Heidegger was concerned with the issue of "Being," specifically, “being qua being” and our self-sentience vis-à-vis the world. Heidegger’s notion of Being was inseparable from the world itself. To understand ourselves in this way, as "Beings-in-the-world," is to accept that no two individuals have shared the identical set of experiences; for this reason, we each see the world and react to it in unique ways.

For Heidegger, we exist in one of two states: authenticity or inauthenticity. Authenticity manifests through concern for the world and those in it. Fueled by the recognition and acceptance of our finitude, the authentic self embraces his uniqueness and turns his attention toward fulfilling his potential. Inauthenticity, on the other hand, results from the failure to differentiate oneself from others. While we exist in the world with others, we cannot exclusively be defined by others if we are to lead "authentic" lives. Often the external influences can become stronger and louder than the internal influence. The problem, as Heidegger pointed out, is that inauthentic existence is irresponsible—it deprives oneself of accountability.

In law school, as a third year student, much of the dialogue with colleagues centers on interviews and career aspirations. No doubt there is a hierarchy of prestige associated with the career paths we choose. For those among us who elect not to follow the route of traditional legal practice, the discussions can feel more like a personal justification than a thoughtful exchange. For me, the philosophical framework helps me to center my attention more productively. My telos must be on how to fulfill the roles for which I am best suited; I need to appreciate that I am on my own journey. And while it doesn't take Heidegger to explain "just because Sally does X, doesn't mean you should," sometimes in life, the truth is not so obvious.

Twenty Years or a Kidney

Picture this, a society where crime is tolerated so long as the criminal is healthy and disease-free. Recompense for wrongdoing is no longer limited to financial penalties or serving time, no, in this society a criminal can fulfill his/her debt by donating blood or maybe even a kidney. As sociologists establish the linkage between crime and socioeconomic levels, this hypothetical society seems to create a type of caste system wherein the wealthy are benefitted by the health of criminal offenders. The thought evokes in me something akin to Huxley’s A Brave New World or, more recently, The Island. Though no kidneys have been accepted in lieu of prison sentences yet, it is possible that we are not far from it.

According to the Associated Press, Cuyahoga County, Ohio has initiated a program allowing juvenile offenders to donate blood to fulfill their community service obligations. The teens must be at least seventeen and the substitution is allowed only for low-level crimes. If a teen is unable to donate due to medical reasons, the teen can instead volunteer at a blood drive or take a CPR class. The idea sounds noble enough, but is this one step down the proverbial slippery-slope? (I know it is perhaps disfavored to view all remedies in light of worst-case scenario outcomes, but isn’t that part of being a good lawyer?) Personally, I think volunteering at a blood drive is community service and sounds like a wonderful option. The donating blood part, though, well, that might be just one step too far.

Thoughts on Art

What is art? The question has puzzled thinkers for ages, how can you quantify that which is in essence intangible? The nature of art is that it possesses a quality distinct from the materials it is comprised of. That quality is metaphysical; an artist is a conduit, bringing forth that which has already been conceived. The art existed in the artist absent the medium of its expression – memories of copyright . . . I make no claim to give a categorical definition of art that will suit everyone, but here is my conception of art. Art is creative expression of that which is aesthetically pleasing. Art – including improvisational art – is created by innate skill or mastery of technique which requires intention, effort and care. Art can be emotive, visual, auditory, anything really; the common thread is that it instills in the observer a sense of life, peace or inspiration. Art is that which is aesthetic. Aesthetic is that which is beautiful and emotional, and that which is beautiful, is pleasing, excellent in form and expression. Even in our “ugliness,” there is artistic expression. Professor Reilly commented in her post that Martha Graham’s unique style of dance was, “release, passion and peace -- raw, ugly and real.” In her words, “ugliness is relative,” and she is right.

To me, art is life affirming, because it is uniquely human. The ability to create art is one of the most profound qualities we as humans possess. We create for the sake of it, and the results are breathtaking. With such a broad conception of art, is it possible to reject something claiming to be art as non-art? In Yale Daily News yesterday, a story broke about a senior who self-induced a series of miscarriages for the purpose of art. The project was done as a “documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.”

My heart broke when I read this; it struck me as the very antithesis of art, destruction of life in order to “provoke.” This senior has certainly made a statement, but at what cost? Setting aside the morality issues, can this expression really be art? Viscerally, I want to say no – it is not life affirming, it is not a representation of death, it is death. But by incorporating other elements into the project which portray her experiences, did she transform death into excellence of expression? Where was the mastery of technique? Can damage to your body be a technique? These are questions I cannot answer, but I think this speaks to our brokenness as a culture. The feelings inspired in me upon reading about this project are sadness, pain, and frustration. Perhaps, then, this is art. This project reveals the ugliness latent in us, the ability to destroy for a statement. It is real, it is raw, and it evokes emotion; death is a part of life and its expression impacts us. Destruction too, is uniquely human.

--
Imaged: Graham Company dancers and Michelangelo’s Pieta, upon which the Graham form is based, both are undoubtedly art, and both are representations of death.

The Zen Lawyer

My own tenets of faith lead me to believe that being at peace with others is a virtue. Law practice, then, would seem to be in direct conflict with this philosophy. Lawyer jokes abound in society for a reason; yet while much of law practice is seemingly contentious in nature, I see lawyers as capable of serving as the ultimate facilitators of peace.

To me, the practice of law is most virtuous when it is pure in its pursuit of understanding. In understanding, we realize the end of strife and the beginnings of resolution. Resolution ushers in peace, it preserves; strife does the opposite. We can preserve ourselves, our society, and countless relationships, by seeking understanding. To resolve conflict, preemptively or not, rather than create it, is the job of a lawyer. The unique position of being on the front-lines of controversies in society gives lawyers the opportunity to facilitate peace by advocating for resolutions which incorporate the goals of all parties concerned. Of course, not all lawyering is about reaching accord. Sometimes being a good lawyer is being the best “hired-gun” possible; to get a win for the client is a virtue itself.

As I wrestle with my own yearnings for peace and understanding in an environment brimming with discord, I appreciate that at my core I feel no conflict. To breed understanding is to facilitate peace and ultimately to ensure preservation.

“Bowed down then preserved;

Bent then straight;

Hollow then full;

Worn then new;

A little then benefited;

A lot then perplexed.

Therefore the sage embraces the One and is a model for the empire.

He does not show himself, and so is conspicuous;

He does not consider himself right, and so is illustrious;

He does not brag, and so has merit;

He does not boast, and so endures.

It is because he does not contend that no one in the empire is in a position to contend with him.

The way the ancients had it, 'Bowed down then preserved', is no empty saying. Truly it enables one to be preserved to the end.”

From the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.

Michelangelo Illuminates Copyright

One of my favorite quotations comes from Renaissance master, Michelangelo: “In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal to other eyes what mine have already seen.” Michelangelo, genius in many ways, may have intuitively understood the steps by which the law protects rights of authors.

My first true academic love was philosophy; I spent the better part of my undergraduate career contemplating the works of great thinkers over endless cups of espresso. Much to my surprise, I am currently re-discovering philosophy, metaphysics actually, in Copyright Law. While Metaphysics wasn’t a subject I thought I would employ in legal studies, its emergence in class this week was both exciting and refreshing.

The subject of copyright in the United States seems to be comprised of three distinct ontological entities: the idea of the work (somewhat akin to a Platonic form, in that it exists only intangibly, in the conceptual realm of the author), the first copy (our colloquial reference to an “original work” – for instance, David, the “original”), and the copyright (the protection which attaches at the point in time the work is fixed in a tangible medium). As a novice to the subject, and as one who learns by analogy, Michelangelo’s quote perfectly illustrates this somewhat nebulous idea to me. Michelangelo, as artist, conceives of the work. He sees in the block of marble the fully formed apparition before it ever is brought into a form that others can perceive and appreciate, his perception constitutes the work. As he “hews away the rough walls,” to reveal his work to the world, he is creating the first copy, while simultaneously (in this case) fixing his work in a medium. He has bound (fixed) the work in the marble, thus acquiring the protection of the copyright. (*Of course, there is much to be said of the fixation itself, particularly when thought of in light of Heidegger’s later work, “The Origin of the Work of Art.” However, I will refrain from earth, world and thingly character at the present moment!) While this may seem sophomoric to many, I am thrilled to see another link between my two academic loves.