Community colleges and new universities under neoliberal pressures: organizational change and stabil
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/community-colleges-and-new-universities-under-neoli beral-pressures-organizational-change-and-stability-1st-edition-john-s-levin-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Applying College Change Theories to Student Affairs Practice: New Directions for Community Colleges Ozaki
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
P reface
Even the title has undergone alteration as I developed the book from start to finish. That is to say that I have fluctuated continually on the content of this book. One main problem was that while the organizations under examination were once community colleges, by the end of the first decade of the 2000s, three of the seven were universities. Initially, “New universities” was not in the title; but it was not valid to name all of these organizations community colleges or to signify that this book addresses community colleges, solely. Indeed, I started with referring to the seven as institutions and then altered this label to read “organizations.” As well as a problem with the book’s title, other problems troubled me as I conceived of, wrote, and re-wrote the book. First was my decision to revisit the organizations of my initial study of the 1990s and the book, Globalizing the Community College. Who had ever done this in higher education? I can think of no one who has done a follow-up book in higher education unless we consider new editions, such as Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini’s How College Affects Students. And certainly no one has returned to research sites years later to consider organizational and institutional changes for a qualitative investigation. Movies and books have sequels and series, but scholarly research on organizations? I was not convinced that I should do this, but after conversations with a few people, including a former graduate student who thought this was the only important piece of research that had not been conducted in our field, I weighed the benefits. As a former literature teacher, I knew that the familiar is a potential ground for fertile creation, understanding, and writing. I knew, as well, that because of my prior work on these sites, it was more likely that I could gain access not
only to the sites but also to the people than I could in new sites. After all, I had followed these seven organizations from afar since 2001, and I communicated occasionally with a few of the members of these organizations over the years.
A second major issue or problem was the topic. Hadn’t I already said all that I wanted to say about the community college? I had written several books on the institution, published articles and book chapters, and given lectures. I had by this time moved on from the study of community colleges to the study of university and college faculty, and I had several projects underway. Certainly a book on faculty work and professional identity was a more rational choice for me.
A third and related problem with the topic was that my original work addressed colleges in the USA and Canada. I was at the time knowledgeable about Canada—including its politics, its economy, its institutions, and specifically its community colleges. I had lived in that country for 45 years, written extensively about Canadian higher education, and worked in community colleges for 21 years. This was not the case after the early part of the 2000s. My last articles and book chapters that addressed Canadian higher education appeared before 2008. I was more of a stranger to the country’s higher education institutions and policies than a connected observer, and undertaking a study of Canadian institutions and federal and provincial policy might be more than I could handle. My concern as well was whether or not I would view the Canadian institutions from the perspective of the past rather than the present. I did learn during my time in these Canadian institutions for this present investigation that my former knowledge of both Canadian higher education and these specific organizations was particularly valuable in my meetings with organizational members, in part because I had considerably more familiarity with their college or university than all but one or two people at each of them. Indeed, several of the people I interviewed looked to me to give them the background on organizational practices and actions. Yet, when I considered the project initially, my sense was that I might be at a disadvantage compared to the knowledge I possessed for my 1990s investigation.
My fourth issue was that to accomplish this project, I had to consider what line of thought and theory I would use as a follow-up to globalization theory, which was key to the first investigation. My work on community colleges in the period of 2003–2013 focused upon non-traditional students, from the point of view of neoliberal theory and the theory of justice from John Rawls, on community college faculty with neoliberalism
as a central theoretical lens, and on faculty of color in community colleges, which relied upon social identity theory and critical race theory. The logic then was for me to move from globalization theory to neoliberalism and examine the organizations through this framework. However, such a logical direction went against my critical nature, critical of myself first and foremost. My readings on and understandings of neoliberalism led to my view that a single-minded examination of organizations was going to be both narrow and hardly exciting: it would be the hammer approach whereby everything is a nail. This to me would not enrich understanding of higher education institutions and organizations. Besides, I had already had my say on neoliberalism and higher education—several times.
Finally, my concern and a problem were my professional career’s approaching termination. Did I have the stamina to carry out a field study on my own and write another book, particularly when I was engaged in several research projects, supervisor of a dozen doctoral students, and a participant in the governance of my university? Rather than ramp up my workload, it was more prudent to lessen the pace and lighten the load.
I overcame these problems, of course, almost without thinking too deeply about them and simply by moving in the direction I was going, a direction that was charted for me by my internal deliberations. No one stood in my way; no one tried to talk me out of this project, which seemed to me to be inevitable the further I dwelt on the problems and questions. Although I may have wanted to head out further in other directions, I needed to return to the major project of my career in research. I then called the project “Revisiting community colleges” and began in December 2012. The project would not have occurred without the participation of devoted faculty and administrators at the seven institutions in my project; to them I owe much.
The weaknesses or limitations of this project and ultimately this book have mainly to do with the lack of time I was able to give to site visits and the low number of interviews I conducted at each site. In comparison to the 1989–1999 investigation, reflected in Globalizing the Community College and other related publications, where the interviews came to approximately 430, with site visits through the participation of a number of researchers—usually 4—at each site, and follow-up site visits by me at each site, to the point where there was data saturation, this project (2000–2014) has minimal data collection in these areas. What this led to was greater reliance on a small number of faculty and administrators for their perceptions and understandings of organizational behaviors and
actions. Although the majority of these faculty and administrators were key participants in organizational actions—such as chancellors, presidents, vice presidents, union officials, and governance leaders, as well as department heads—there was neither a substantial mass of organizational members nor a broad spectrum of members to convince me that I had captured the essential depth and breadth of organizational change, including the institutionalization of policy, which was a key focus of my investigation. My knowledge of the organizations from the earlier period was thus required for me to fill in the blanks or to add more context to my observations. For example, my understandings of presidential or chancellor perceptions and behaviors were aided by my considerable knowledge of those in the earlier period, as well as by my previous interviews—some 15 years earlier—with several of these same people, when they occupied other roles. A similar condition applied to my interviews with faculty, and I could either refer back to my interview with the same faculty member years earlier or to their colleagues. Clearly, I had to build on my previous research on these seven organizations in order to provide a coherent narrative.
Indeed, it is narrative—the story of seven higher education organizations, the story of community colleges and new universities—that is at the heart of my work. The importance of narrative for the community college, in particular, is that the dominant community college narrative is limited in its understanding and explanation of community colleges in both the USA and Canada (although the source of Canada’s narrative is limited to a small number of researchers, and it carries with it less national significance than in the USA). The importance of the narrative of new universities (and this is confined to Canada) is that this is the first narrative for a phenomenon that has some examples in the USA and will continue to unfold in Canada. In the USA, two community colleges in the state of Utah have become universities, and one community college in New Mexico has as of 2015 become a university. In Canada, this transformation applies to Alberta and British Columbia, where two Alberta colleges and five British Columbia colleges have become universities, with a sixth British Columbia college moving from college status to a campus of a provincial university.
The contemporary history of community colleges in both the USA and Canada is a topic in itself that merits further investigation and scholarship. One of my former students from the University of Arizona, Ken Meier, wrote a stunning doctoral dissertation, “The Community College Mission: History and Theory, 1930–2000,” in 2008, and then an equally fine book chapter, “Community College Mission in Historical Perspective,” for an
edited book, Understanding Community Colleges, in 2013. His work critiqued earlier versions of community college history and acknowledged the considerable local orientation of the institution. On the Canadian front, in 1986, John Dennison and Paul Gallagher, in Canada’s Community Colleges, provided a similar view of Canada’s diverse array of provincial colleges. Yet, both views—Meier’s and Dennison and Gallagher’s—identified characteristics and purposes common in each country’s community colleges. These commonalities applied to both nations’ community colleges, and suggested that when the organizations stray from or ignore or are coerced to neglect these characteristics and purposes, tensions within the organizations among the organizational members can surface and, as well, the community college may lose its way. At least, that is the message I took from these two works.
This is not to suggest, however, that other views are erroneous about community colleges in the final three decades of the twentieth century, but rather that the more prominent scholarly ones stray from the essential elements of the institution and that national, state, provincial, and local policymakers bring agendas to the community college, such as workforce development and student completion agendas, prominent in the 1990s for the former and 2000s for the latter, which might be useful as ancillary functions but not as central functions of the institution. Scholars in the USA, in my view, during these periods—1980s–2000s—were either followers of policy trends or served as critical judges of the community college’s failure to bring about social transformations or at least to solve historically embedded social problems such as racial tensions or poverty. In Canada, with some exception, scholarship was concerned with student mobility—high school to college, college to university, and college to job placement. Thus, the emphasis there was upon the community college as a school that moved, or should move, students from one level or station to the next. I absent my own work from this focus, although I was not a major contributor after 2002. By that time, I thought I had had my say on Canadian community colleges.
When I observe both US and Canadian community colleges I see the gaps in our knowledge on the cultural connections of these institutions. In Canada, I am unable to see research on the community and college connections, parallels, and sometimes symbiotic development of college and community. As well, I do not detect examinations of the role of community colleges in a nation or state or province’s development or history. At the beginning of the 2000s, I inquired through Québec education
and cultural ministries if there was any research on the large community college system, CÉGEPs (Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel), in that province—on governance, on management, and on organizational culture. Those who should have known about this research were apologetic when they learned that there was no research of which they were aware—whether in English or in French. I had offered to consider a project to investigate these topics in the CÉGEPs, but was unable to attract funding from the government of Québec. While it strikes me that community colleges are decidedly social institutions as well as educational institutions, I am puzzled why in the USA there is little or no attention to the role of the institution in the development of citizens or of the arts, and why there is near silence on the topic of the education of the working class, under-represented minorities, including native Americans, and students with disabilities in the context of social development.
It is likely that by the 2000s, the time had passed for all of these intellectual and scholarly pursuits, investigations that might benefit our understanding of the connection of the institution to the nation-state. Instead, there was another and pervasive preoccupation that had more to do with individual economic liberty and personal gains: neoliberalism and its efforts to change, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, the “heart and soul” of a society.
It may be that what now ties community colleges and universities together in the USA and Canada is each country’s reliance upon these institutions to develop their national, state, and provincial economies. Furthermore, both institutional types—community colleges and universities—have adopted practices that model businesses and goals that are economic: from economic development to workforce preparation to individual economic mobility and to private sector benefits. As this book will show, community colleges and universities are not only under neoliberal pressures but also reflect neoliberal values.
I want to acknowledge a number of people who aided me in the production of this book. First, I point to the considerable work of graduate students at the University of California, Riverside, in the Higher Education Policy and Administration program. A number of these students worked for me (paid labor); and several worked with me on papers and a book chapter. My formal research assistants included Laurencia Walker, Tiffany Viggiano, Aida Aliyeva, and Ariadna López Damián. Those who worked on papers, articles, and a book chapter with me included the same students noted above—Laurencia Walker, Tiffany Viggiano, Aida Aliyeva,
and Ariadna López Damián—as well as Michael Hoggatt, Marie Martin, Evelyn Morales Vazquez, and former student John-Paul Wolf. Raquel Rall, a postdoctoral fellow, worked with me on several papers out of this project. All of them made important contributions to the project and ultimately to this book. Additionally, Marie Martin read all the chapters in their nearfinal draft form and provided positive reinforcement (much needed when one works alone), and Ariadna López Damián read Chaps. 6 and 7 and gave me the perspective of a non-native English speaker and Mexican higher education scholar. Second, Ken Kempner, Professor at Southern Oregon University, who may not want to be acknowledged publicly, graciously agreed to read the entire manuscript and offer his considerable expertise and wisdom to me for the final version of the book. I am grateful for his positive encounters with me over the decades. I was more grateful when he provided his wisdom and, as well, reinforced views over which I wondered if I was inventing scholarly views and interpreting data from my investigation in a reasonable way. If I am crazy, I determined after I read Ken’s commentary on my book, then so is he and I am not alone. Finally, Lee Stewart Levin, who did not read a single word of the manuscript, was able to respond to me in my either/or dilemmas (“Should I do this or that?”) or in my questions about my approaches (“Do I use past or present tense?”). As well, she had to tolerate my many hours in my office at home and the incessant classical music played to accompany my wordsmithing.
I take from this experience of writing this book that my present moments are amalgams of my past learning and experiences as well as steps into a future. From the research carried out for this book, I integrated ideas in such a way that I was able to travel to China in March 2016 and speak to Chinese higher education students, practitioners, and scholars and apply the theories that informed this book, the findings from my investigation, and the narrative I employed in this book to my discussion on both Chinese higher education as well as higher education in Westernized countries. I thank my companion Jianxiu Gu (who worked with me for a year at the University of California, Riverside) and my colleague and educational guide, Anning Ding, who was a former student of mine at the University of Arizona, for enabling me to take my years of experience and my scholarly knowledge to Jiangsu Province, China.
To stand back and not just look at this book and its subject but to offer an analysis of the origins and influences of this work, I recognize that at its heart is personal biography. My experiences as a Canadian, as an American (or USian as I term myself), as a community college faculty member,
administrator, and university professor were essential. So too were the influences of my university professors on my intellectual development, and most of these would not even have contemplated the role they played in not just a career but also a way of experiencing the world. I name a few of these for the record: Bruce Grenberg, David Powell, Elliott Gose, Patricia Merivale, Donald Sampson, William Willmot, and John D. Dennison, all of the University of British Columbia at the time of my encounters with them. John Dennison was my doctoral professor and an early collaborator in my higher education research. Without John, my career as a higher education scholar would not have started. Of course, the prominent role of my family, particularly my father and mother, my mother’s parents, and my brother, speaks not only in my perceptions on higher education but also in my choices for objects of study. On the one hand, I am in that school of “lumpers,” those who join entities, experiences, places, and people. On the other hand, I observe the world, and more specifically organizational and institutional behaviors, as an outsider who chooses to reverse or distort common assumptions about and perspectives on human life, akin to Geoffrey Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales who meditates upon “up-so-doun” views of human behaviors. In this way, I may be a “splitter,” but one who dissects for differences rather than similarities and who relishes individual differences, especially those of the outsiders.
For this book, I did vacillate between writing a formal academic work, which was more focused upon analysis than upon the presentation of practitioners’ understandings, and a narrative account of organizational change, which would be more publicly accessible. I chose the former because the research investigation I relied upon was an academic enterprise and the kind of interviews I conducted with practitioners were heavy on questions that asked for explanations and analysis and not experiences. The early topic was organizational change in Globalizing the Community College, and as this was a follow-up effort, it continued with attention to organizational change. Were my topic professional identity and experience, I would have resorted to the more narrative approach. That gives me a rationale for my next book.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Background
Long viewed and spoken about as a singular institution, the community college is in practice a complex and dynamic institution. The institution is not only a structure but also a movement; not only a transition point between high school and university but also an adult education center; not only a junior college but also a job training and vocational institution; not only a two-year school but also a six-month and four-year school; not only a site for social and economic mobility but also a rescue mission for those labeled dislocated.1 Indeed, the community college is both multivalent and multifaceted. Institutional change comes in numerous forms and guises, with several determinants. A number of these were explored and explained in Globalizing the Community College, an examination of community colleges in the USA and Canada over the period of 1989–1999. It should be clear from that book as well as from other publications that followed that determinants such as strategic responses to changing economic, political, cultural, and technological conditions were both individual college actions and national trends that developed and shaped behaviors and outcomes. For example, population demographics, in the form of increasing numbers and percentages of immigrants and birth rates of specific populations, affected communities that surrounded colleges. Ultimately, community college students became increasingly non-European or non-traditional in their origins. Colleges responded to these populations with English as a Second Language (ESL) curriculum and programming, with development of student services
J.S. Levin, Community Colleges and New Universities under Neoliberal Pressures, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-48020-0_1
to meet the needs of these student populations, and with new instructional approaches and forms of curriculum delivery to address both the strengths and the weaknesses of these populations (e.g., visual aids, individualized learning, web-based instruction, and specialized courses in study skills, college survival, and mathematics and English tutorials).
Yet, notwithstanding considerable institutional change, organizational stability is also evident, as missions of community colleges from their earliest days of development remain. Surprisingly, these missions, or components of them, remain in universities that developed out of community colleges, although their traditional missions are challenged by new expectations and norms of a university.
For both community colleges and universities, however, in both the USA and Canada, global economics, global politics, global culture, including ideologies, and the particularities of local contexts have shaped these higher education institutions. Electronic technologies were not only vehicles for these globalizing trends but also influencers in their own right, affecting instruction, learning, and work.2 Through the process of globalization, the ideology of neoliberalism has touched down in institutions throughout the world, including institutions of postsecondary or further education.3 This ideology surfaces through policies at several levels— national, state/provincial, and local/institutional.
While there is considerable reference to neoliberalism and higher education in the scholarly literature, there is a noticeable silence on specific long-term or lasting outcomes of neoliberal policies for higher education. There are few links between neoliberal policy and the implementation of policy and the resultant actions, particularly over time. This book addresses this gap in the scholarly literature. I use the concept of “institutional logics” from Scott4 and Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury5 to explain interactions between higher education institutions and neoliberalism. Institutional logics play a role in the differentiation of institutional types—that is, what makes a community college different from a university. But, as well, logics become manifest when one institutional type—the community college—transitions to become another institutional type— a university. More broadly, institutional logics serve as stabilizing forces when an organization is confronted with exogenous forces, such as an ideology or a set of practices, which seek organizational change.
Neoliberal ideology relies upon economic marketplace principles,6 matching a form of Social Darwinism that requires not only competition
but also inequality.7 In particular, Stephen Ball’s claim is that neoliberal practices have driven public sector higher education to depend less upon government funding and rely more on an entrepreneurial pattern of behaviors that lead to the acquisition of private revenue streams, such as tuition and grant money.8 Neoliberals view higher education as an instrument for national productivity and global economic competitiveness. Thus, governments view colleges and universities as economic investments; private foundations and policy bodies look to higher education to satisfy ideological preferences, such as degree (associate and baccalaureate) attainment to meet the workforce needs of the private sector and cost containment to address the public disaffection with government subsidization and their simultaneous concern with rising higher education tuition.9 Indeed, the neoliberal regime of interest groups extolls the virtues of a “knowledge society,” with higher education institutions as significant vehicles of social transformation.10 There is no room at the neoliberal inn for the public good, and if the public good is referenced it is imbued with economic values, such as the application of human capital theory.11
Arguably, neoliberal initiatives, such as competition based upon performance and limited reliance upon public funding, have considerable effect upon community colleges given that these institutions lack legitimacy in the political arena.12 They are not as competitive as other higher education institutions in matters of policy, resources, and public knowledge. They lack political capital. Their main appeal is to their student population, a population that is certainly not a powerful interest group.13 And while universities are sites for community college student transfer and businesses have an interest in community college students, there is considerable criticism of the institution’s accomplishments in supplying these bodies with graduates.14
Yet, community colleges as institutions, in both the USA and Canada, possess foundational characteristics and reflect historical principles that both sustain their survival, shape their development, and distinguish them from other higher education institutions.15 While many if not all of these characteristics and principles have been addressed in the scholarly literature, especially from the 1980s to the 2000s,16 several of the more prominent characteristics and principles are important to note here and relevant to the discussion in this book. Given the association of junior colleges and then community colleges with democratic principles through the use of a proxy term, “access,” particularly for those whose material or personal
conditions, or both, did not permit another avenue to postsecondary education, the label “democracy’s college” was applied to the institution.17 This connotation is contained as well within the label of “second chance” institution for the community college.18 Other terms were attached to “access” as a label for the community college, reflecting historical concerns, such as a quality of institutional performance reference in Access and Excellence19 and an equity reference in Defending the Community College Equity Agenda. 20 More recently, attached specifically to the community college was the term “outcomes,” suggesting that more important than opportunity to access higher education, learning outcomes, further education outcomes, and employment outcomes were priorities.21 These qualifications thus narrowed the understandings of the access mission of community colleges.
In addition to the principle of access, that of community orientation of the community college is foundational. The term “community” has been stretched and compressed over the past 70 years, beginning with the Truman Commission’s first national articulation of the institution in 1947 as “community college.”22 Community has referred to local populations, to local and regional economic development, to democratic forms of governance, with community participation in college functioning, and to global connections both through international education and international development.23
A third principle, the comprehensive curriculum, refers to the broad array of curricular offerings from adult basic education and ESL to university parallel courses and technical and occupational training programs.24 Indeed, several scholars have defined the mission of the community college based upon its curricular focus.25 With the expansion of the community college curricular offerings to baccalaureate degree programing, its actions were viewed as mission drift.26 In the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008,27 with the reduction of community colleges’ curriculum to core offerings and to more traditional junior college programing of university transfer and vocational/occupational programs, its actions were viewed as mission contraction.28
The three terms, “access,” “community,” and “comprehensive curriculum,” have been debated and contested both in their meaning and in their application by both scholars and practitioners. Yet, in their varying interpretations and usages they continued to view and understand the community college as a particular kind of higher education institution, one certainly differentiated from four-year colleges and universities, particularly by the characteristics of their students.29
Clearly, community colleges are viewed as teaching institutions, including both education and training, as financially affordable, as locally accessible, and as open door for those who can benefit from postsecondary and adult education. Although there are critics of the institution’s capacity to fulfill its promise and its mission,30 the accounts from the pre-2000s demonstrate that the community college does not live up to its ideals, or at least those ideals held by scholars and policymakers. More recent criticisms have less to do with the institution’s failure to reach ideals than with basic student performance issues.31 A similar critique can be and is applied to universities: students do not meet expectations of scholars or policy makers in their academic outcomes.32 In both institutional types, faculty, full-time and part-time, including those who are designated “permanent” and “impermanent” or contingent, have become highlighted because of their effects upon student outcomes.33 This concern plays out more pointedly at the community college with its major faculty group, 70 percent, part-time.34 Yet, as a major and core workforce of the community college, faculty have, with some exceptions, been in the shadows.35 Unlike university faculty who have a modicum of status as professors, community college faculty are largely relegated to a role of instructor, with an ambiguous or contested professional identity.36 Universities, too, possess characteristics and principles that differentiate them from other higher education institutions. The modern university in the USA and Canada is a development of the late nineteenth century, a combination in the USA of the land grant university of the 1860s and the research university of the late 1800s, traditionally associated with Johns Hopkins University.37 The university’s principal work was teaching and research, with research commanding an increasing role in the later part of the twentieth century. Canada is somewhat differentiated from the USA, in that almost all universities are provincial public universities, and they were viewed up until the beginning of the twenty-first century as relatively similar to each other in educational quality,38 with a handful, such as McGill University, the University of Toronto, the University of Alberta, and the University of British Columbia, as premiere research universities. In Canada, too, teaching and research are the principal work of the university. In both countries, service occupies broad domains of manifestation, from local community service to national and provincial or state service, as well as institutional service. Universities typically provide both undergraduate and graduate education, with graduate education usually extending to the doctoral level in several areas. Unlike for community colleges, the professorial class for universities is central to institutional identity.39
While the role of faculty has changed in the university, the general conception of faculty is of a profession of disciplinary experts who extend knowledge through research and scholarship. Furthermore, it is as a result of their professional status that faculty are presumptive, and often legal, governance actors within their institution. Their legal status can extend to authority over curriculum and instruction, admission and graduation of students, and hiring and evaluation of peers, among other responsibilities. Universities are identified with knowledge creation and dissemination, and at times knowledge application. Both university autonomy and academic freedom are concepts that are closely aligned with university identity, although these concepts are both ambiguous and contested. Autonomy for universities and their professionals has been challenged by scholars who address institutional dependence upon state government40 and academic professionals’ subordinate role to managers.41 Academic freedom is contested mainly on the basis of whether academic professionals are protected differently than the citizen on grounds of free speech or if academic professionals are confined to profess only what they know as experts with impunity. As well, a number of traditions, including academic rank, tenure, and shared or faculty governance are associated with universities. The senate, for example, has a long tradition as both a symbolic and a practical body in the university.42
In Canada, the identity of the university has gone through modification in the past decade with the rise of new universities, several with a teaching emphasis (in British Columbia and Alberta) and others with a technical emphasis (in Ontario). Arguably, provincial governments created different classes of universities, in part to exercise greater control over the institutions and to deprive them to some extent of their autonomy.43 As well, the nature of research as the discovery of new knowledge is modified in the conceptualization of these new universities. In the case of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, the Canadian focal point of my investigation, new universities were created out of community colleges. Although this has a parallel in the USA, in Utah for example,44 legislation in Canada continues to define these universities as different from the other provincial universities and throws into question their legitimacy as universities. Indeed, the question may be whether or not these institutions will eventually gain legitimacy as universities or be viewed as hybrid institutions.
T he N eoliberal C oNuNdrum
The discussion in this book both flows from and relies upon two major concepts: neoliberalism and institutional logics. The former is a problematical concept, a term fraught with misunderstandings, ambiguities,
critiques, contestations, and finally questions of validity in practice or applicability. The latter is a dependent concept, relying upon institutional and neo-institutional theory for its foundation. “Neoliberalism” provides context and controversy; “institutional logics” is contextualized and connotes consensus.
Neoliberalism as theory is anomalous in that its value in scholarly work and empirical studies comes from its critique, as a form of anti-neoliberal theory. That is, the use of neoliberalism as theory is in the guise of critique,45 and, paradoxically perhaps, the critique functions with “the logic of neoliberalism itself as performing anti-capitalism/anti-neoliberalism [as] part of capitalistic/neoliberal logic.”46 Neoliberalism as macro or strong theory is not neoliberalism itself but the critique of neoliberalism,47 and this critique illuminates large-scale behaviors and can obscure local or micro-behaviors, such as those of institutional members.
Theory-in-use, then, is both validation of neoliberalism and valorization of opposing or contrasting characterizations and values of neoliberalism—anti-neoliberalism. The all-encompassing nature of the neoliberal critique not only portrays a dystopian vision but also offers a cul-de-sac for action and justifies the futility of opposition. “The neoliberal critique is so fundamentally structural, so fundamentally global, and so fundamentally all-encompassing that real change does seem impossible.”48 This critique denies the capacity of action at the local and personal level49 and intimates the long-term dominance of neoliberalism through social reproduction, particularly through educational institutions and pedagogy.50 The critique legitimates neoliberalism’s power by arguing that neoliberalism’s extension into social and personal life, beyond economic and political domains, is decidedly cultural. “The neoliberal process tends to hide the political and social choices that shape organizational culture and prevents others from considering alternative ways of being.”51
From the perspective of both neoliberalism and anti-neoliberalism, there is uncontested explanation and prediction of the actions of institutions, such as universities and colleges’ tuition raising behaviors—a result of government withdrawal of financial responsibility for public activities— and their restructuring to both reduce costs and to acquire new revenue sources. Yet, both neoliberalism and anti-neoliberalism obscure and misrepresent local actions of institutions, such as the same universities and colleges’ tuition raising behaviors. These behaviors are both an effort to force government to reclaim financial responsibility for public activities, specifically funding higher education, and a mechanism for gaining sufficient revenues to offset the tuition charges to low-income students, a form of redistribution of resources from the relatively well-off students to the
relatively poor students. In the first example, universities and colleges are neoliberal institutions, and neoliberalism relies upon the principle of privatization, of private goods and benefits, and underlines the responsibility of individuals, not the State, to pay for private goods and benefits. Tuition rises are fully justifiable, and universities and colleges operate within a market economy, compete for students, and can set their own prices. In the second example, universities and colleges are oppositional parties to the State, reacting to require the State to undo its neoliberal initiative of defunding higher education. The University of California is an appropriate example where tuition rises are rationalized as both responses to state government underfunding—in the face of legislators and the governor’s concerns about university affordability—and the primary option of the University of California to generate operating funds in order to compete with peer institutions.52
The litany of both characteristics and effects of neoliberalism are well documented and ubiquitous. In the past two decades, the pervasive critiques of neoliberalism indicate that it is a pernicious ideology and practice from the point of view of its critics.
[N]eoliberalism is an ideology and politics buoyed by the spirit of market fundamentalism that subordinates the art of democratic politics to the rapacious laws of a market economy that expands its reach to include all aspects of social life within the dictates and values of a market driven society.53
From its champions or purveyors, neoliberalism is a political and economic project that furthers both liberal thinking that eschews “barriers to the freedom of exchange”54 that limit the growth of a nation’s wealth and the prosperity of its citizens. A free market offers solutions not only to economic problems55 but also to social problems. “Neoliberalism is an inventive, constructivist, modernizing force, which aims to produce a new social and political model…”56 Indeed, its several critics, such as Steven Ward, who references Margaret Thatcher’s efforts to change the “heart and soul” of a society, claim that neoliberalism has created a new global moral order. Thatcher uses political institutions and her authority to transform culture.
What’s irritated me about the whole direction of politics in the last 30 years is that it’s always been towards the collectivist society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: “do I count, do I matter?” To
which the short answer is, “yes.” And therefore, it isn’t that I set out on economic policies; it’s that I set out really to change the approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation. Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul.57
Thus, institutions are not only a main target of neoliberalism because they are both developers and regulators of social behaviors but also a model for both society and individuals as economic entities. “[O]ne of the main achievements of the neoliberal political project is to place more or less all institutions in society—universities, hospitals, charities as well as governments—under an obligation to behave as though they were business corporations.”58
To realize its institutional ambitions, neoliberalism found an ally in a technology—techne—that is referred to as “managerialism.” Rosemary Deem views managerialism as not only technique but also ideology,59 and suggests it is a vehicle of neoliberalism, referring to the practice as “new managerialism.”
The term “new managerialism” is generally used to refer to the adoption by public sector organisations of organizational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found in the private business sector.60
Olssen and Peters use the term “new public management”61 as synonymous to “new managerialism,” but Deem and Brehony see a considerable difference between the two terms, with “‘new public management’ [as]… the process of management reform, as the implementation of a particular form of regulatory governance of public service by state agencies”62 and new managerialism as ideological, with six significant characteristics. These include (1) “the erasure of bureaucratic rule-following procedures,” (2) “the primacy of management above all other activities,” (3) the “monitoring [of] employee behaviors,” (4) the attainment of targets, especially financial, (5) the development of means for public audits for the quality of the delivery of services, and (6) “the development of quasi-markets for services.”63 In referring to new managerialism as ideology, Deem and Brehony distinguish this concept from new public management (NPM) indicating that NPM is a technique whereas new managerialism “promote[s] interests and maintain[s] relations of power and domination.”64 The ideology
serves “the interests of those in management roles,”65 absconding with the rights formerly accorded to professionals. Steven Ward blends the two understandings, yet refers to the managerial regime as NPM. His view is that this form of managerialism is subordinate to neoliberal ideology and that managers are not autonomous players but agents of a neoliberal State. This is in some contrast to Deem and Deem and Brehony, who suggest that managers as a class have potential autonomy from the neoliberal State.
Yet the practices and outcomes may be similar. Compliance and control characterize work relationships, akin to principals and agents in agency theory,66 with professionals or core producers as subordinate to managers, who enact accountability measures and monitor the performance of employees. The traditional identity of a professional is undermined, and professionals construct an identity compatible with new managerial principles, either voluntarily or by coercion, through rewards and punishment.67 Whether managers are the vehicle of neoliberal ideology and the expectations of the State through its agencies or managers are autonomous but have internalized neoliberal principles, the goals are construed as synonymous: “alter the values of public sector employees to more closely resemble those found in the private ‘for profit’ sector.”68
One question arises in this analysis of the behaviors of managers and the outcomes. Are these behaviors authentic? That is, do managers in public institutions embrace the ideology or do they simply behave in conformity to the ideology, and, if so, do they behave consistently? As well, do professionals adopt new identities consistent with the ideology or do they simply display some behaviors that suggest new identities? Are behaviors a presentation of self69 in the form of a general conformity to expectations, reward systems, and group norms with individual and even group deviance and claims of objection more illustrative of authentic values? “Public service workers may thus retain their existing values about the importance of the services they provide, whilst accepting the necessity of talking about markets, performance indicators and other business metaphors in certain settings.”70 That is, both professionals and managers may function grounded in more than one discourse or one set of assumptions.
Within higher education institutions, behaviors that are aligned with neoliberal principles are portrayed through the conceptual and theoretical lenses of academic capitalism,71 entrepreneurialism,72 commercialization,73 new capitalism,74 and managerialism.75 All of these lenses suggest an all-encompassing condition or environment in which higher education functions.
There are three ways that I look at this conundrum. The first is to consider if the all-encompassing pervasiveness and ‘iron cage’ of neoliberalism is the only way to view neoliberalism. That is, might there be some flaws in this critique? For example, does neoliberalism have similar effects in all locations, at all institutions, and for all populations? Do States function differently as neoliberal States with different results? The second consideration is that if the critique is correct, does this then affirm the power of the theory as a strong theory and can another theory or perspective—a weak theory—counter the strong theory’s claims? The third way is to consider that if there is a pervasive neoliberal regime in place specifically in higher education, what actions of resistance and insistence76 (Welch, 2000) by individuals or groups are possible? Or, as one of my students remarked, “there is no alternative; this is reality.” Thus, resistance to neoliberalism and insistence of another path are or may be futile.
From the perspective of either neoliberalism or anti-neoliberalism, then, to what extent is neoliberal ideology and its consequent practices an allencompassing system of action in higher education? Is there another way to view neoliberalism that reduces or nullifies its pervasive and deleterious presences in higher education? If there is an all-encompassing or pervasive presence of neoliberal practices in higher education, what are the actions that could neutralize or negate neoliberal practices? Finally, what is it that I as researcher and scholar can recommend as a course of action based upon my research? These are the central questions that drive this book, but they are not the only topics and concerns of the book. Neoliberalism in higher educational institutions is addressed, but this ideology is placed within the institutional context of higher education.
i NsTiTuTio Nal l ogi Cs : s TabiliTy aNd C ha Nge
iN o rga NizaTio Ns
“Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meanings to social behavior.”77 Institutions “provide stimulus, guidelines, and resources for acting as well as prohibitions and constraints on action.”78 As well as stability, institutions can provide the impetus and environment for organizational instability and resultant change in actions or for organizational identity change and resultant new practices. “Environmental forces…impinge on organizations by introducing new identities into the mix of participants or by altering the identities of current members…”79 From the institutional
logics perspective of Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury, institutions contain both material and symbolic elements. Comprised of structures and practices, institutions function through ideation and meaning. Symbols as the conveyors of ideas and meanings are embedded in and expressed through structures and practices. Thus, the material and the symbolic are intertwined.80
Although “institutional logics” is a term used to convey a theory and a method for analysis,81 I want to use the term as well as a concept that conveys a shared conceptual framework for the understanding of behaviors and practices of participants in institutional fields.82 Scott refers to fields as parallel to discourses, or categories of thinking and meaning making. Institutional logics are “rule-like structures that constrain organizations or a set of cultural toolkits that provide opportunities for change in existing structures and practices.”83 Hinings, citing Scott,84 notes that “institutional logics” refers to belief systems and related practices that are dominant in an organizational field. This field is a “set of structured relationships between organizational actors, bound together by a common meaning system, currently conceptualized primarily as an institutional logic.”85
Within the context of a dominant logic or logics, which are deeply embedded in an organization over time, organizational actors are disposed to follow organizational principles and past practices, actions based upon taken-for-granted assumptions and arrangements. Because these logics are embedded, the institution conditions actors and their actions, and thus stability not change in an organization is reinforced.86 However, institutions and organizations do change through endogenous processes, such as new leadership and accompanying conflict over purpose and/or strategy, and through exogenous processes, such as financial crises.87 Of considerable import to organizational change or stability is identity: if and the extent to which an organization’s identity as well as its members’ identities are threatened or altered. “Environmental forces…impinge on organizations by introducing new identities into the mix of participants or by altering the identities of current members.”88 At the center of an organization’s identity is an institutional logic or logics, a framework to give meaning to organizational action and organizational life.89 Organizational identities are not simply what the institution does, but also what the institution aspires to become.90 The introduction of a new logic may either support or constrain that aspirational identity, giving what is referred to as “institutional complexity” as a condition to which the organization must respond.
To accommodate a new logic in an organization, actors must reformulate processes and meanings.91 But there are long-term consequences too of accommodating new logics. “In the short run, actors create and modify meanings; in the long run, meanings create actors, both organizational and individual identities.”92
Although institutional logics provide for stability because of their reinforcement of organizational practices and social interactions, social actors may be guided by other logics in their interactions, and the market, to which the organization responds, may also be guided by other logics. With competing institutional logics, “actors may rework or alter their identities to make sense of or resolve the tensions they face from competing institutional logics.”93
The rise of new logics, or the existence of multiple logics, can create ambiguity and the concomitant need for sense making about the implications of logic change. Subsequently, action is taken to somehow cope with or resolve tensions or ambiguities linked to plural institutional logics.94
Actors thus have to decide whether to cling to the old dominant logic, embrace a new logic, or compromise with a form of hybridization of old and new. Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury identify three forms of change in institutional logics: replacement, blending, and segregation. An institution can replace one logic with another (replacement). Institutions can combine dimensions of diverse logics (blending). Finally, institutions can operate at different levels of a field, which require different practices, different symbolic representations, and different vocabularies of practices aligned with different logics (segregation).95
The focus of this book is upon seven organizations—four present day community colleges and three universities that were former community colleges—and the influences of neoliberalism on the development of these institutions, as well as the interplay between institutional logics and neoliberal ideology and between government policy and institutional logics. Higher education institutions are examined because they are comprised of and acted upon by institutional logics: they contain their own logics but interact with other institutions, from government to the market, with
s eve N o rga NizaTio Ns aNd The d yNami Cs of s TabiliTy
aNd C ha Nge
logics compatible with those institutions’ identities. And within the institutional field of higher education, there are logics of the community college and logics of the university.
These organizations are the same ones that were examined in Globalizing the Community College, and thus this discussion is based upon a follow-up investigation, of seven colleges in two nations—the USA and Canada—over a 14-year period. Subsequent to that earlier work’s focus upon the time period of 1989–1999, this work focuses on 2000–2014. Its content is based upon data from 65 interviews conducted with institutional officials (faculty and administrators), 19 of whom were interviewed in the previous investigation in either 1997 or 1998, and data from policies at the national, provincial/state, and organizational levels that speak to the changes for these organizations (see Appendix for a discussion of the methodology and methods). The colleges and universities are given the same or similar pseudonyms that they possessed in the previous project: Suburban Valley Community College (California), City South Community College (Washington), Pacific Suburban Community College (Hawai’i), City Center Community College (British Columbia), East Shoreline University (British Columbia), Rural Valley University (British Columbia), and North Mountain University (Alberta).96
The investigation that informed this book addressed how and in what ways educational practices in seven higher education organizations were linked to policies that reflected neoliberal values, policy institutionalization, and consequences for these organizations, including changes to missions and structures. Neoliberalism and neoliberal policy served as shorthand for the ideology informing policy trends for higher education. I focused upon the influence and power of neoliberalism through neoliberalism’s effects on organizational practices (e.g., community colleges’ commitment to open access; universities’ emphasis upon research). The investigation provided evidence of behaviors and actions that shaped and characterized organizational functioning. Specific behaviors and actions of these seven organizations adhered to, mediated, and opposed policies associated with neoliberalism.
Taken together, the 1989–1999 and 2000–2014 investigations fall under the category of longitudinal qualitative research.97 Building upon original findings and sites from a 1989–1999 study, the second investigation sought to determine outcomes, more than a decade later, of institutionalization of policies and practices and connections to neoliberal tenets.
Major questions that guided the 2000–2014 investigation included: (1) What were the major alterations and patterns emergent from state/provincial and federal policies that affected organizational functioning that became institutionalized in 2013? (2) What were the major structural and mission changes among community colleges, 2000–2013? (3) To what extent can these changes be linked to neoliberal policies?
There are several story lines that follow these seven organizations. At the macro-level, there are interconnected lines: organizational change and organizational stability. These lines are nested within historical, social, cultural, and political contexts of two nations—the USA and Canada— two provinces and three states—Alberta, British Columbia, California, Hawai’i, and Washington. The nations differ along a number of dimensions.98 While Canada borrowed heavily from the USA in its early development of the community college, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s,99 and especially in the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta which adopted the California model,100 underlying cultural and social differences (e.g., views about the role of government and individual freedoms) are relevant to the development and functioning of higher education in both countries. As well, political differences, such as national status as a republic for the USA and as a parliamentary democracy for Canada, have salience in both community colleges and all of higher education.101
At the meso-level, there are story lines about the development of the community college and the development of the university from community college origins. In the case of the USA, the three community colleges maintained their institutional identity while both stretching and contracting that identity over the 14-year period. Two examples represent the stretching and contracting: the community college baccalaureate degree and the response to the cutbacks of state government funding following from the Great Recession of 2008.102 Washington State moved in 2005 to enable the offering of bachelor’s degrees at selected community colleges; Hawai’i proposed to offer bachelor’s degrees at the state’s community colleges as early as the late 1990s and more aggressively in the beginning of the 2000s but altered that policy to offer the bachelor’s degree at only one college—Maui Community College—where there were no universities on the island, and at another on Oahu in conjunction with the University of Hawai’i where there was no university program that could align with that program. California, a longtime proponent of a three-tiered public higher education system, where the community
college’s role was halted at the end of the second year or sophomore level of college, experienced political action in the second decade of the 2000s and by 2013 legislators enabled a select number of community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees, with qualifications.103
Following the Great Recession of 2008, state governments in California, Hawai’i, and Washington took serious aim at funding of community colleges, and during the period of 2009–2012, financial allocations to colleges dropped between 20 and 30 percent from the 2008 budget year. Colleges responded with a number of initiatives, including application for federal grants that could fill the gap and higher tuition. However, these actions could not make up the differences, and colleges in all three states reduced services, not only those such as maintenance, landscaping, and administrative support services but also instruction. Programs were cut; courses were dropped; and employees—first sessional then permanent— were laid off or terminated (as employees). With fewer curricular offerings, student access diminished, and the community college’s identity as a higher education institution with open access and a comprehensive curriculum was altered: the mission contracted.
The development of universities in British Columbia and Alberta from community college origins can be traced back to the late 1980s and 1990s when the baccalaureate degree was introduced into the colleges of these two provinces.104 One element of this story line is that these new universities in embracing university status, officially in 2008 and 2009, held fast to their community college origins, including principles of community colleges such as teaching centered institutions. Whether or not these new universities will maintain community college logics along with university logics and become hybrid institutions or will shed community college logics and become universities similar to other established provincial universities, with research, for example, as a defining characteristic, may be evident in their actions of institutionalization. That is, what is unsettled is whether or not these three institutions will preserve community college characteristics or replace these with university characteristics.
At the micro-level, there are seven individual stories, all addressing continuity and discontinuity and identity preservation and identity change, as well as individual organizations’ responses to government policy, particularly those policies with neoliberal assumptions and values. Within these organizations are individual and group actors—faculty and administrators—who represent themselves and other actors—students, staff, faculty,
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
mintha gunyolná, megfagyasztaná: most már nem zavar semmi –mért nem dolgozol?
És az özvegy férfi oda áll az ablakhoz, belebámul a fehérlő éjszakába és zokogva tárja ki a karjait.
– Édes kis asszonyom, gyere vissza!
Eddig mese volt, a többi már valóság.
… Nesztelenül lépegetett ki a szobából.
Odabent egy darabig perczegett a toll, öntögette a betüket, de aztán megállt. A férj kellemetlenül érezte magát, valami hiányzott neki és bántotta is a lelkiismerete. Mért beszél ő olyan keményen a feleségével, holott annyira szereti? Mért üldözi ki a szobájából, holott hiányzik neki, ha nincs ott? Vajjon mit csinál a szegény asszonyka?
Valami zsibbadtság fogja el a testét. Belebámul a lámpa világosságába és gondolkodik a meséjén. De a meséjéből valami egészen más lett. Mindig az ő édes kis asszonyát látja, azt a gyermeklelkű, gyenge kis asszonykát, a ki orvosságból él. –Istenem, olyan gyenge, hátha…
Végig simítja izzó homlokát és kinos félelemmel a szivében, halkan, de izgatottan benyit a hálószobába. Ott fekszik a gyermek, holt fehérben, tágra nyílt, révedező szemekkel.
– Nem alszol, édes?
Az asszonyka elébe nyujtja kicsi karjait és a nyaka köré fonja. Aztán csöndesen sir és azt mondja:
– Édes, kis uram, bocsáss meg, nem foglak többé háborgatni.
De az ő kis ura megijed erre a szóra és szenvedélyesen csókolgatja piczi ajkait.
– Gyere csak édesem, mindig ülj oda az asztalom elé és rakosgasd tele kicsi holmijaiddal. Igaz, hogy kissé idegessé tesz, de
hogy elmentél, még kevésbbé tudtam dolgozni. Aztán olyan rosszat álmodik az ember, ha a feleségét megbántja.
Az ágy mellett az éjjeli szekrényen egymás mellett a czérna, a gyűszű és az orvosságos üveg. A czérna nagyot ugrott örömében és az ágy alá gurult. A férj utána bújt az ágy alá és az asszonyka hangosan kaczagott és tapsolt jókedvében.
Aztán kérdezte, mi rosszat álmodott az ő kis ura, de az nem mondta meg neki.
A bagoly és a kanári madár.
Két kicsi ablak az átellenes ház tetejére való kilátással. Egy fekete roskadó kis kerevet, egy kicsi, alacsony ágy, három durva faszék, egy nagy ócska iróasztal és egy ódon könyves szekrény. A padlón szerte-széjjel heverő könyvek, az iróasztalon sok összevissza hányt papiros és a párkányán egy szépen kitömött erdei bagoly.
Ebben az otthonban ül dr. Demkó Tivadar, a filozófia, história és az összes irodalmak tanára és szijja magába a papirosbölcseséget. A nadrágja kopott és rövid, a czipője félre van taposva és a kézelője meg a gallérja rojtos. A haja homlokába nőtt, csak a halántékon kezd ritkulni. Fekete szemei örökké álmosak, kihegyesedő álla örökké beretválatlan. A járása sietős, ideges, a melle befelé görbül. A tudományok elvadult embere ő, nem mutathatja magát senki előtt, csak a füles bagoly előtt, mely az iróasztalán áll.
Ha ír, ez a bagoly belenéz az irásába, üveges, álmos tekintettel, nagy komolysággal. Ha hátradől a székébe és gondolkodik, ez a bagoly szembe néz vele, magába roskadva, szürke gondolatokat kergetve. Olyan komor, olyan borongó ez a madár, a bölcseség jelképe s mint ilyen szomorú.
Dr. Demkó Tivadar nagyon szereti. Minden reggel gondosan megkeféli minden egyes pihéjét, lefésüli szemei körül a világos szürke tolltányérokat és az ujjaival csipi le fölpamacsairól a
porszemeket. Egynek érzi magát ezzel a kitömött madárral. Úgy érzi, hogy a lét óriási problémái bénitották meg ezt is, mint az ő lelkét. Hogy nemcsak együtt virrasztanak a nyomorult sárga lámpafénynél, hanem együtt mondtak le a fehér napsugárról a hangos, dalos, mulató életről is.
Dr. Demkó Tivadar nagy ember. Harmincz éves létére megírt már vagy tiz kötetet és számtalan tudományos essay-t. Az akadémia megválasztotta rendes tagnak és mindenki benne látja az első, az egyetlen magyar filozófust.
De ez a dicsőség csak boszantja őt. Örökös kételkedés, úttalan tétovázás az, amit eddig írt. Úgy hiszi, hogy csalja a világot. Azt a nagy gondolatot, melyet ki akar fejezni s melynek kifejtése az ő élete czélját képezi, nem tudta még tisztán és czéltudatosan maga elé állítani. És ezzel a benne levő, de rejtőzködő gondolattal vivja ő napról-napra, éjszakáról-éjszakára halálos, idegsorvasztó tusáit. Majd átvillan agyán egy-egy világos sugár, azt hiszi, hogy megvan, megfogta s ilyenkor fölugrik ültéből és dobogó halántékokkal, égő arczczal jár föl-alá a szűk szobában. A bagoly rendületlenül melancholikus komolysággal marad meg a zöld keresztfán és gondolkodik tovább. Neki van igaza. Az a világos sugár az agyvelő egy rakonczátlan villanása volt csak, egy hamis auto-suggestió, lázas halluczináczió: a nagy igyekvésben fölizgatott agynak úgy rémlik, mintha megtalálta volna, amit pedig csak szeretne megtalálni. A bagolynál ez nem történik meg.
– Bárcsak én is ki volnék tömve – sóhajtja ilyenkor dr. Demkó Tivadar, és halálra csüggedten dűl vissza a székébe.
II.
Dr. Demkó Tivadar már harminczöt éves. Még nem találta meg a bölcseség kövét, de tudja már, hogy sohasem fogja megtalálni. Nem tudja megtalálni, mert már nem bírja keresni. Az agya belefáradt a
gondolkozásba, megbénult. Homlokán megmaradtak a gondolkozás mély barázdái, de a homloka mögött megszünt a működés. Fásultan, gondolat nélkül bámul a világba. Nem érdekli őt semmi. Nem tud semmit. De a hire még megvan, tudósnak tartja őt mindenki és ő kénytelen tovább dolgozni. Tele irja a papiros-lapokat és szélnek bocsátja őket. Midőn leül irni, maga sem tudja, hogy mit fog irni. A tolla odavet egy szót a papirosra, erre a szóra eszébe jut neki egy másik, és így készül az egész munka, melynek éles logikáját és mély tudományosságát dicséri az egész sajtó. Megveti magát és fél. Megveti magát, mert csalja az egész világot és fél, hogy elébb-utóbb rajtakapják a csaláson.
Boldogtalan. Elvesztette hitét, Istenét és egyebe nincs. Nincs barátja, nincs szeretője és olyan nyomorultul elvadult, kizüllött az emberi közösségből, hogy nem is tudna szerezni. Néha erőt vesz rajta valami szilaj elkeseredés. Szeretne törni, zúzni, káromkodni, de még csak káromkodni sem tud. Nem tud semmit. Egy elveszett ember, egy élő hazugság.
A bagoly ott áll az iróasztalon, változatlan komorsággal. Még mindig gondolkodik, úgy mint azelőtt, midőn a gazdája is vele gondolkodott.
Egy este tántorogva lépett be szobájába. Valahogyan vacsora közben eszébe jutott, hogy megiszik egy palaczk vörös bort. Megtette. És ekkor az ördögök fölébredtek benne. Egy tagolatlan rikoltással kivánszorgott az utczára és betévedt egy czigányzenés kávéházba. Ott cognacot ivott. Onnan hazatántorgott. A feje zugott. Körülnézett az ő szobájában és átkozottul hidegnek, sivárnak találta. Aztán megállt az iróasztal előtt és nézte a félig teleírt papirosokat. Vad dühvel markolt bele a kézirathalomba és a fogaival marczangolta szét. Majd ráesett tekintete a komoran, szürkén maga elé meredő bagolyra és határtalan düh fogta el.
– Csaló, nyomorult csaló, – hörögte – engem nem csalsz meg! Úgy nézel, mintha gondolkodnál, pedig tudom, hogy kócz van a koponyádban agyvelő helyett. Le az álarczczal cimbora, ezuttal vége a képmutatásnak!
Ezzel fogta a madarat és a földhöz csapta. Egy pár toll kiesett szétfeszített szárnyaiból. A madár a hátán feküdt és nézett, nézett üvegszemével a részeg emberre, komoran, áthatóan, mintha gondolkodna. A részeg emberen valami kisérteties borzongás futott végig és lassan, félénken nyúlt a madár után.
– Legalább ne lássalak többé – mormogta és elzárta a könyvesszekrényébe.
III.
A rongyos fekete divánt, a rozzant székeket kidobta és kényelmesen, elegánsan rendezkedett be. Leberetválta bozontos, tüskés szakállát és új, divatos ruhát vett. Elegáns, szép ember lett belőle. De az a fátyol, mely az első üveg bortól a szemére borult, állandóan rajta maradt. Fátyolosan, mámorosan látta a világot. És megállapodott abban, hogy az élet mámor és annál szebb az élet, mennél mámorosabb. Könyvhöz sohasem nyúlt többé, sem a tollhoz. De eljárt a szinházakba, az orfeumokba és lelke őrült paroxismusával belevetette magát a gyönyörök áradatába. Örülni sohasem tudott. Epedő, égő szomjúság gyötörte minden után, a mit élvezett, de élvezni sohasem tudott. Csókolt és szomjazott a csók gyönyörére. Részeg volt és vágyódott a teljes részegségre, a melyben megfeledkezhetnék magáról, hogy ne tudja, mit csinál. A lábán nem tudott megállani, de az agya józan volt. Nem tudott megfeledkezni magáról… IV.
Valami csoda történhetett, hogy ő már reggeli tiz órakor felkelt. Ragyogó szép májusi nap volt. Mély csüggedéssel, undorral a lelkében lépett ki az utczára, az a ragyogó, enyhe verőfény valami
fájó, szentimentális vágyódást keltett benne a természet után. Átment Budára. Az alacsony házak, a virágmuskátlis ablakok rég elfeledett érzéseket keltettek benne. Szeretett volna gyermek lenni, szeretett volna sírni. És ekkor az egyik ablakból madárcsicsergés hangzott. Fölnézett. Ott az ablakba téve állt a kis kalitka, benne egy parányi sárga madár szökelt egyik pálczikáról a másikra. Csattogott a torka, tele jókedvvel, kitörő életörömmel. És odabent a fehér csipkefüggöny mögött megszólalt a zongora és egy üde, fialal női hang éneke. Egy pajkos operette-keringőt énekelt. Nem tudta miért?
De ez az ének összeolvadt a kanári madár csattogásával és azzal a sajgó, vágyó érzéssel, mely ma benne támadt. Odatámasztotta karját az ablak párkányára és ráhajtotta a fejét. Úgy állt ottan önmagában összeroskadva és hallgatta, hallgatta a madarat, a leányt, a zongorát és azokat a rég elhalt hangokat, melyek most keblében újra fölcsendültek.
Ott állt magában elmerülve akkor is, mikor elhallgatott a zongora s a leány egy pajkos trillával odalépett a kalitkához. Csak akkor riadt föl, midőn a leány egy elfojtott sikoltással visszapattant, de látván a férfi dult arczát, lázban égő szemeit, részvéttel hajolt ki hozzá és csöngetyű-hangon kérdezte:
– Rosszul van?
Dr Demkó Tivadar ránézett a leányra. A tekintetével majd odatapadt a lelke is ahhoz az ártatlan, jószivű arczhoz, mely hozzá lehajolt. Úgy érezte, hogy ha az a leány lenyujtaná hozzá a kezét és fölemelné magához, akkor meg volna mentve. És a kanári madár olyan boldogan csicsergett és a muskátlik az ablakból oly erőteljesen, oly egészségesen illatoztak és piros virágai, zöld levelei körülcsókolták a szép leány orczáit, aki tágra nyilt félő szemekkel bámult a vergődő, szó után kapkodó férfira.
– Jőjjön be uram, feküdjék le egy keveset, hisz ön nagyon rosszul van.
A megváltó szó!
– Köszönöm – dadogta és nem volt ereje, hogy beforduljon az alacsony kapun.
A szép leányfő eltünt a virágok közül és megjelent a kapu alatt. Bizalommal, biztatóan fogta meg a férfi kezét és vitte magával a szobába. Sötét volt ott és hüvös. És a falak tele arczképekkel, szerte-széjjel apró fauteuillök állottak, a sarokban egy parányi puha peluche-diván. Erre dült le dr. Demkó Tivadar és nézett, nézett merev, szomjas szemekkel. Oly hüvös, oly tiszta itt minden. És ez a leány olyan ártatlan, olyan szép és olyan jó. Rátette kis kezét az ő verejtékes homlokára és ő ettől az érintéstől üdvözült. Mintha lelke körül megolvadt volna az átkos varázs, mely eddig fogva tartotta. Hirtelen viziói támadtak. Maga előtt látta az ő ócska, régi lakását, a fekete divánt, az iróasztalt és a bagolyt. Itt be más minden! Bagoly helyett kanári madár és ez a kanári madár úgy illik ehhez az illatos, szép teremtéshez, mint ő hozzá illett a bagoly.
Mennyivel jobb itt! Az ő mostani életmódja kiesett emlékezetéből. Mintha csak álom lett volna, vagy az sem. A poros, dohos, reménytelen dolgozószobából vágyódott ide ebbe az illatos, tiszta, madárdalos fészekbe. Oh, ha ő itt maradhatna!
És szeme könyörgően tekintett a leányra: itt maradhatok? hadd maradhassak itt. Gyógyíts meg teljesen és azután boldogíts. Én is ember vagyok. Szeretnék boldog lenni. Irgalom, hadd lehessek boldog!
És ekkor az asztalon virágos üvegfedő alatt egy arczképet vett észre. Becsületes, szép férfiarczot, nyilt tekintettel, energikus vonásokkal. Ezt az arczot ő ismerte. Valamikor ez a férfi barátja volt, akkor, amikor ő is dolgozott. De aztán elváltak útjaik, az ő vesztére. Tudja, hogy ez a férfi jegyben járt. Itt áll az arczképe, meglátszik rajta, hogy a szerelem őrzi. Vége, mindennek vége!
Azt mondta, hogy jobban van és megköszönte a leány jóságát. Az barátságosan nyújtotta neki kezét. Dr. Demkó Tivadar soká tartotta kezében, aztán sóhajtva távozott. Az ablak alatt még megállt és hallgatta a kanári madarat. Végre is megindult.
Vissza a bagolyhoz!
Üljünk ismét oda a szúette iróasztalhoz és emészszük magunkat a lét problémáival. Dolgozzunk, feledjünk, száradjunk és öregedjünk.
Midőn belépett az ő elegáns lakásába, nem ismert rá. Azt hitte, hogy eltévedt. A régi szegényes butorokat kereste és egy idegen, nem az ő mivoltának megfelelő lakást talált.
Hol a bagoly?
Odalépett a könyves szekrényhez és fölzárta. A kulcs nyikorogva fordult meg a berozsdásodott zárban és aztán komor sorrendben meredtek feléje a poros fóliansok hátlapjai. A legfelsőbb polczon hanyatt feküdt a bagoly. Demkó Tivadar óvatosan nyult utána és kivette. Amint megérintette, szerte hulladoztak a tollai. Röppent a szürke por. Azok a sugaras tollak a madár szemei körül már egészen kihullottak, helylyel-közel kimeredt a puszta kemény test, de az üvegszemek még most is rendületlen komolysággal bámultak reá, mintha gondolatokat üznének.
Dr. Demkó Tivadar mereven állt és tartotta kezében a rothadó madarat. Ahol érintette, ott hullajtotta pihéit. És ekkor tekintete ráesett a könyves szekrény üvegajtajára és látta benne magát. –Egy kiélt, sorvadó arczot, magas, ránczos homlokot és azon felül szürkülő, gyér hajzatot, mely közül itt is ott is kifehérlett a puszta koponyabőr. Demkó Tivadar bámult, bámult borzongva az üvegbe, mintha most látná magát először és kiejtette kezéből a madarat:
– Belém esett a moly…
Halvér.
Azt mondták szegény Kondri Istvánról, hogy vér helyett állott viz kering ereiben. Talán úgy is volt.
Zömök, erős gyerek volt. Koromfekete haja odatapadt erős homlokához, mely alól két elzsirosodott apró fekete szem kifejezéstelenül, álomszerűen tekintett a távolba. Az arcza sötétbarna, tömpe orra alatt sürű, erős bajusza erélytelenül kunkorodott le. A termete is csupa erő és csupa álmatagság. Rövid, izmos lábain inkább czammogott, mint járt; karjai, melyekkel vasrudakat tördelhetett, gyámoltalanul, lustán lógtak alá.
De csak vérében volt a hiba. Az ő érzéstelen, lomha lelkületével a legcsökönyösebb akaraterő párosult. Nem látta senki, hogyan támadnak az ő elhatározásai, készen pattantak azok elő, és amit Kondri István meg akart cselekedni, azt meg is cselekedte, minden habozás nélkül, szinte plasztikusan.
A mikor Einjährig Freiwilliger Stephan Kondri volt, az ő halvére miatt sokat szenvedett. A hadnagy urak megennék egymást unalmukban, ha nem akadna minden esztendőben egy-egy emberük, akin spleenes rosszkedvüket nyargaltathatnák. Természetes, hogy ez a nevetségesen komoly fekete gyerek mindjárt első nap a legjobb médiumnak kinálkozott. A leglázítóbb szekaturáknak volt kitéve egész esztendőn keresztűl, de Kondri István távolba vesző tekintetéből nem látszott, hogy neki valami köze volna a dologhoz. Midőn azután novemberben először öltötte magára a hadnagyi egyenruhát, felrándult Budapestre és sorra bamutatta magát tiszttársainak, hajdani fölebbvalóinak.
– Tschau – üdvözölte őt az ő volt hadnagya.
– Tschau – mondotta ő, de nem fogadta el a feléje nyujtott kezet.
– Kamerad, – szólt azután – te önkéntesi esztendőm alatt a leggyalázatosabban bántál velem. Én ezért gazembernek tartalak mostan.
A Károly-kaszárnyában összecsapott vele komisz huszárkarddal és az első összecsapásnál széthasította a koponyáját.
Aztán hazaczammogott az ő somogyi udvarházába és a legszebb rendben tartotta a gazdaságot.
Az emberei rettenetesen féltek tőle. Mindent látott és semmiért sem pörölt. Egyszerűen odament a ludashoz és azt mondta neki:
– Barátom, maga el van bocsátva. Hordja el magát.
És ez ellen nem volt apelláta.
A kis város társas-életében pontosan részt vett. (Róla nem lehet mondani, hogy élénken.) Ott volt minden városi ülésen, rendesen eljárt a kaszinóba, minden mulatságra megvásárolta a maga jegyét, el is ment, be is ült egy kuczkóba és onnan nézte a zajos sokadalmat. Ha tánczosra volt szükség, tánczolt, ha negyedikre volt szükség, tarokkozott. Ha a jókedv a kaszinó tetejéig ért, csapkodta ő is az üvegeket a falhoz, de mindig azzal a kifejezéstelen komolysággal az arczán. Dorbézolni mindenki látta, örülni senki.
Egyike volt a város leggazdagabb urainak, a háza pedig a legelegánsabb. Renaissance-frontja hivalkodva vált ki a kopott barna, roskadozó utczasorból és belűl minden csupa szőnyeg, selyem volt. Egész villamos drótháló fonta keresztül-kasul a házat, a gázt ő vezettette be elsőnek a szobái világitására. Volt billardszobája, vivó-terme, és hálószobája oly nőies elegáncziával volt berendezve, mintha asszonyé volna. Innen való az is, hogy az ő halvérüségét sokan gőgből magyarázták, bár nem volt a városban úr, aki előtt nem ő emelt volna elsőnek kalapot s nem volt az a szegény ember, a ki üres kezekkel távozott volna tőle.
Volt valami sógorságbeli rokona a városban, aki nagy igyekezettel ápolta a rokoni jóérzületet, mivel erősen rászorult a Kondri István zsirálására. Öcsémnek szólította, tisztes ősz szakála révén és sikerült neki idővel néhány rokonsági fokozatot kitörülve a históriából, nagybátyjává lenni. Kondri Istvánon nem látszott meg, hogy valamiképpen viszonozta volna a nagy szeretetet, de Kondri Istvánon egyáltalán nem látszott meg semmi. Történt azonban, hogy egy nagyobb összegről szóló váltóval a takarékpénztár ismét őhozzá fordult kiegyenlítés végett. Ekkor Kondri István beváltotta a váltót, elment az ő szerető nagybátyjához és odaadta neki azzal a lakonikus kijelentéssel:
– Többet nem irok alá.
És ez ellen sem volt apelláta.
Azaz volt.
A nyáron hazakerültek a »cousine«-ok. Ketten voltak, mindössze egy esztendő különbség volt köztük, de szépség és vidámság tekintetében semmi. A cousineok első nap betoppantak a cousinhoz, felverték a csöndes, nagy házat az ő csicsergésükkel, kaczagásukkal, bejárták az összes szobákat, megtapogattak minden szőnyeget, függönyt és megnyomkodták az összes villamos gombokat, hogy csak úgy csöngött az egész ház és a cselédek mindenünnen eszeveszetten rohantak elő. A lányok erre majd hanyatt dőltek kaczagásukban, Kondri István azonban megmaradt az ő komolysága mellett és száraz hangon küldte el ismét a népséget. De úgy látszik, tetszett neki a kicsinyek csíntalansága, mert bíztatta őket, hogy csak csöngessenek, amennyit akarnak.
Aztán még az nap elment az ő kedves nagybátyjához és bíztatta, hogy ha kell aláirás, csak forduljon hozzá.
Hát persze, hogy hozzá fordult!
Kondri István ezóta sűrübben járt el a kaszinóba és ha nem volt is szükség negyedikre, beállt egy tarokkompániába. Kártyázott sokat és ivott.
Látszott rajta, hogy szeretne kibujni az ő medvebőréből, olyan lenni, mint a többiek. Próbált nevetni is, de egy elkényszeredett, savanyú mosolygásnál nem vitte többre. Négy hét alatt átlátta, hogy nem megy semmire és ismét kiállt a kompániából.
A cousineok nem mentek többé vissza Pestre, eladó lányok voltak. És az ő jókedvükkel és szépségükkel csakhamar föléje kerekedtek a többi lányoknak, ők kapták a legtöbb éjjeli zenét és nekik voltak a legjobb tánczosaik. Kondri István mindig velük volt, czipelte a belépőiket, hozott limonádét és tánczolt velük, ha éppen kedvük volt vele tánczolni. A lányok pedig megszokták már ezt a mindenre használható cousint, talán nem is láttak benne embert, hanem egy igen elmés szerkezetet, melynek csak szólni kell, hogy minden meglegyen.
Így ment ez két esztendeig. Akkor Juliska, az idősebb cousine férjhez ment a járási orvoshoz.
Két héttel az esküvő után Kondri István elment az ő szeretett nagybátyjához, beűlt egy nagy fekete karosszékbe és hallgatott. A kedves nagybácsi iparkodott mindenfélével kedveskedni, de Kondri István öcscséből egy hangot sem csalhatott ki mindaddig, mig Erzsike cousine-ja be nem toppant hozzájuk, kezében egy óriási orgona-koszorúval, melyet rögtön Kondri István tömzsi fejére tett.
– Szervusz, Pista, neked hoztam.
– Köszönöm, – mondotta – most állj meg egy komoly szóra.
Ezzel megfogta a leány két kezét, az ő fekete komoly szemeivel belemélyedt a leány tágra nyílt csodálkozó két szemébe és a legegyszerübb hangon a világon azt mondta:
– Juliska férjhez ment már, most rajtad a sor. Akarsz-e feleségem lenni?
A leány hátrafelé dűlt, hogy megfeszültek a karjai, de Kondri István nem eresztette el a kezeit. Aztán nevetésre fintorodott az arcza, de midőn belenézett a komoly arczú ember szelid bikaszemeibe, melyek úgy néztek, mint mindig, komolyan,
kifejezéstelenül, de valami sajátszerű áthatósággal, akkor elpirult, lesütötte a szemeit, majd az édes atyjára nézett… Az meglepetésében szintén nem tudott mihez fogni és zavarában köhécselt.
– Nos?
És tekintete kényszerítette a leányt, hogy szemébe nézzen.
Hipnotizálva volt. Valami szivreható melegség áradt ki abból a két fekete férfiszemből és komolyságában, szűkszavúságában, izmos testének önfeledt lomhaságában s abban a nyugalomban, melylyel feleletet várt, volt valami parancsoló, aminek nem lehetett ellentállani. Még utolsó vergődésként hebegte:
– De hát a papa…
Oh a papának nem volt semmi kifogása, sőt nagyon örül neki, hogy a két gyerek összekerül.
– Akkor hát… szivesen.
– Köszönöm, Erzsike, – szólt rezgő mély baritonján – nem fogod megbánni soha.
És megszorította jegyese kezét oly melegen, hogy az felsikoltott.
– Bántottalak? – kérdezte alázatosan.
– Fáj – válaszolt halkan a leány s babonás félelemmel nézett Kondrira.
A városban az eljegyzés híre nagy szenzácziót idézett elő. Mindenki azt hitte, hogy ez a halvérű Kondri sohasem fog házasodni és széltiben megindult a suttogás, hogy az ostoba legényt befonták a vagyona miatt. Ennek a suttogásnak azonban hamar vége szakadt, mert Kondri István olyat csapott öklével az egyik suttogó arczába, hogy betört az orra csontja. Erre aztán csak gratuláltak, de nem szóltak semmit.
Erzsike, mint afféle jókedvű teremtés, hamar beletalálta magát a váratlan új helyzetbe. Dalolva és kaczagva járta be István szobáit és fenekestűl felforgatott mindent. Csak a fogadószobán nem változtatott semmit, ez a nagy terem, melyben úgy látszott, mintha egy pár a falhoz támasztott széken kivül nem volna semmi, félő tisztelettel töltötte el. Úgy érezte, hogy ez a szoba szakasztott olyan, mint az ő vőlegénye, ez így marad, legfölebb egy tükröt tesz a falra, hogy láthassa magát benne.
Kondri István pedig szerelmében olyan volt, mint egy ragaszkodó kutya. Levett kalappal lépett csak menyasszonya elé, s ha az kezét nyújtotta feléje, gyöngéden, a két ujjával fogta csak meg és óvatosan emelte ajkaihoz. Jegyességük három hónapja alatt sohasem csókolta meg, még a homlokát sem. De elhalmozta ezer gyöngédséggel és kivánságait a szeméből olvasta ki.
Erzsike gyakran incselkedett vele.
– Bolondos medvém, hát mindig ilyen leszel? Senkisem nézné ki belőled, hogy vőlegény vagy.
– Úgy? – tünődött Kondri. – Aztán ez neked kellemetlen?
– Dehogy, dehogy, medvém. Maradj csak, a milyen vagy. Hanem a mancsoddal megsímogathatnád néha a menyasszonyodat.
A szőlőindás verandán ültek egyszer, két héttel az esküvő előtt.
Az asztalon a vacsora maradványai és két kerti lámpa. Az illatos nyári este, a csillagos ég, és hogy úgy egymagukban voltak, valami ábrándos komolysággal töltötte el őket. Kondri István a kezében tartotta menyasszonya kezét és nézte, nézte a szép, piros arczot és a hosszú szempillákat, melyek félig eltakarták a kék szemeket. A leány a távolba nézett, nem látva, nem gondolva semmit, de lelkét valami sajátszerű fájdalom járta át, nem tudta miért, de úgy érezte, hogy jó volna felolvadni most a nyári levegőben, mint az illat s nem tudni semmit arról, ami reá vár. Aztán egy meleg szorítást érzett a kezén s lelkében remegve, égetően hallotta a nevét csengeni, azon a kifejezéstelen mély férfias hangon, melyen vőlegénye beszélni szokott:
– Erzsike, Erzsikém!
És aztán lefejlettek kezéről a csontos ujjak, odatapadtak az ő szőke hajához és perzselő lehellet égette az arczát, amint az a szűkszavú száj az ő ajkaihoz közeledett és aztán felsikoltott, reszketve, rémülten, midőn az a férfiszáj oda szorult az övéhez.
– Jaj!
Kondri István elbocsátotta.
– Bántottalak?
– Fáj – suttogta a leány és aztán kezdett keservesen sírni.
És a halvérű emberen hervasztó hevület futott át, a lomha termet megremegett és a vizben úszó szemekből mintha szikra pattant volna ki. Térdre roskadt és karjaival átfonta a leány derekát s leszorította fejét az ő égő arczához.
– Erzsike! drágám! mindenem!…
– Bocsáss, bocsáss, az istenért, könyörülj!
Kondri Istvánból egy pillanat alatt ismét halvérű ember lett. Fölkelt és alázatosan, szinte félénken kérdezte:
– Fáj?
– Nem tudom, – suttogta a leány – de én félek tőled… Te olyan… különös vagy.
– Vagy úgy!
És az ő becsületes szemében annyi szomorúság volt, amint lehorgasztott fővel, kalapját az ujjai közt forgatván, mondta:
– Bocsáss meg Erzsike… azt hittem, hogy szeretsz.
Ezzel távozott.
Már másnap mindenki arról beszélt, hogy Erzsike mégsem akar Kondri Istvánhoz menni és hogy visszaküldötte neki a jegygyűrűt.
Nagyon helyeselték, hogy a leány az utolsó pillanatban észre tért, mert bizony ezért a vagyonért kár lett volna magát örökre szerencsétlenné tenni.
Kondri István pedig elment a közjegyzőhöz egy részletes leltárral és tollba diktálta neki a végrendeletét. Mindenét Erzsike hugára hagyta kárpótlásul azért a nagy bántalomért, melylyel akaratának ellenére illette.
Aztán hazament és főbe lőtte magát.
Mert ez a halvérű ember mindent rögtön szokott megtenni.
Az első boa.
Nem találta meg senki az első boát? – Szép, bolyhos fekete boa volt, puhán, melengetően simult egy gyermekesen sovány nyak köré, és amint a fázós kis leány jókedvűen rakosgatta a lábait, vidáman tánczoltak lelógó végei. Olyan szép, olyan kedves volt és aki viselte, az én kedves, szerelmes kis gyermekem volt.
Aki megtalálta, adja vissza nekem. Ha férfi, adok neki egy meleg téli kabátot érte, vagy ha uri ember, akkor adok neki tiz forintot kölcsön. Ha nő, verset irok az emlékkönyvébe, vagy ha nincs emlékkönyve, akkor megsúgom neki, ki a legszebb nő a földön. De ha nem adja vissza, akkor őrizze gonddal s szeretettel, óvja a molytól és óvja tolvajkezektől, s ha felölti, vegye föl előbb legszebb ruháját. Mert ez a boa nem közönséges boa, hanem az első, melyet az idén viseltek, és az első, melyet az én kedves, szerelmes kis galambom kapott.
Tőlem kapta. Együtt mentünk az utolsó enyhe őszi estén az Andrássy-uton és fölnéztünk a csillagokra. Bolondos, szerelmes fővel kérdeztem tőle, hogy melyik csillagot hozzam le az ő számára és ő ábrándosan nézte a divatkereskedés kirakatában a Helioszlámpákat és szerelmesen suttogta:
– Vegyél nekem egy boát, úgy szeretnék egy fekete boát!
Oh földönjáró, babáról, boáról álmodó gyermeklélek, maradj te csak mindig a földön! Fordítsd szememet a gázlángok felé, ha a csillagok közt akarnak kalandozni. Legyen a földön biztos, szilárd menedékem, ha magas szárnyalás közben lezuhanok a felhőkből. Igen, egy boa, egy fekete boa, meglesz. Vedd föl, gyönyörködj puhaságában, melegségében és fond soványka, lányos karjaidat a
nyakam köré, mert én is szeretem a boát, a meleg, puha boát, de fehér legyen, de rózsás legyen és kék ereiben melegen, szerelmesen keringjen a vér.
Milyen lázas kézzel, mily nyugtalansággal, mily éber vigyázattal válogatta ki azt a boát! Engem egy pillanat alatt választott ki a sok közül, de a boát kinos figyelemmel válogatta meg. Végre is döntött. A kezében tartotta és véges-végig nézte. Véges-végig simogatta, aztán odaállt a tükör elé és a nyaka köré csavarta. Kipirult a boldogságtól. Üdvözülten nézte magát a tükörben, aztán kaczagva összecsapta kicsi kezeit és szerelmesen nézett rám:
– Köszönöm, te édes.
És most vigyük sétálni. Hadd lássa mindenki a mi boánkat. Ilyet még senkisem látott. Milyen szép! Milyen elegáns! És úgy illenek egymáshoz, mintha isten is egymás számára teremtette volna. Büszke vagyok mind a kettőre. A boa az övé, ő az enyém, tehát mind a kettő az enyém.
Az Andrássy-uton sok ember jár. Mindenkinek a szeme megakad rajtunk. Hogyne, hiszen a boa oly csodálatosan szép, aztán az egyetlen az egész Andrássy-uton. Nini, boa! gondolja magában sok asszony, leány. Tehát már viselik? – Holnap én is fölveszem az enyémet. – Divatot csinálunk, angyalom, mint a cumberlandi herczegnő és a bécsi szabó-kongresszus.
Vajjon minek néznek bennünket az emberek, ahogy így egymás mellett lépdegélünk? Testvéreknek, cousinoknak? – Mondok egyet, kis galambom, kettő lesz belőle. Nyújtsd a karodat, belé kapaszkodom. Azzal a hanyag bizalmassággal, mely azt jelenti, hogy te már jobban szeretsz engem, mint én téged. Akkor majd férjnek és feleségnek néznek bennünket és azt fogják gondolni: ni, a baba! Milyen fiatal és máris ő vezeti karján a férjét!
Ha ismerőssel találkozunk? Hát az se baj. Úgy is előbb-utóbb az lesz a vége, hogy megtudják az ismerősök. Sőt lehetetlen, hogy ne tudják már. Ha találkozunk, mindenki másfelé néz, ha együtt vagyunk társaságban, mindig egymás mellé ültetnek bennünket.
Nálam tudakozódnak a te hogyléted felől, tőled kérdik, hogy megszünt-e már a náthám. Hát mi baj, ha meglátják: egy csöppet sem fognak csodálkozni.
Hogy igazán szeretlek-e? A leghamisabb esküvel, de tiszta, őszinte szivből biztosítlak, hogy te vagy az első és az utolsó, akit szeretek. Benned élek, nélküled nem érek semmit. Nem tudom elképzelni az életet te nélküled, és úgy-e, te sem hagysz el engem soha? Örökké, örökké egymásé leszünk, legalább ma még s remélhetőleg hosszú időig. Hogy a jövőben hogy lesz? Honnan tudjuk azt mi? Az ember nem felelhet magáról, sem te, sem én. Lehet, hogy holnap már nem tetszik neked ez a gyönyörű boa s lehet, hogy holnapután szégyelni fogod magad, hogy egy ilyen csunya gyerekbe hogy lehettél te szerelmes. Ha úgy lesz, ne félj semmit, mondd meg nyiltan, nem haragszom érte. Hiszen magam sem értem, hogy mi az, amit bennem szeretsz. Nincs én bennem semmi sem, ami szeretetreméltó. Unalmas vagyok, mint az őszi eső és érzéketlen, mint a rossz termométer. Ha kiábrándultál, isten veled. De második szerelmed megválogatásánál légy legalább oly óvatos, mint a boavásárláskor.
Ni, hogy megfeledkeztünk az emberekről! Itt az Andrássy-út végén, a lombtalan satnya gesztenyesorban mi ketten járunk egyedül, de már ott fönn az octogonon sem vettük észre az embereket. Megvakultunk, csak egymást látjuk, ketten vagyunk csak a világon. Fond karjaidat a nyakamba, azután csókolj meg. Nem tudsz még csókolni? Szégyenlős szemérmetesség tart vissza, midőn az ajkad ajkam felé közeledik, aztán hirtelen félre fordítod arczod és vállamra hajtod. Legyen áldva a tudatlanságod. Meg foglak tanítani csókolni, de ne tanuld meg. Oly gyönyörűség, hogy nem tudsz csókolni. Egy darab fehér ártatlanságot tartok a karjaimban, mocsoktalanul, tisztán csüng rajtam s megtisztít engem is. Tüzes, bűnös csókjaim ráhullanak ajkadra, szemedre s érzem, mint tüzesedik föl az orczád, kicsattan rajtok a láz… és én imádlak, szeretlek százszorosan, hogy olyan rossz tanítvány vagy, aki mámorban, lázban sem tudod megcsókolni azt, kinek csókja neked édes.
