Venting a discontent with pop-culture

I’m glad I came across this passage in Adorno. The more I’ve heard recently about The X Factor, American Idol, Jersey Shore, Ellen, or any number of other pop-culture phenomenon, the more I’ve searched for an avenue in which to express my discontent. Whenever I criticize a show on tv today, I’m met with the response, “it’s fun and it makes people happy.” But this is not good enough for me. So as I was sitting here at my kitchen table waiting for a pizza to come out of the oven while reading Adorno’s collection of essays entitled Prisms, I came across this; a way of explaining how pop culture is merely a reflection of economics and not a creation of true culture or pleasure for people to spend their time with.

In the name of the consumer, the manipulators suppress everything in culture which enables it to go beyond the total immanence in the existing society and allow only that to remain which serves society’s unequivocal purpose. Hence, ‘consumer culture’ can boast of being not a luxury but rather the simple extension of production.

The Left left Hitchens (not the other way around)

I was going to try to start this post with as few cliches as possible, but I realized that in itself was a cliche. I first heard from reading Christopher, in a comment about his friend Martin Amis, that Martin despised the cliche and almost set down 1984 because he read one on the very first page. For those of you who haven’t heard, or haven’t even been aware of his existence, Christopher Hitchens died on the 15 of December. He is one of the authors closest to my heart and someone who influenced me in ways so many others have experienced; but that doesn’t cheapen the influence. I was lucky enough to have met him after one of his talks, and he even recited a few of his famous limericks for me (I still hold this as a point of pride).

In an odd and somewhat self satisfying manner, I find myself inadvertently living a life similar to him. While in England for the past year, I was associated with the Socialist Worker’s Party, the current version of his International Socialists. I consider myself a Marxist and have a taste for radical politics as did he (even in his later years). I think of myself as understanding his later positions far better than anyone one on either the right or left. The left say he betrayed them and supported an imperialist war, the right embraced him as a fellow neo-con. But both miss the point. I agree with his analysis that he never truly departed from the left in supporting the toppling of Saddam, the left departed from him. He wasn’t a Bush supporter in the way people think he was, he simply agreed with him in the stand against dictatorship, a stance many leftists rightfully sympathize with. But instead of supported the toppling because of a defense for America position, he supported it for the liberation of the people and showed solidarity with Kurdish leftists. He was clearly not anti-Middle East on the face of it (like other supporters of the invasion) or a proponent of American imperialism. He was, after all, an anti-Zionist and a supporter of both Kurdish and Palestinian rights. So pegging him as an ally of Bush misunderstands his position.

I must also say, he would have exactly predicted the responses to his death. The loving thoughts from strangers, the excitement of his death from orthodox leftists, and everything in between. He saw through the cliche, which is important. He thought dialectically and lived dialectically.

Isn’t it an odd feeling now, after reading his article about being waterboarded, reading his thoughts on cancer and dying while he was experiencing it, and so many other experiences the rest of us have not, and hopefully will not, have, that we don’t get to read a final article on what it is like to actually die? Of course it would contradict his stance on religion, and all logic and reason for that matter, but I somehow weirdly expected to read about it when I heard he finally buckled under the cancer. But before I fall into any other cliches that have already been written about him, go read some of his work for yourself. I promise, it won’t disappoint.

Adele

I may be a little late to the game with this, but Adele is fantastic. I wasn’t aware of her music until long after she was at the top of the charts in the US, but once I came to know who she was, I realized her uniqueness, and for a very specific reason. Her body type does not fit in with the typical mold of an A-list celebrity. Her lyrics are notably juvenile, proletarian, or some other form of writing that is antithetical to what is generally thought of as “good”. Yet in spite of all this she is a major success. That’s the paradox of her. I would even go so far as to say she exemplifies what Adorno would call “high art” in that it was produced not for the economy or to make money or to be popular, but because she wrote down what was very important to her and created something new. Her music would most definitely be amazing whether or not she was successful in the  Western capitalist music industry.

Quote for the day

To call men and women simply “workers” or “capitalists” is to bury their unique individuality beneath a faceless category. But it is an alienation that can be undone only from the inside. Only by going all the way through class, accepting it as an unavoidable social reality than wishing it piously away, can it be dismantled. It is just the same with race and gender. It is not enough to treat every individual as unique, as with those American liberals for whom everyone (including, presumably, Donald Trump and the Boston Strangler) is “special.” The fact that people are massed anonymously together may be in one sense an alienation, but in another sense it is a condition for their emancipation. —from Why Marx was Right by Terry Eagleton

Looking at tax hikes on the rich as a systemic solution

The headlines today focused mostly on one thing: Obama’s proposed tax hikes on the rich, or, to rephrase it, an end to the Bush era tax breaks for the rich. Aside from the fact that I’m glad to see Obama start acting like a proper Democrat, this measure needs to be looked at for more than just “taxing the rich” or “taxing the job makers” or “taxing the responsible” or whatever the GOP is going to label it as. More and more economists of the free market variety have acknowledged the wisdom of Karl Marx recently. There was John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, editors of The Economist, arguing for a re-evaluation of Marx’s relevance in their book A Future Perfect, there was John Cassidy in the New Yorker recognizing “The Return of Karl Marx”, along with a few other recent examples of unexpected voices acknowledging Marx’s critique of capitalism as bearing more relevance than ever. What has driven this renewed interest in Marx’s work, mainly that of Capital? Well, many things, but for one there seems to be a recognition of how allowing businesses on Wall Street and elsewhere to operate freely with no regulations will amplify the dialectical nature of capitalism that Marx was aware over 150 years ago. Further, a growing gap in income, where America has one of the most drastic figures of the top earners controlling more than the middle and lower earners combined. So the problem has been recognized by more than just Marx, and actually by a surprising amount of people today, but recognition is not enough. What is to be done? Well, how about Obama’s proposed tax hike on the rich? When looking at a systemic issue that those noticing the renewed relevance of Marx have, can’t we look at tax hikes in a broader manner as controlling the unpredictable and polarizing effects of capitalism? People can’t seem to make this jump to the latter, they take it personally and can’t see outside the scope of their own lives. While tax hikes on the rich won’t solve everything, they are an important and necessary measure to bring a society on the brink away from destruction.

The Richard Dawkins – Rebecca Watson showdown

I’m surprised I didn’t come across this sooner, but there has been a massive uproar about Richard Dawkins’s comments concerning Skepchick Rebecca Watson’s encounter in a Dublin elevator. The original post from Watson is here and the comments in reply from Dawkins, posted on PZ Myers’s blog Pharyngula, are here.

Instead of looking at these one post at a time, let’s consider the entirety of what Dawkins said vs. the entirety of what Watson said. Watson started with a very small segment in a video saying that it’s not a good tactic to invite a woman back to your hotel room late at night, in an elevator. Fair enough. Some of the claims defending Watson argue that she was the victim of misogyny, sexism, and other such similar qualities. However, Watson’s video suggested nothing of the sort, just that she didn’t think this was appropriate or a good technique, not that asking another person, be it man or woman, back for coffee was in itself out of line. It was situational because it was late, she was in a foreign country, and she just gave a talk on sexism which the man had likely seen. These aspects of the situation gave her comment credence to it being out of line that he make what was likely a sexual proposition.

Cue Dawkins. His initial comment downplaying Watson because there are more important issues to worry about when it comes to women’s struggles had a definite tone of hostility. To an extent, he has a valid point that the Western feminist movement gets caught up with things that detract from more serious struggles. This doesn’t mean other, lesser ‘crimes’ (in the moral, not legal sense) are not worth acknowledging, just that they can very often detract from more serious issues. Spatial reality makes it hard for Western women to understand how much worse their Middle Eastern counter-parts have it, which is why issues like the sexism in language often get more attention in Western media than female genital mutilation that occurs in Muslim countries. I will agree though that Dawkins’ scomment was not necessarily completely relevant to the discussion occurring on Pharyngula.

Dawkins’s  second post, though, in reply to those commenting on his first post, made more coherent points. He is right in saying that the man didn’t actual do anything wrong. Asking a women back to your room is not a ‘crime’ morally or legally, Watson was in a public place and the man asked her a question, and she said ‘no’. He respected that and it was the end of the situation. And Dawkins makes an interesting hermeneutical point in that it was because she interpreted the situation as creepy that it was seen as such. We construct attitudes about a given situation. Nothing has inherent qualities such as ‘creepy’ or ‘inappropriate’, it is because we give them those labels and interpret them in those ways that they take on a certain overtone.

After both of Dawkins’s posts, Watson gave a rebuttle on Skepchick which blew her cover of calm rationality in the previous statements concerning the elevator incident. In the opening paragraph, she shoots of the statement “Thanks, wealthy, old heterosexual white man!” While yes, he is these things, she used this in the sense to objectify his position in this debate in that his opinions aren’t valid because of his ‘priviledged standing’. I really expect more from Watson, given that she is supposed to be somewhat of a leader in the skeptical movement. The skeptical mindset means evaluating a claim on its own accord, without bringing in the ad hominem of discounting his position because of his physical attributes.

I think Watson would have had the upper-hand in this if it weren’t for these comments. She had previously made a comment in the original video, nothing to do with the political movement of women’s struggles, about how she felt when propositioned in an elevator. It had to do with the appropriateness given the talk she had just presented about sexism, and Dawkins surely made it into more when he compared her complaint to the struggle of Muslim women. If she had left it there and let the commenters take care of it, she would have been better off but she fell victim to the tangential nature of the debate.

As for Watson’s call for a boycott of Dawkins’s work, this is completely out of line. Dawkins is an important scientist in the field of evolutionary biology as well as in the atheist movement. A few awry comments on women’s struggles should not nullify his prior efforts. His arguments and stances can be quite staunch at times, but ignoring his vast body of work is a seriously ill-advised move for her or anyone else.

The system is not the problem

I recently had a friend pose the question to me, “if you could change anything about the American political system, what would you change?” Aside the the annoying breadth of the question making it near impossible to give an intelligent answer when put on the spot, it made me think afterward how I would have answered the question given more time to think about it.

After some thought, I have decided that if I could change one thing, it would not have to do with the government, but with the mentality of the voting population. The structure of democracy makes no presuppositions about normative behaviour. Ingrained in the base idea of it is of course the nature of agreement among citizens. The will of the people, as agreed to in a majority rules type manner, is how norms are established in a society. I say there are no normative presuppositions because the democratic structure can allow for many different laws and value systems to exist depending on which society is using the democracy, or even within a singular democracy.

Given that a democracy, or the laws in a democracy, are a reflection of its constituting members, it is at the mercy of those members that make a democracy what it is. What I mean when I say that I would change the mentality of the population is that I do not blame the governmental system for America’s problems, I blame the voting block that created the norms making up that system. Yes, we have a representative democracy, but the idea of the will of the people shaping the direction of society undoubtedly holds true. Also, it needs to be acknowledged that there is a lag in the law making process. The most recent example is that there have been many polls indicating that a majority of Americans are behind legalizing gay marriage. The fact that it is not already legalized is a reflection of the voting population of previous generations, and the current population is indicating that they believe otherwise. In time, this will reflect in the legalizing of gay marriage given that poll numbers are accurate.

Issues of power, manipulation and media control play a role as well, but when asked to criticize a democracy, because it is structured around following the will of the people with certain rights constitutionally guaranteed, I can only honestly answer that it is the citizens to blame, not the structure.

Please, Mr. Thiessen. Open your eyes.

Marc Theissen’s most recent column in the Washington Post is deplorable and highly philosophically impoverished. He is unabashed about his support for torture and re-instating those who have used it as a tactic, but he forgets so much in his analysis. He forgets to acknowledge that in a civilized world it does not work to legalize torture. If the a military official truly feels the need to do so, even if they get quality information, they have to face consequences. In the case Thiessen points out, the consequence was the loss of a position for many CIA officials after Obama came into office and put a stop to the nonsense of the US’ pro-torture policy under President Bush. Because torture may sometimes obtain valuable information is no where near argument enough for a justification for its legalization. The US has participated in an international sphere of discourse and long ago said we would not partake in this sort of activity. We must uphold this if we are to be seen as a legitimate force for good in the world. If we detract, all eyes will be against us.

Premature thoughts on the 2012 election

Let me start by making a definitive statement: Obama is going to get re-elected in 2012. I had a long, alcohol induced discussion with some friends the other night and found myself arguing this point strongly. Even if he wasn’t in command when bin Laden was killed, the power of the incumbent should never be underestimated. I understand some of the left is frustrated with Obama, and the right is of course unhappy with him, that is their nature. But even still, he has accomplished enough to prove himself as an experienced politician domestically and as commander in chief. The center will not sway, at least most of them, to the pathetic field of Republican ‘front-runners’, even if they have their legitimate criticisms of Obama’s policy. He is definitely riding the bin Laden wave to higher approval ratings at the moment, but this will fade. It will definitely supplement his rhetoric once on the campaign trail, but until then, it will get forgotten just as Wikileaks or Healthcare or any number of other events are now riding the back-burner. Without going in any more depth, that is my prediction, and hopefully history will prove me right.

Our austerity is (not?) their prosperity

An article on the New York Times website this morning draws out some excellent points against austerity measures. Here in Europe, many countries are slashing benefits for public employees, with the argument that it will stimulate the economy and improve business practices in the private sector, among other reasons. According to the article, this isn’t actually the case. Austerity measures provide temporary relief from a waining economy, but are very short-lived. The author also states that the stimulus package, as used by the US, is a much better option with more lasting positive effects. I’m not fully sure about the latter, but the evidence cited, if nothing else, should be a wake up call to the governor of Wisconsin, as well as European countries making vast cuts to the public sector.