In the early 1990’s when tigrenoche and I were both college students we would sometimes fill a backpack full of cheap beer and together with another friend of ours (who was generally responsible for obtaining the beer through the use of a shaggy wig and hacking cough) wander through Old Town Portland. I’m not sure if Old Town can really be said to exist anymore but back then it made up the section of Northwest Portland extending from the water up to maybe 7th or 8th and then bordered by Burnside on one side and the train tracks on the other side. It was full of bums and junkies and industrial urban decay. We would alternate between hiding out in various alleys drinking cans of beer and walking the streets vaguely hoping that something would happen. Old Town and Burnside represented zones of potential and mystery. All of us had been raised in semi-rural settings and the urban poverty fueled our imaginations. Today Old Town and Burnside have changed. There are still some bums and junkies there, but they are easily outnumbered by the wealthy young people who live in the newly built condos. The Henry Weinhard’s beer factory that used to give that section of town such a distinctive smell has been replaced by a Whole Foods. I believe that this transformation demonstrates the political nature of the Rats’ song Burnside, the importance of acknowledging the interconnections between aesthetics and politics, and the significance of place and localism for a politics that I would be interested in participating in.
Burnside is political in a very specific and personal way, that I don’t expect everyone to experience. That said, I think in the context of Fred Cole’s lifestyle and musical history virtually every song he has made has had political dimensions, but that’s another issue. For me, Burnside is political first because it evokes an intense set of emotions through the manipulation of a meaningful symbol. “Electricity flows through your veins!” This was the same excitement that I felt wandering that street on a Saturday night.
Motivating action can be political, but it can take many directions. In the context of the history of that street that direction is clarified. The song was written in the early ‘80’s when Burnside probably had far more of that urban grit that I idealized and it is very unlikely that Fred Cole anticipated the changes that would come twenty years later. However, the song documents a particular place at a particular time. It describes a process of meaning making through a connection with a specific place.
Like taste, meaning making is a shared activity. I disagree with tigrenoche’s separation of the public and the private. Our aesthetic activities are no less public than our political. The meanings that Burnside had for me were entirely social. If politics primarily involves the redistribution of resources then the transformation of Burnside was a political act. I am not interested in debating the merits of gentrification. However, there should be no doubt that gentrification drastically changes our ability to construct meaning. Burnside is becoming less and less of place where teens can place themselves within an urban myth. In 2007, to scream “Burnsiiiide!” is to express anguish and nostalgia for the past and the loss of a particular form of experience. This clearly aesthetic process of transformation is necessarily political and involves negotiation, compromise, and distributing resources.
In my posts I have continually returned to issues of place and localism. Perhaps this goes back to my favorite aesthetic activities. I love tooling around – moving through a place and appreciating its qualities. My ability to pursue this activity is directly influenced by politics, but I think the relationship goes deeper than this. The kind of politics that I want to pursue is also one that acknowledges the importance of making meaning through place. Aside from the occasional flare up of nationalism I don’t see this value being represented or pursued by the Democrats or the Republicans. As I have argued in relation to ZZ Top, it would be impossible for a nation-wide party to effectively negotiate the meaning making potential that exists within specific places. One needs to understand Burnside before this can be accomplished.
Perhaps not all aesthetic and political goals are best served through local action. However, I do believe that these goals are best accomplished when taken together. Tigrenoche claims that his aesthetic interests in marriage, trippy music, and distance running are more or less distinct from politics. I assume in the case of marriage that TN means this should be distinct from politics. I would argue that certain values are present in trippy music and distance running. Why not promote political action that serves the same interests as trippy music? Certainly music can be used to promote a politician and politicians can distribute resources in order to promote music. But, isn’t it also possible for resources to be distributed according to the same logic that makes music and running pleasurable? I would like to see my love for tooling combined with politics by giving more attention to the local dimensions of space in all aspects of negotiation and redistribution. Couldn’t a similar relationship be formed with long distance running? In order for this to occur we would first need to understand the value of distance running, but having done that I am confident that we could arrive at an effective political/aesthetic synthesis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
DM, this post does a good job of showing the types of things that are important to you and make your life meaningful, and shows very well some of the reasons you appreciate the Rats. I enjoyed reading this post, especially since I've tooled around Burnside a bit myself.
You still haven't convinced me that "Burnside" is political, however. It might not be worth arguing about whether it is or is not, since I get the feeling that you just have an extremely broad notion of what qualifies as political, while I have a narrower notion. I don't know what hangs on "Burnside" "being political," really, so I'll leave that debate alone for now.
Your main claim in this post is a bit hard for me to get a grasp on, so forgive me and correct me if I mischaracterize what you're saying. As I read it, the claim seems to be that politics should not only enable you to pursue your values, but should somehow reflect your values. You complain that your like of tooling around is not "represented or pursued" by either the Dems or Reps. You suggest that whatever it is that makes running pleasurable should somehow inform our politics.
I think I can understand why you desire to combine the things and activities that you find valuable with political action and policy; who could argue that it wouldn't be nice in some respects if we could put our heart and soul behind our government, politics, and policies? It's not really a desire I share, however, since I guess I think of government as a purely instrumental thing that is used to secure certain valuables, but is not--and should not be--valuable in and of itself. I don't see how your vision is supposed to work (it seems like you're still working on the details, which is fine). One of the main obstacles I see to your view as I understand it is that many people I know value completely different things from me; they don't understand my music, they don't see what I like about wandering around big cities, they are devoutly religious, and they think that black licorice is disgusting. Yet often I can more or less agree with these people about political (local and non-local) and moral issues. If we started to treat politics as a way of giving expression to the particular things we value, we would be at each other's necks in no time.
I think the best way to advance your position would be to pursue some of your suggestions a little further and in more detail. What would it mean to "promote political action that serves the same interests as trippy music", or for "resources to be distributed according to the same logic that makes music and running pleasurable"? It all sounds very interesting to me, but I don't really understand what is meant by it all.
Well, regarding the political value of distance running or trippy music, and the suggestion of "promoting political action that serves the same interests as trippy music" I think that this is a lousy idea because one of the main things that I like about both items--basically the evocation or creation of a certain "mystical" state--is a lousy basis for politics. You can pursue these altered states of consciousness and be a mellow, peace loving hippie, or you can be a fascist, and I don't think there's anything in the experience itself that necessarily guides you one way or the other. I think that stuff, like religion/spirituality in general, is best left to the private pursuit of individuals for whom it's interesting or important.
As to Burnside: Undoubtedly there was an aesthetic to Skid Row Portland circa '95 that was long ago replaced by a bland upscale shopping district, and I'm not immune to nostalgia for the Portland that used to be. But I'm still not sure how this aesthetic appreciation or connection to a certain time and place provides a solid basis for good politics.
In situations where we're trying to decide what will happen to a neighborhood, what development to allow or prohibit, the aesthetic argument will inevitably get made, both by those opposed to any change and those in favor. We'll hear that a neighborhood like the old Old Town is a blight on the city, a scary, dangerous place that gives cities a bad name and makes people decide to move out to the safe, clean suburbs, and we'll hear about the gritty excitement of the neighborhood the traditions and community that exist there in spite of its shabby appearance. So how do we decide which viewpoint wins out? Inevitably other arguments and values will come into play--how much money certain people stand to make, of course, but also how much businesses that will get forced out by rising rents will lose; we'll hear about how gentrification will disrupt social service agencies abilities to serve their clients, and so on...How will we balance out these competing claims?
It's pretty easy to argue against the typical process of gentrification, so let's make this a little more complicated: What if the proposed master-plan for Old Town development in '92--and just assume for the sake of argument that the Portland city government had the ability and will to actually implement such a plan--was to replace the sketchy skid row Old Town with a dense, mixed-use and (most importantly) mixed-income neighborhood with lots of below market-rate apartments maintained and heavy subsidies to the social service agencies to be able to stick around, everything built using the latest in environmentally friendly and efficient construction. How would you balance your aesthetic concerns against that sort of development? I think that for environmental (as well as urban community development and living standard) reasons what I've just described is the sort of city neighborhood we need to be creating and encouraging people to move into. We need to get people out of the suburbs and out of their cars as much as possible if we're going to have any chance of mitigating the environmental disaster we're facing, and I'd happily trade all the grittily picturesque Old Towns for more cities built along the lines I just described.
Ok, I've got quite a bit more to say on localism and aesthetics, but this comment has gotten long enough...hopefully more later.
...and I see A has just jumped in with some very good points and suggestions.
A couple of (hopefully) quick points...
I agree with A that it's a little unclear what exactly the sort of politics you're arguing for might look like. Could you describe any policies or actions that might come out of what you're decribing?
One argument that I'd make against an exclusively local focus in politics is that the federal government, in the right hands, has so much potential to do good, that I feel it'd be ridiculous to just give up on it. For example, if eradicating malaria in Africa became a priority of the US government it could easily sink enough money into that task to make all the Gates foundation money look like small change. And I think that the sort of environmental laws and commitment to alternative energy development that are desperately needed can only come from as large and powerful an entity as the federal government.
I also worry that so often local level politics just ends up in NIMBYism, with people trying to protect their local turf and not addressing big picture issues. The aesthetic angle enters into this a lot as you have various affluent and better connected communities working to protect their very pleasant, beautiful communities by forcing polluting industries, social services for less desirable characters and such into poorer, less powerful communities. If you want to prevent that you're going to need to from other values besides aesthetics, like fairness, justice, etc.
TN makes some good points. The last sentence about taking into consideration values other than aesthetic values points towards something I've been itching to point out for awhile now. It seems to me that half the discussions here don't really have to do with the relationship between aesthetics and politics so much as the relationship between values, in general, and politics. The other half of the discussions--the ones about how to make a political position/project/party more appealing--do seem to relate more specifically to aesthetics.
Just thought I'd register that. No time to elaborate now (I always get the urge to post when I'm stuck on a homework problem).
I think I agree with you guys that "values" probably is a better term for much of what I'm talking about than "aesthetics." I have been using aesthetics in order to highlight the subjective nature of values. I see values as largely an issue of taste. At some level people make moral decisions because one option is collectively agreed upon as more beautiful than another. Do you see values as different than this? Are you in agreement that values should be combined with politics? It doesn't seem that you can have redistribution of resources without values?
I think focusing on values may solve the problem that tigrenoche raises with his hypothetical example of development in Olde Towne Portland. Clearly I value tooling around and experiencing urban grit. However, all of the things he mentions makes not only for an equally toolable environment but by reducing the negative effects of poverty they allow others to enjoy tooling as well. I don't think that sort of development would make sense from a purely economic standpoint. It requires that one approach the task from a particular place based and value based perspective. I'll try to explain this further later, but do you see where I coming from?
Something else that I want to get to at some point is this notion that the government should be in charge of distributing resources and large scale interventions like malaria eradication. Often the alternative to the government portrayed as big business. I think there are other options. For example community based organizations like clubs or funeral associations or maybe even militias. At various points in history huge amounts of money have been poured into projects like irrigation or transportation and in many cases they have failed miserably making people's lives worse than ever. This is not simply a result of bad governance but of operating on the assumption that the best solutions don't come from the people who are actually faced with the problem. There is no reason not try to have the best government possible, but this should not distract us from doing other things to improve our lives.
At some point I will try to get back to this issue of a politics of trippy music as I do think such a thing is possible and desirable.
Also, what exactly is NIMBYism? The term gets used in the san francisco weekly a lot and it seems to refer to someone who is wealthy, new to the city, and values a good nights sleep and a pay check over partying (definitely an insult in this context).
"NIMBY" is an acronym for "not in my back yard" which I assume is prety self-explanatory.
And now I'm accidentally posting as Alex, as he's logged in to our computer...actually that last comment was from Tigernoche.
If that's the case then it seems that local politics is actually a way to fight NIMBYism. The opinions advanced in the SF Guardian are generally all local and all-anti NIMBY. For example promoting late hours for clubs that are popular with lots of people despite the fact that they may disturb a few neighbors. Also promoting giving space to low income housing which could drive down the value of the property value of NIMBYs. The SF Guardian also utilizes locally relevant aesthetic tactics by characterizing NIMBYs as materialistic yuppies - an attack that works well in sf but maybe not elsewhere where issues of taste differ. To ignore local politics is to let the NIMBYs win.
DM:
I think typically local politics does promote NIMBYism. In the SF bay area I know that in a lot of the wealthier East Bay communities their social services essentially consist of one-way BART tickets to SF. Saves money, keeps property values up, and the undesirables out. What happens is that different local communities end up fighting over who gets stuck with the garbage dumps and the needy, and this seems like a basic political fact that can best be managed by a higher political power. That's not to deny that local politics can sometimes provide good solutions to problems as well. It seems obvious to me that we need both local and non-local political activity, so the local vs. federal vs. global politics debate seems a little silly to me without some particular issue to focus on.
Are values subjective? I don't know, but very many think that at least some of them are not (including some relativists about value), so I don't think you can assume they are not. I think to call them a matter of taste is probably wrong; people typically think things are valuable because they think it is true that they are valuable. You might think these people are wrong about there being objective values, but that doesn't erase the fact that they try to be guided by truth rather than taste.
Fortunately, usually I find that it's possible to sidestep this issue since there are certain very basic values that most people share, such as fairness. If you work with these as axioms, you can usually make progress. And it probably doesn't matter whether everyone here's love of trippy music is subjective or objective; we love it, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that, so it is a legitimate end.
I do agree with you that values and politics are related; I don't see how they couldn't be. How could you even talk about which policy is better (an evaluative word) without values? And I also agree that some values are subjective, and that it is okay in some cases for politics to serve our individual, "subjective" values.
I agree that it doesn't really matter if values are based in "truth" or "taste" (if we accept that truth and taste are both socially constructed then perhaps they have important similarities). As A points out, what is important is that people see their values as a true basis for action. Often times values are based in religious truths. Religion shapes values which in turn shape political decisions which also shape religion. This is where I see practices like music having an important role in politics - shaping what it is that people value.
A argues that most people could agree on particular values like fairness. I'm not so sure about this. Probably most Americans think fairness is important, but this certainly would not be the case in all cultures. Even in America there is a big difference between saying that you value fairness and then putting this into practice. People in the suburbs who don't want to pay taxes to support social services that they don't think they will use are opperating on the basis of fairness. People who want those suburban dwellers to cough up money for universal health care are also operating on the basis of fairness. Certainly the fact that both parties are using the same word could facilitate negotiation, but it is likely that a power struggle will take place in which each party seeks to define exactly what is being valued. Religion is extremely effective in this struggle over value. Music, especially trippy music, may serve some of the same functions as religion and therefore could be equally effective in defining value. In the song Burnside, The Rats valorize a particular type of place in a manner that could have significant implications for a struggle over value. It might also be possible to rationally debate the merits of different values, but I don't think this would be as effective or relevant as utilizing practices like music or art that seem to more directly shift the way we see the world.
DM:
I didn't really argue that "most people could agree on particular values like fairness"; I just said that in my experience this tends to be the case. Anyway, here's a weak argument: I'm certainly not very well versed in this sort of thing, but I can't think of any examples of cultures that don't value fairness at all. I would be very interested to learn of counter-examples. What they think is fair might differ, but having some notion of what makes a transaction equitable seems necessary for any sort of social activity. Other values also seem to me fairly universal: Killing another person for absolutely no reason at all, for instance. Again, I could just be naive about this. If I am, I'd like to be pointed towards counter-examples.
Whether there are objective values or values only come from "taste" matters enormously. I just don't think it's necessary to go into the issue here.
I'm a bit confused about the rest of your post. You seem to deeply doubt that rational argument and appeal to common values is a way to make progress in politics. Is this what you think? If so, why?
You also seem to think that any value someone might have can and should be pursued through political means? Is this what you think? If so, why?
Oops... the value should be that one shouldn't kill another person for absolutely no reason at all.
A: Your latter two questions are quite complex and I doubt that I can answer them adequately, but I will try to make a start here.
A writes: "You seem to deeply doubt that rational argument and appeal to common values is a way to make progress in politics. Is this what you think? If so, why?"
I do doubt the potential of rational argument for politics, but I think appeals to common values are extremely important. However, I believe that common values are in a constant process of construction. It is in this process that I suggest we should seek to participate. As for rational argument, this is useful when you have a clear and agreed upon goal. When the goal itself is in question then other tools must be utilized.
A writes: "You also seem to think that any value someone might have can and should be pursued through political means? Is this what you think? If so, why?"
That's not really what I think. I like the idea of combining values that are based in trippy music with political action, but given that I haven't yet articulated how this would take place I don't think there is good grounds to argue that any value one has should be pursued through political means.
On universal values, you are probably right that most people value something like fairness (there could be exceptions, but I can't think of any). Given a particular standard for what is fair, people probably think that should be upheld. However, notions of what is "fair" are so different that it begins to become meaningless to group them together. A couple hundred years ago in the US it was "fair" to keep someone as a slave because of beliefs concerning how people of different races should be treated and the notions of personhood and property. Today slavery is not fair. The fact that slave holders and abolitionists both valued fairness, perhaps created some common ground for discussion, but ultimately an ideological battle over values was necessary.
DM,
Thanks for answering those questions directly. It made where you stand and what you're still working on a lot clearer for me.
Where rational argument is effective and where it is not is something I think needs to be decided on a case by case basis. I think for some issues rational argument won't be very effective--perhaps abortion is one of those issues. Whether the Beatles are the best rock band in the world ever is another. Even in these cases, however, reasoning and evidence seem to play an important role. In almost all cases I'm sure the best political strategy is a combination of presenting good arguments and presenting an appealing image.
I really do hope you make some progress towards identifying how political action and trippy music could be combined. I'm skeptical, of course, for reasons that TN has mentioned in a number of places, but have to withhold judgment until I see the proposal.
Post a Comment