Housing, Humanity, and Hope: Bridging Fiction and Reality Between Parable of the Sower and the 2008 Crisis

Lily Gallagher

The 2008 financial crisis wasn’t just a headline or a moment in history; it was a lived experience for millions. Families were losing their homes, jobs disappeared overnight, and communities that once felt stable started to unravel. As I try to compare my experience in my first semester at SUNY Geneseo to Octavia E. Butler’s Parable of the Sower, I notice some similarities. 

When I first got my schedule over the summer, I was a bit confused as to what the Expulsion and Housing Crisis class would even be about. Just based on the name, I was under the impression that we would be learning about how living in poverty impacts people’s mental health, families, and opportunities or that maybe we would be learning about different socioeconomic inequalities as I didn’t have access to the syllabus yet. When I saw that we were reading Shakespeare, I was even more confused about what this class might be about. When we finally got into class, it didn’t make much sense. I couldn’t figure out how centuries-old plays or a dystopian novel would shed light on topics like foreclosure or poverty. But as the semester went on, the pieces started to click together. 

Connecting some of the readings to the 2008 crisis at points seemed like it was a bit of a reach. One example was when we read King Lear and A Mercy. While some of these topics connected, it seemed trivial to make these connections. It is true that in King Lear, Lear was expelled from his home, and in A Mercy, Florens search for answers led to her expulsion multiple times. But I often found myself thinking “How does this relate to modern times?” or “How can we connect this economically now from centuries ago.” At some points, I had to step back and think about why I was making these connections in the first place. The whole point was to make me think outside the box and bring upon lessons I might not have otherwise seen, and that in itself, was valuable. I tried to connect what I was learning to how it would benefit me in my future career. Specifically, as a future teacher, it is so important to be able to make connections to outside life events to what may be presented in my classroom one day. The most valuable lesson I was taught when it comes to teaching was to look beyond a student’s behavior, as you don’t know what kind of home situations they endeavor. Students don’tpurposefully come in trying to make your life more difficult.  Learning how to make connections with things that at first seem irrelevant will most times shed light that most connections made aren’t so little after all. Knowing how to deeply think outside the box will be a valuable skill for my future.

Engaging with Parable of the Sower while thinking about the financial crisis raised deeper questions about power and responsibility. The crisis exposed systemic inequalities, much like Butler’s novel does. Both show how the most vulnerable are often left to fend for themselves while those in power escape accountability. Reflecting on this through Butler’s story isn’t just an academic exercise, it’s personal. It’s about understanding how crises shape us and force us to reevaluate what we value and what we’re willing to fight for. Unlike some of the other books that we read in class prior like The Big Short, this book talked more about the social and moral themes of the crisis rather than the financial and legal matters of it. We often think of these events as distant or abstract, something that happens to other people. But reflecting on these issues through Butler’s lens forces us to confront how they shape our lives and values.

I’ve found a lot that comes to mind while engaging with Parable of the Sower in the context of the 2008 financial and housing crises. The novel paints a picture of a world where society has broken down, and people are left to fend for themselves in a world that’s become unsafe and uncertain. It’s a world where housing is no longer a given, but more of something fragile that can be taken away in an instant. And when I think about the 2008 crisis, those same feelings of instability and loss come to mind. Millions of people lost their homes, and their sense of security, and in some cases, their entire lives were uprooted. Reading Parable of the Sower alongside learning about this real-world event made me realize how closely Butler’s dystopian world mirrors what happened when the housing market crashed. The crisis revealed just how fragile our systems are and how easily people can be displaced, not just physically but emotionally and socially as well. 

In both the novel and the real world, the collapse of these systems isn’t just an economic problem, it’s a deeply human one. One quote that resonates with this from Parable of the Sower can be found in chapter four when Lauren Olamina, the main character and protagonist, says “That’s all anybody can do right now. Live. Hold out. Survive. I don’t know whether good times are coming back again. But I know that won’t matter if we don’t survive these times.” During the crisis, many families were expelled from their homes due to foreclosure and mortgage payments. For those affected, the question wasn’t about when things would return to “normal” or when the “good times” would come back. It was about making it through the present moment, coping with the uncertainty, and finding a way to survive. The economic collapse shattered people’s expectations of stability, just as in Parable of the Sower, where Lauren faces a world where survival itself becomes the priority. The uncertainty about whether “good times” would return reflects the long-term impact of the crisis. In many ways, recovery seemed like a distant hope, and for many, the focus shifted to survival. Just as Lauren doesn’t know when or if better days will come, many who faced the housing crisis couldn’t predict when, or if, their financial situations would stabilize. The immediate need was to hold on, adapt, and survive both in Butler’s fictional world and in the very real world of 2008. 

Reflecting on this through GLOBE’s framework helped me see how much my thinking has evolved over the semester. In the beginning, I saw housing crises as mainly financial events and problems to be solved with better policies or regulations. But through readings like King Lear, The Big Short, A Mercy, and Parable of the Sower, I came to understand the deeper, human impact of displacement and instability. It’s not just about economics; it’s about what happens when people lose their sense of home and how they rebuild their lives in the aftermath. That shift in perspective is exactly what GLOBE encourages, which is learning to see connections across disciplines and reflecting on how those insights shape our outlook over time. One of the lessons that stood out to me most was learning about how important literacy is. While reading books like A Mercy and The Big Short, the very intriguing question of “Can you read?” came up. But it got me thinking as to what this means. There is a huge difference between being able to read something and being able to understand it. Being able to read is something so many of us easily take for granted. This connects with how housing companies and banks will purposefully make contracts long and complex so they can get away with more bad faith practices. Still, they’re rarely questioned or challenged because they’re hidden in complex language. When people can’t grasp the fine print, it can lead to dire consequences, putting them at a disadvantage and leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, sometimes to the point of losing their homes. This can relate to my college experience thus far when it comes to reading textbooks or books for a certain class. I have never been a big reader. I have to be into the book or the topic and when someone forces me to read something, any motivation that I had is typically gone. I found myself often reading textbooks but not grasping what was being said. I was reading the words on the page rather than the meaning behind them. I have gotten better with this throughout the semester. It’s been a gradual process, but I’ve noticed how much more connected I feel to the material, and it’s made a big difference in how I learn and apply new ideas.

What struck me most about Parable of the Sower was the way it focuses on resilience. Lauren Olamina doesn’t just survive in this broken world, she builds something new. Her Earthseed philosophy, rooted in the idea that “God is change,” felt like a response to the chaos and instability of both Butler’s imagined world and the real-world fallout of 2008. It’s a reminder that even amid loss and uncertainty, people adapt, innovate, and try to create meaning. Transitioning into college was something that I had to persevere through. Being four and a half hours away from home and starting completely new. There was a sense of refreshment but also fear. But like Lauren, I could also build something new. This Was the start of creating the life I wanted as I was completely in control now. One quote that particularly resonated with this experience is found in chapter one when Lauren says  “All that you touch you Change. All that you change, changes you. The only lasting truth Is Change.” While change can be a scary thing, it is necessary. Life only happens when change occurs. I realized that moving to college was my chance to embrace that change and let it shape me into the person I wanted to become. Just like Lauren in the book, I was figuring out how to turn the uncertainty of a new environment into an opportunity to grow.

Being in the Expulsion and Housing Crisis class taught me valuable lessons and made me more aware of how crucial it is to connect things to a bigger picture. While I still hope to learn more about those living in poverty and socioeconomic inequalities, understanding other themes, such as the 2008 financial and housing crisis, is just as critical. Looking at Parable of the Sower in light of the 2008 financial crisis opened my eyes to the ways these two worlds are connected, even though they’re separated by time and place. Butler’s story shows how the most vulnerable are left to struggle while those in power escape consequences, much like what we saw during the housing crisis. For Geneseo’s  GLOBE instance, this kind of thinking is exactly what we’re encouraged to do. It not only challenges us to think critically about the world around us but also allows us to reflect on how our understanding of these issues evolves. More importantly, it is necessary to reflect on how our views change over time and how we can learn from both the past and the present. My little but valuable time so far at Geneseo has made me realize that like Lauren in Parable of the Sower, we have the power to adapt and build something meaningful in the face of uncertainty and I hope to take these skills beyond my time at Geneseo.

Exploring Swap(ping) and Liquid(ity) in Shakespeare’s “King Lear”

by Lily Gallagher, Ava Patelli, Brenden Harrington, Jayden Prashad, Joseph Latella, Lily Scobbo, and Zachary Simons

Looking at the terms liquid(ity) and swap(ping) in the context of King Lear brings literal and metaphorical definitions to the story. King Lear tells the story of an aging king ready to retire his kingdom. He decides to split his kingdom between his three daughters – Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia – based on their professions of love. When Cordelia refuses to exaggerate her love unlike her other sisters, Lear expels her from the inheritance. Shortly after, Goneril and Regan betray Lear and strip him of all power. Parallel to this storyline, the play also follows Gloucester who is betrayed by his illegitimate son, Edmund, and suffers greatly. Throughout the story, Liquid(ity) is present particularly concerning power, loyalty, and the nature of relationships. As we see in the play, The storms in the play serve as a metaphor for emotional and political turmoil. The chaotic weather mirrors the instability of Lear’s reign and his relationships, emphasizing how external forces can disrupt the balance of power and sanity. We also see swap(ping) in the story which can be defined as exchanging, bartering, or trading, one thing for another. After initially professing love for Lear, Goneril and Regan swap their outward displays of affection for ruthless ambition. Their betrayal of Lear highlights the swap from loyalty to treachery. In King Lear, the themes of liquid(ity) and swap(ping) manifest through Lear’s tragic decisions and the fluid nature of power. Lear’s initial control over his kingdom symbolizes financial liquidity; he easily redistributes power based on his daughters’ declarations of love. However, as he descends into madness and loses authority, this liquidity evaporates, illustrating how quickly one can lose power and respect. The act of swapping is evident as Lear trades genuine affection for the illusion of loyalty, leading to betrayal and tragic consequences. Ultimately, the play explores liquidity, expulsion, and the swapping of relationships.

Swapping, liquid, and liquidity are all very different terms with meanings that cover a vast majority of topics. In the play King Lear these terms interact with each other constantly, The idea of liquidity and swapping are both brought up in the action of losing or gaining power. In the play we see Edgar who started out as a favored son turns into a crazy beggar and is removed from the kingdom almost entirely. On the other hand Edmund starts out as the bastard and casted out by the kingdom slowly works his way into the top and gains his power, but in the end his hunt for power ends up getting him expelled from the kingdom. The action of losing or gaining power is the main idea of the interaction between swapping and liquidity not just in this example but throughout the entire play. A wheel of Fortune is a great example that Beth mentioned in class on September 11, 2024. Lear, who started out as the king and ruler of his kingdom, took a spin on the wheel, divided his kingdom to his daughters and in turn gave away his power. We would later see Lear lose his sense of reality and spiral into a deep madness, losing all of his fortune and now with none of the power he once held. This same wheel can be used to describe the journey of many of the characters in the play, some starting with power and losing it as the wheel begins to spin, while others start with none but gradually gain it throughout the play. We also follow Edgar, true son of Gloucester, who is deceived and lied to. Edgar again loses his power and swaps places with his half brother Edmund, both Edgar and Edmund are examples of swapping. Edmund swaps his brother’s trust in him for his personal ambitions and gains, while Edgar is deceived and casted out, forced to change his identity. This example is not only showing swapping but also the liquidity of relationships, where loyalty can quickly change.The bond between Regan and Goneril is marked by a deceptive fluidity. They begin as allies, but their relationship becomes increasingly competitive. As they swap accusations and manipulate each other to gain favor, their sisterhood becomes strained, highlighting the liquidity of familial ties when power is at stake. The action of someone losing power seems to be followed by another gaining said power. Swapping and liquidity are two terms with definitions that seem to interact with each other in almost every aspect of the play, demonstrating this relationship between losing and gaining power. 

Pulling out direct dialogue from the text we can begin to paraphrase the most important way King Lear makes connections between liquid(ity) and swap(ping) and how that relates to expulsion. The first example of this is when Lear states, “How, nothing will come of nothing.” – Lear begins the play by asking his daughters to declare how much they love him. His youngest daughter Cordelia has “nothing” to say. This line is Lear’s response. His repetition of the word “nothing” introduces an important theme of the play. Lear will be stripped of his kingdom, his power, and his family, and left with nothing. King Lear asks whether there is anything to be learned or gained by the experience of having nothing, or whether, as Lear says here, nothing comes of nothing. Later in the text, we hear, O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars are in the poorest thing superfluous;  Allow not nature more than nature needs, Man’s life is cheap as beast’s” – The line foreshadows that Lear will soon be living side by side with the “basest beggars.” One of the central themes of King Lear is the question of whether poor and powerless people can live with meaning and dignity, or whether wealth and power are the only things that make life bearable. The next deep connection between the themes of Lear comes from Edmund as he states, “Brother, I advise you to the best. I am no honest man if there is any good meaning toward you. I have told you what I have seen and heard, but faintly, nothing like the image and horror of it. Pray you away.” (Edmund, Act 1 Scene 2). This illustrates the connection between Edmund and the expulsion he casts upon his brother by wishing to be able to pray him away after swapping roles with his brother. “I am a very foolish, fond old man,  Fourscore and upward, not an hour more nor less; And to deal plainly, I fear I am not in my perfect mind.” – Lear begins the play blind to the reality of his position. He believes he will always be a king, even if he gives up his power. Over the course of the play, he discovers his mistake. Finally, he learns to see himself clearly, and in this speech, near the end of the play, he is able to describe himself accurately. In Lear’s realization, “I am a man more sinned against than sinning.” In this moment of clarity, Lear reflects on his loss and the expulsion from his former self. He recognizes the depth of his suffering and the misguided nature of his previous authority. He starts to understand the damage he is doing and how his life is based on wealth and status. After he lost everything and gave up his kingdom and wealth, he realized he didn’t have much meaning to anything or anyone. Clearly, he realized this too late as he went insane and lost his family. 

We may relate to the themes of liquidity and swapping in “King Lear” because they mirror our own issues with authority and fraud. We are prompted to reflect on how we handle our own lives by the play’s portrayal of power relations, which are a reflection of real-life interactions. Empathy is sparked by Lear’s journey into insanity, which serves as a reminder of the emotional complexity of personal failings and family relationships. What happens when we lose sight of our principles; such as leaving a friendship you had for years, emotions and drama can come up from that. Considering these topics prompts us to consider crucial issues such as how we manage loyalty and disagreement in our own relationships. What may we infer from Lear’s mistakes? Shakespeare’s creativity is made stronger by these reflections, which also encourage us to think critically about our own decisions and experiences. In conclusion, King Lear powerfully illustrates the fragility of authority and human relationships through the themes of liquidity and swapping. Lear’s initial ability to fluidly distribute power among his daughters represents financial liquidity, but as he descends into madness, this liquidity evaporates, highlighting how quickly trust can be lost. The act of swapping is evident as Lear exchanges genuine love for flattery, leading to betrayal and tragic consequences. Ultimately, the play reveals the dangers of misjudgment and the profound repercussions that arise from trading meaningful connections for superficial gains, leaving a lasting impact on both characters and audiences alike.

Lily Scobbo, Lily Gallagher, Joey Latella, Ava Patelli, Zach Simons, Jayden Prashad