I’ve recently encountered a personal problem that I could use some advice on and it relates to issues of politics and values that we’ve been discussing. I’ve been approached by CENTRA, a private company that works for the US military, to edit a “smart card” that they are distributing to Marines in Ethiopia. A smart card provides basic cultural information that is intended to facilitate interactions between marines and Ethiopians (see: http://www.mediafire.com/?ezznyjz1n3d for more details). My understanding is that US marines are advising the Ethiopian military concerning their recent invasion of Somalia. Essentially the Ethiopian government has been roped into fighting our war on terror in exchange for our ignoring their human rights abuses and importation of weapons from North Korea. I oppose the US military presence in the Horn of Africa for a number of reasons that I can go into in more detail if you’re interested.
So, clearly there is good reason not to participate in this project. On the other hand, the marines will be in Ethiopia regardless of what I do. Perhaps by getting involved in the production of information that will guide the actions of the marines I can reduce the damage done by their presence. It is debatable how much these cards actually could have an influence the behavior of marines, but assuming that they have at least some impact I think it is reasonable to assume they could do some good.
By participating in this project would I be legitimizing a military action that I strongly oppose?
Does the possibility of shaping marine views of Ethiopians in a direction of my choosing outweigh this possibility?
Will the impact of these smart cards be so negligible that it doesn’t really matter what I do?
I’m not sure if this is relevant but CENTRA has offered to pay me $500 for what would amount to at most one day of work.
I look forward to your advice.
5.22.2007
5.18.2007
responses and appeals
The previous post has blossomed into a fascinating testament to the limitations and possibilities of political discourse. Although there is on some level a shared desire for concrete specificity, I am left with the impression that to prefer the nation over the local and vice versa (like all aesthetic choices, this preference is subject to specific situations and within the practices of everyday life have a multiplicity of expressions. E.g. one can prefer national news media to local media- they are in fact as A points out nearly the same- and at the same time one can prefer local restaurants to national chains) is to produce a set of binary oppositions that in turn produce a preference for abstraction. Thankfully no one here is making absolutist claims of an either or logic but I do see a rich spectrum of abstraction and specificity being produced through this topic. And this is indeed a very good thing.
The issue as I see DM’s responses pointing to is not however any demand that politics should adhere to his preferences which in any event include both the local and the national- he does not oppose these in a binary way in these responses- but a call for the abstractions and mediations of the national spatial-temporal scale of politics to engage the concrete social realities of what is sometimes called the local level- but perhaps would better be called the everyday level. Here in our own everyday practices which include occasional blog postings, we can address that there may be a kind of pleasure derived from our speculations on politics- whether over how to best appeal to the american people in TN’s personal preference for the national, how to appeal to reason in A’s responses, or how to appeal to place in the construction of our identities in DM’s responses. These are just a few of the many pleasures we derive from our everyday practices but certainly there are more when we consider how rich the lives we lead are. That we live in cities must in some way contribute to the shape of these everyday practices. That we travel through the spaces of these places and encounter myriad individuals and material forms may indeed shape the contours of our everyday practices. But to ask ourselves why it is that these spaces do not elicit identifications as pleasurable as the national- an object of identification only possible through abstraction and mediation- is not to abandon the national.
I think for each of us who have the privilege to speculate on these and other matters of pleasure, some attention should be paid to our own individual everyday practices, if only for the new pleasures one may discover there. It seems deeply irrational to oppose politics to these practices as if politics could only survive through an absolute separation from the foundations of our everyday lives. Furthermore, this separation and abstraction of politics from everyday reality is all the more dangerous when we begin to speculate on the political desires of other social entities including marginalized others. Without attention to the social realities of inequality on the level of everyday practices we risk appropriating and instrumenalizing their existence as figures or mere representations of the powerless. This does not mean we should not attempt to understand, engage and confront inequalities as they are experienced by others but rather that we must directly engage and confront these inequalities from the everyday practices that produce them. Proceeding case by case, site by site, level by level the specificities of these experiences and practices of inequality will demand a rigorous engagement with both local, national and increasingly transnational scales of political practice. The verb to appeal (which occupies a mediatory role between an abstract politics and practical realities) represents in its current usage the purely aesthetic dimension of politics as in the following definition:
“9. a. To address oneself, specially and in expectation of a sympathetic response, to some principle of conduct, mental faculty, or class of persons. Also, to be attractive or pleasing to (a person).To ‘make an appeal’; to be attractive.”
This pleasure it would seem has a particular direction when it comes to the abstraction of politics from everyday practice. By speculating on the attractiveness of particular candidates, policies and values to “the american people” or “the powerless”, the pleasure seems to dwell with the speculator, much in the same way real estate speculators thrive in the debates over public space and urban renewal.
The historical origins of this verb according to the OED in fact demonstrates the power differential it once (and perhaps still does) defined:
“1. To call (one) to answer before a tribunal; in Law: To accuse of a crime which the accuser undertakes to prove. spec. a. To impeach of treason. b. To accuse an accomplice of treason or felony. c. To accuse of a heinous crime whereby the accuser has received personal injury or wrong, for which he demands reparation.”
It seems the directional orientation of contemporary appeals to the american people should indeed be reversed, and it is those agents of abstraction-the politicians and their corporate bosses- who should be called to answer before “the american people” in this original form of appeal. But at the same time I recognize within the logic of this request I have just made a sense of an ancient danger. For this is indeed a call historically made by fascism in the moment of its ascendancy as it rips democratic potential from people just as they come into awareness of their collective body. I think the question of mediation returns most forcefully at this moment between fascism and actual democracy. I think this moment depends upon the degree that the abstractions and mediations of the ‘nation’ contribute or rob a people of their ability to practice autonomous forms of community. If our democracy is as fine as the liberal and conservative parties’ ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ political discourse would have us believe our nation is, then we may indeed be at the threshold of a more democratic state. But when I reflect on all that I encounter in my everyday practices, traveling through the material and virtual spaces that occupy my time, there are many serious limitations to accepting their rhetoric at face value.
At the same time, as TN, A, GreenMedallion and DM have pointed out in different ways in posts here, we are also facing incredible new possibilities for autonomous forms of democratic communities. I would suspect these possibilities would become more concrete realities if we took a closer look at the level of practice in order to appropriate the networks of mediation as they are inscribed in space and time. Looking at the places and practices of our everyday lives we may encounter the national and transnational contours of the local in unexpected ways. But perhaps ultimately this is a matter of taste, in which case we really cannot separate aesthetics and politics today.
The issue as I see DM’s responses pointing to is not however any demand that politics should adhere to his preferences which in any event include both the local and the national- he does not oppose these in a binary way in these responses- but a call for the abstractions and mediations of the national spatial-temporal scale of politics to engage the concrete social realities of what is sometimes called the local level- but perhaps would better be called the everyday level. Here in our own everyday practices which include occasional blog postings, we can address that there may be a kind of pleasure derived from our speculations on politics- whether over how to best appeal to the american people in TN’s personal preference for the national, how to appeal to reason in A’s responses, or how to appeal to place in the construction of our identities in DM’s responses. These are just a few of the many pleasures we derive from our everyday practices but certainly there are more when we consider how rich the lives we lead are. That we live in cities must in some way contribute to the shape of these everyday practices. That we travel through the spaces of these places and encounter myriad individuals and material forms may indeed shape the contours of our everyday practices. But to ask ourselves why it is that these spaces do not elicit identifications as pleasurable as the national- an object of identification only possible through abstraction and mediation- is not to abandon the national.
I think for each of us who have the privilege to speculate on these and other matters of pleasure, some attention should be paid to our own individual everyday practices, if only for the new pleasures one may discover there. It seems deeply irrational to oppose politics to these practices as if politics could only survive through an absolute separation from the foundations of our everyday lives. Furthermore, this separation and abstraction of politics from everyday reality is all the more dangerous when we begin to speculate on the political desires of other social entities including marginalized others. Without attention to the social realities of inequality on the level of everyday practices we risk appropriating and instrumenalizing their existence as figures or mere representations of the powerless. This does not mean we should not attempt to understand, engage and confront inequalities as they are experienced by others but rather that we must directly engage and confront these inequalities from the everyday practices that produce them. Proceeding case by case, site by site, level by level the specificities of these experiences and practices of inequality will demand a rigorous engagement with both local, national and increasingly transnational scales of political practice. The verb to appeal (which occupies a mediatory role between an abstract politics and practical realities) represents in its current usage the purely aesthetic dimension of politics as in the following definition:
“9. a. To address oneself, specially and in expectation of a sympathetic response, to some principle of conduct, mental faculty, or class of persons. Also, to be attractive or pleasing to (a person).To ‘make an appeal’; to be attractive.”
This pleasure it would seem has a particular direction when it comes to the abstraction of politics from everyday practice. By speculating on the attractiveness of particular candidates, policies and values to “the american people” or “the powerless”, the pleasure seems to dwell with the speculator, much in the same way real estate speculators thrive in the debates over public space and urban renewal.
The historical origins of this verb according to the OED in fact demonstrates the power differential it once (and perhaps still does) defined:
“1. To call (one) to answer before a tribunal; in Law: To accuse of a crime which the accuser undertakes to prove. spec. a. To impeach of treason. b. To accuse an accomplice of treason or felony. c. To accuse of a heinous crime whereby the accuser has received personal injury or wrong, for which he demands reparation.”
It seems the directional orientation of contemporary appeals to the american people should indeed be reversed, and it is those agents of abstraction-the politicians and their corporate bosses- who should be called to answer before “the american people” in this original form of appeal. But at the same time I recognize within the logic of this request I have just made a sense of an ancient danger. For this is indeed a call historically made by fascism in the moment of its ascendancy as it rips democratic potential from people just as they come into awareness of their collective body. I think the question of mediation returns most forcefully at this moment between fascism and actual democracy. I think this moment depends upon the degree that the abstractions and mediations of the ‘nation’ contribute or rob a people of their ability to practice autonomous forms of community. If our democracy is as fine as the liberal and conservative parties’ ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ political discourse would have us believe our nation is, then we may indeed be at the threshold of a more democratic state. But when I reflect on all that I encounter in my everyday practices, traveling through the material and virtual spaces that occupy my time, there are many serious limitations to accepting their rhetoric at face value.
At the same time, as TN, A, GreenMedallion and DM have pointed out in different ways in posts here, we are also facing incredible new possibilities for autonomous forms of democratic communities. I would suspect these possibilities would become more concrete realities if we took a closer look at the level of practice in order to appropriate the networks of mediation as they are inscribed in space and time. Looking at the places and practices of our everyday lives we may encounter the national and transnational contours of the local in unexpected ways. But perhaps ultimately this is a matter of taste, in which case we really cannot separate aesthetics and politics today.
5.09.2007
Once more against localism
Before moving on to debating secularism versus...something else, I wanted to say regarding DM's advocacy of localism that one of the reasons I just don't find this very compelling is that I feel that the "national" is in a very real way the "local" for me, and I suspect for lots of other people. I identify myself as an American more than an Angeleno, or any other regional identity I might've laid claim to in my life to date, and I'd wager that most Americans are the same way. So when my national government is run by crooks and/or imbeciles, when it does stupid shit like invade countries for bad, deceptive reason, this effects me at least as much as, if not more than, if my local level politics is corrupt or dysfunctional. This is part of the reason that 33 dead at Virginia Tech or a Kansas town wiped out by a tornado merits days of non-stop coverage while death and destruction several magnitudes greater in Iraq day after day merits hardly a mention. What happens in America is the local, what happens in other countries isn't. I think a good liberal hope/goal is that someday we could think of all the world as "local" and feel the same concern for suffering in, e.g. the Congo, that we do (hopefully) for suffering in the states. I don't know if that's possible, but I think it's a decent thing to aspire to and I think the environmental problems facing the world today demand that we try.
There's a sense in DMs arguments that the identity of "American" isn't worth laying claim to or arguing over--he seems to think that this identity can't provide the sort of affective, aesthetic intensity that he thinks politics should possess. I'd disagree. I'd clarify that I certainly don't support a xenophobic or jingoistic nationalism. The bond I feel towards my country is kind of like the bond I feel with my family--it's based more on an emotional identification than any belief that it's objectively the best country. You still love your family even if they do things that drive you crazy, and you don't stop caring about them even though your friend's family is obviously a lot cooler; you don't love them uncritically--you're aware of their failings and concerned when they fuck up. I can imagine scenarios where I'd pretty much give up on America, just as I can imagine scenarios--chronic, hardcore theiving junkiehood, for example--where I might have to give up on a family member, but I don't see the US as anywhere near that point.
Of course I'm in no way opposed to being involved with politics, including "lifestyle" politics, at the really local level, either, just don't get advocating giving up on the national.
There's a sense in DMs arguments that the identity of "American" isn't worth laying claim to or arguing over--he seems to think that this identity can't provide the sort of affective, aesthetic intensity that he thinks politics should possess. I'd disagree. I'd clarify that I certainly don't support a xenophobic or jingoistic nationalism. The bond I feel towards my country is kind of like the bond I feel with my family--it's based more on an emotional identification than any belief that it's objectively the best country. You still love your family even if they do things that drive you crazy, and you don't stop caring about them even though your friend's family is obviously a lot cooler; you don't love them uncritically--you're aware of their failings and concerned when they fuck up. I can imagine scenarios where I'd pretty much give up on America, just as I can imagine scenarios--chronic, hardcore theiving junkiehood, for example--where I might have to give up on a family member, but I don't see the US as anywhere near that point.
Of course I'm in no way opposed to being involved with politics, including "lifestyle" politics, at the really local level, either, just don't get advocating giving up on the national.
Why I'm Not a Secularlist
I picked up a book at the library yesterday titled Why I'm Not a Secularist, by William Connolly (apparently the title is a riff on Bertrand Russel's Why I'm Not a Christian). Connolly is in the political science department at Johns Hopkins. I had a chance to read the introduction and it seems like an interesting book, and extremely relevant for some of the conversations we've been having. Perhaps if some of you have the time we could try to read a couple chapters of it. Connolly deals with a range of philosophers like Kant, Nietzsche, Arendt, Deleuze, and Foucault and at least in some of the chapters he applies these ideas to very concrete political issues in order to argue against secularism, at least in the manner that it's practiced in the west today. If you all can't get to the book I'll try to do some reading and maybe paraphrase Connolly's arguments in a future post, if they are actually as useful as I suspect they might be.
4.29.2007
Burnside Part II - Combining Aesthetic and Political Goals Through Place
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.
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.
4.24.2007
Wherein A explains the difference between politics and aesthetics
Okay, here's a quick and dirty essay in reply to DM's request that TN explain why he thinks there is a difference between political and aesthetic goals. I'm putting it up as a new post so I don't hijack the the thread about The Flying Burrito Brothers, which deserves to be continued.
I don't think politics or aesthetics (as the word is being used here; as a field of study it does have goals) have goals. People have goals, and there are political goals and aesthetic goals. Political goals have to do with the way you want some government to run. Aesthetic goals have to do with the type of aesthetic experience you want to achieve.
There are a wide variety of types of political goals, but I think that most people in the US want the government to coordinate resources so that people are in general able to pursue whatever things they find valuable. If you want to have a toothpick collection, you want to be able to pursue that unhindered. If you want to play baseball on the weekends, you want some resources to be used to make and maintain a baseball diamond. Proposing ways of doing these things will always involve an aesthetic element, since pretty much everything has an aesthetic quality (e.g. food, numbers, ideas, words...). A proposal will tend to be more appealing if both the means and ends it proposes are presented in an aesthetically compelling way. A proposal may even be more effective if presented in an aesthetically compelling way, since it's best if people find the way their government is run appealing, and sometimes the aesthetic appreciation of an end is sufficient for one to value the end in itself. An aesthetically appealing proposal is not necessarily a good one, however. Given a certain goal, it is possible that the means we find most appealing is not the best means (it could even work against our goals). Perhaps the free market is like this, as was suggested in David Graeber's article: People love the idea that they could become rich themselves, and so oppose legislation that would help them attain more modest and realistic goals since that legislation is also a barrier to them becoming Rockefellers. If you don't like this example, think of another one; if it's possible for people to prefer what goes against their greater interests (interests that they themselves would admit to, mind you), then an aesthetically appealing politics and the best politics will be distinct things. Ideally they overlap, but they don't do so necessarily, and I don't see any reason to think they do in general, either. The bad politics behind the appealing facades of "strength," "family values," "faith-based initiatives," etc. are all evidence that they needn't overlap.
(As a closing aside, personally, I think that there is a very appealing aesthetic dimension to effective, fair, and humane governance.)
I don't think politics or aesthetics (as the word is being used here; as a field of study it does have goals) have goals. People have goals, and there are political goals and aesthetic goals. Political goals have to do with the way you want some government to run. Aesthetic goals have to do with the type of aesthetic experience you want to achieve.
There are a wide variety of types of political goals, but I think that most people in the US want the government to coordinate resources so that people are in general able to pursue whatever things they find valuable. If you want to have a toothpick collection, you want to be able to pursue that unhindered. If you want to play baseball on the weekends, you want some resources to be used to make and maintain a baseball diamond. Proposing ways of doing these things will always involve an aesthetic element, since pretty much everything has an aesthetic quality (e.g. food, numbers, ideas, words...). A proposal will tend to be more appealing if both the means and ends it proposes are presented in an aesthetically compelling way. A proposal may even be more effective if presented in an aesthetically compelling way, since it's best if people find the way their government is run appealing, and sometimes the aesthetic appreciation of an end is sufficient for one to value the end in itself. An aesthetically appealing proposal is not necessarily a good one, however. Given a certain goal, it is possible that the means we find most appealing is not the best means (it could even work against our goals). Perhaps the free market is like this, as was suggested in David Graeber's article: People love the idea that they could become rich themselves, and so oppose legislation that would help them attain more modest and realistic goals since that legislation is also a barrier to them becoming Rockefellers. If you don't like this example, think of another one; if it's possible for people to prefer what goes against their greater interests (interests that they themselves would admit to, mind you), then an aesthetically appealing politics and the best politics will be distinct things. Ideally they overlap, but they don't do so necessarily, and I don't see any reason to think they do in general, either. The bad politics behind the appealing facades of "strength," "family values," "faith-based initiatives," etc. are all evidence that they needn't overlap.
(As a closing aside, personally, I think that there is a very appealing aesthetic dimension to effective, fair, and humane governance.)
4.23.2007
Wheels
The song “Wheels” by the Flying Burrito Brothers on their 1968 album "Gilded Palace Of Sin" LP has been haunting me for some time now. It is one of the more recent encounters with music that caused me to initially began thinking about music as a means of questioning our politics in the present as I attempted to provisionally explore in the previous post. They are in fact directly related in many ways, the byrds overlapped with the flying burrito brothers and later wholly incorporated this song’s composers Hillman and Parsons as significant contributing members over their multiple configurations. In the prior post I outlined the structure of contradiction in a byrds song at once an expansive liberating space that is repeatedly interrupted, constrained forcibly and tamed by a countrified slide guitar ridden chorus. Here we find another, nearly opposite use of precisely the same instrument to insert expansive dimensions into a typical song structure.
It opens with what can only be described as bare, bar room temperament: a brittle tremolo guitar, dry tinny snare, and a rubbery cardboard sounding bass lead us into a “honky-tonk” piano-lined room where two harmonizing voices sing, one close, one slightly distant, with a slippery slide guitar adorning the corners of the first verse.
“We've all got wheels to take ourselves away/ We've got the telephones to say what we can't say/We all got higher and higher every day/Come on wheels take this boy away”
The democratic imagination of a collective “we” narrated here is defined by means of transportation, telephones, and stuff that makes you higher and higher. These are the foundations of the postwar image of freedom: vehicular escape, mediated communication, and infinite self-administered pleasure. A ceaseless rite of passage never completed that forever postpones “our” transmission from boyhood is wrapped in the cloak of the timeless honky-tonk of a long lost folk authenticity. But the chorus disrupts this repetition of deferral and displaced subjectivity inhered in the confines of a mediated honky-tonk with the linear expanse of the road. Although distant, the end of the road is always present in the linear expanse of lines of flight afforded by the wheels that will take this boy away, like the angels of death themselves. “We're not afraid to ride/We're not afraid to die/ So come on wheels take me home today/So come on wheels take this boy away”
The fearlessness of the choruses’ collective we suggests a subject full of certainty in the face of limitless uncertainty, it is a subject differentiated from the verses’ subject by a decisive recognition of the profound limitations of their own eternal escape. The piercing of the song space by two resonating notes of a distorted slide guitar’s open strings sustaining a lone note embodies this decisive state of both limitation and freedom, a state produced by the collective we’s confrontation with its death as it permeates the very conditions of their freedom. That is, in the resonating sustain of the two notes born in the wake of the linked verbs to ride and to die we encounter a world at once infinite and finite, a contrary form of possibility and constraint which calls into being a “we” whose wheels are the sole means of their becoming, their angel of hope and death all rolled into one. Between their ride and their death, punctuated by the resounding drones of fuzz distortion “we” must decisively submit to their wheels having abandoned all fears as well as the fraught distractions of a ceaseless escape that has reached its limits; the wheels embody both discrete worlds of verse and chorus, and are thus the transport between these realms. This chorus repeats instrumentally and the interaction between these contours of possibility and constraint between two worlds plays out in the exchanges of the instruments leading ultimately to a return of the honky-tonk world played by the conventional country slide guitar and insistent piano.
From there, the second verse ambiguously attempts to align these separate worlds with a single subject who faces their death with a joined fatalism with faith to plead their wheels to transform him at last into the deferred manhood: “Now when I feel my time is almost up/And destiny is in my right hand/I'll turn to him who made my faith so strong/Come on wheels make this boy a man” This turn to the spiritual through the material produces a deep contradiction between the liberating and confining functions of the wheels which differently embody each world of verse and chorus. At the same time, in both realms, they increasingly become the only means of salvation for both collective and singular subjects. The chorus returns as the mediation of the timeless individual versus community opposition and that resigned, decisive collective subject, which now includes all individuals capable of inserting themselves into the “I” of the second verse. “We're not afraid to ride/We're not afraid to die come on wheels take me home today/ come on wheels take this boy away/come on wheels take this boy away.”
I could go on with these contrary forms of mechanical escape and liberation tangled up in the image of wheels but want to instead come to the point of my encounter with this song. While not the first “road song” by any means, this song about wheels contains many of the contradictions from which the present was born and in particular, identifies a very concrete set of political limitations active in the present.
The interstate highway network legislated into being under pressure of the auto-makers in 1956 would have by 1968 been largely completed. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System for a brief overview of this network)
The wheels of this song in fact seem to represent the profound shift in the spatial-temporal dimension of the American landscape and the contradictions the highway system brought into being. Most importantly these lyrical wheels belong to a new we of a political subject linked through a interstate road system and a landscape increasingly oriented towards this new scale of exchange. The degree to which we can trace the material foundations of the so-called party of “strength” and its martial logic through this particular form of wheels is the degree to which we can locate our own possibilities and limitations in opposing them in concrete ways. That is, quite literally by encountering the contrary form of wheels brought into being at the same time as a new spatial-temporal scale inscribed upon the landscape throughout the 1960’s, we can uncover the conflicted origins of a present all the more submitted to the wheels which this song hailed as our angels of salvation and death. This is not a question of a new language, nor of a new set of values but identifying within these materials present everywhere a space of leverage that can offer us a better understanding of the present. If we can locate the places and times when and where the “politics” of the present have come into being, those who oppose the right need not merely find better counter-slogans, but can perhaps begin to displace their practices of inequality with practices that undo those inequalities. I am using very general terms here again to emphasize the need to think both beyond and through the politics given to us by a deeply mediated world (a world of politics indistinct from the politics of news channel hair stylists and make-up technicians). Our own strong valuations of “equality” will never being able to engage the practices of inequality until their material foundations are confronted with opportunities for all to take part in their undoing.
Song link in comments
It opens with what can only be described as bare, bar room temperament: a brittle tremolo guitar, dry tinny snare, and a rubbery cardboard sounding bass lead us into a “honky-tonk” piano-lined room where two harmonizing voices sing, one close, one slightly distant, with a slippery slide guitar adorning the corners of the first verse.
“We've all got wheels to take ourselves away/ We've got the telephones to say what we can't say/We all got higher and higher every day/Come on wheels take this boy away”
The democratic imagination of a collective “we” narrated here is defined by means of transportation, telephones, and stuff that makes you higher and higher. These are the foundations of the postwar image of freedom: vehicular escape, mediated communication, and infinite self-administered pleasure. A ceaseless rite of passage never completed that forever postpones “our” transmission from boyhood is wrapped in the cloak of the timeless honky-tonk of a long lost folk authenticity. But the chorus disrupts this repetition of deferral and displaced subjectivity inhered in the confines of a mediated honky-tonk with the linear expanse of the road. Although distant, the end of the road is always present in the linear expanse of lines of flight afforded by the wheels that will take this boy away, like the angels of death themselves. “We're not afraid to ride/We're not afraid to die/ So come on wheels take me home today/So come on wheels take this boy away”
The fearlessness of the choruses’ collective we suggests a subject full of certainty in the face of limitless uncertainty, it is a subject differentiated from the verses’ subject by a decisive recognition of the profound limitations of their own eternal escape. The piercing of the song space by two resonating notes of a distorted slide guitar’s open strings sustaining a lone note embodies this decisive state of both limitation and freedom, a state produced by the collective we’s confrontation with its death as it permeates the very conditions of their freedom. That is, in the resonating sustain of the two notes born in the wake of the linked verbs to ride and to die we encounter a world at once infinite and finite, a contrary form of possibility and constraint which calls into being a “we” whose wheels are the sole means of their becoming, their angel of hope and death all rolled into one. Between their ride and their death, punctuated by the resounding drones of fuzz distortion “we” must decisively submit to their wheels having abandoned all fears as well as the fraught distractions of a ceaseless escape that has reached its limits; the wheels embody both discrete worlds of verse and chorus, and are thus the transport between these realms. This chorus repeats instrumentally and the interaction between these contours of possibility and constraint between two worlds plays out in the exchanges of the instruments leading ultimately to a return of the honky-tonk world played by the conventional country slide guitar and insistent piano.
From there, the second verse ambiguously attempts to align these separate worlds with a single subject who faces their death with a joined fatalism with faith to plead their wheels to transform him at last into the deferred manhood: “Now when I feel my time is almost up/And destiny is in my right hand/I'll turn to him who made my faith so strong/Come on wheels make this boy a man” This turn to the spiritual through the material produces a deep contradiction between the liberating and confining functions of the wheels which differently embody each world of verse and chorus. At the same time, in both realms, they increasingly become the only means of salvation for both collective and singular subjects. The chorus returns as the mediation of the timeless individual versus community opposition and that resigned, decisive collective subject, which now includes all individuals capable of inserting themselves into the “I” of the second verse. “We're not afraid to ride/We're not afraid to die come on wheels take me home today/ come on wheels take this boy away/come on wheels take this boy away.”
I could go on with these contrary forms of mechanical escape and liberation tangled up in the image of wheels but want to instead come to the point of my encounter with this song. While not the first “road song” by any means, this song about wheels contains many of the contradictions from which the present was born and in particular, identifies a very concrete set of political limitations active in the present.
The interstate highway network legislated into being under pressure of the auto-makers in 1956 would have by 1968 been largely completed. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System for a brief overview of this network)
The wheels of this song in fact seem to represent the profound shift in the spatial-temporal dimension of the American landscape and the contradictions the highway system brought into being. Most importantly these lyrical wheels belong to a new we of a political subject linked through a interstate road system and a landscape increasingly oriented towards this new scale of exchange. The degree to which we can trace the material foundations of the so-called party of “strength” and its martial logic through this particular form of wheels is the degree to which we can locate our own possibilities and limitations in opposing them in concrete ways. That is, quite literally by encountering the contrary form of wheels brought into being at the same time as a new spatial-temporal scale inscribed upon the landscape throughout the 1960’s, we can uncover the conflicted origins of a present all the more submitted to the wheels which this song hailed as our angels of salvation and death. This is not a question of a new language, nor of a new set of values but identifying within these materials present everywhere a space of leverage that can offer us a better understanding of the present. If we can locate the places and times when and where the “politics” of the present have come into being, those who oppose the right need not merely find better counter-slogans, but can perhaps begin to displace their practices of inequality with practices that undo those inequalities. I am using very general terms here again to emphasize the need to think both beyond and through the politics given to us by a deeply mediated world (a world of politics indistinct from the politics of news channel hair stylists and make-up technicians). Our own strong valuations of “equality” will never being able to engage the practices of inequality until their material foundations are confronted with opportunities for all to take part in their undoing.
Song link in comments
4.22.2007
Burnsiiiide!!!!!
It sends shivers up my spine. “Paralyzed by electricity! It was the guns of rock and roll! It was a sound that was out of control! Burnsiiiiide!!!!!”
The Rats off of their early 1980’s album In a Desperate Red. This is what I mean by a new language for politics. On the album, Burnside is preceded by a song called Working Class and followed by Come On Toody in which the band leader Fred Cole laments his wife Toody’s inability to get out of the house in a timely manner – “Come on Toody, Why’s it always take you so long?” If this is a political language it is extremely specific. It speaks to that handful of people who know about a street called Burnside and understand why it might have something to do with electricity flowing through your veins. Specificity has good and bad qualities. For those of us who are participating in the same language game as Fred Cole it makes the song take on an amazing power. For those who have never experienced Burnside it is more or less meaningless. Maybe you get what he’s saying but it’s not the same as having lived the street. So, this means of communication has limits.
A person might also question the actual message of this song, but I will assume that after all of our preceding discussion that this is no longer an issue. Burnside is no less of a call to action and values than appeals to strength and equality.
The problem is one of sacrificing the power of localism for a larger audience. Both are important and sacrificing one for the other would be a mistake. Fred and Toody Cole later formed two-thirds of Dead Moon, a band that consistently sought to use local symbols in order to create an international set of values. The title and chorus of the Dead Moon song 54/40 or Fight, refers to the slogan that was used to claim the independence of Oregon territory from the British in the 1840’s. Previously the territory was administered by both the British and Americans and 54/40 was the line of latitude that marked the northern border of Oregon territory. While the US did take control of much of Oregon territory they had to settle for the 49th parallel, which is now the northern border of Washington state. The song has little in the way of historical reference. Rather it is a song about being pushed until you can take no more. In some ways it is a song of rebellion not unlike other classics like Twisted Sister’s We’re Not Gonna Take It. However, both the Dead Moon lifestyle (being old, putting out your own records in mono, wearing black) gave them a credibility that kept irony at a minimal level. Despite the Oregoncentric nature of Dead Moon’s lyrics their biggest fan base was in Germany.
Dead Moon and The Rats never sold themselves as an “Oregon” band in the manner that ZZ Top catapulted themselves with the symbol of Texas. Perhaps the notion of staying true to one’s roots enabled them to expand their audience, but there was never a point when it seemed that Dead Moon was sticking close to Clackamas in order ensure their credibility and therefore sell more albums in Germany. Even with international acclaim, the localism of Dead Moon was maintained.
If there is a new language it must be one that combines specificity and mass appeal. It’s necessary to grab hold of a symbol with the power of Burnside that people all over the world can recognize. This is why peace, love, and war are so popular. This is also why peace, love, and war fail to generate any real passion in so many people – they are too abstract. This is a problem, but as 54/40 or Fight (sorry no digital copy to post) illustrates there is no inherent barrier to constructing symbols that are locally specific and appeal to people in different places. The political success of the left depends on generating such symbols that are rooted in place but are capable of transcendence as well
The Rats off of their early 1980’s album In a Desperate Red. This is what I mean by a new language for politics. On the album, Burnside is preceded by a song called Working Class and followed by Come On Toody in which the band leader Fred Cole laments his wife Toody’s inability to get out of the house in a timely manner – “Come on Toody, Why’s it always take you so long?” If this is a political language it is extremely specific. It speaks to that handful of people who know about a street called Burnside and understand why it might have something to do with electricity flowing through your veins. Specificity has good and bad qualities. For those of us who are participating in the same language game as Fred Cole it makes the song take on an amazing power. For those who have never experienced Burnside it is more or less meaningless. Maybe you get what he’s saying but it’s not the same as having lived the street. So, this means of communication has limits.
A person might also question the actual message of this song, but I will assume that after all of our preceding discussion that this is no longer an issue. Burnside is no less of a call to action and values than appeals to strength and equality.
The problem is one of sacrificing the power of localism for a larger audience. Both are important and sacrificing one for the other would be a mistake. Fred and Toody Cole later formed two-thirds of Dead Moon, a band that consistently sought to use local symbols in order to create an international set of values. The title and chorus of the Dead Moon song 54/40 or Fight, refers to the slogan that was used to claim the independence of Oregon territory from the British in the 1840’s. Previously the territory was administered by both the British and Americans and 54/40 was the line of latitude that marked the northern border of Oregon territory. While the US did take control of much of Oregon territory they had to settle for the 49th parallel, which is now the northern border of Washington state. The song has little in the way of historical reference. Rather it is a song about being pushed until you can take no more. In some ways it is a song of rebellion not unlike other classics like Twisted Sister’s We’re Not Gonna Take It. However, both the Dead Moon lifestyle (being old, putting out your own records in mono, wearing black) gave them a credibility that kept irony at a minimal level. Despite the Oregoncentric nature of Dead Moon’s lyrics their biggest fan base was in Germany.
Dead Moon and The Rats never sold themselves as an “Oregon” band in the manner that ZZ Top catapulted themselves with the symbol of Texas. Perhaps the notion of staying true to one’s roots enabled them to expand their audience, but there was never a point when it seemed that Dead Moon was sticking close to Clackamas in order ensure their credibility and therefore sell more albums in Germany. Even with international acclaim, the localism of Dead Moon was maintained.
If there is a new language it must be one that combines specificity and mass appeal. It’s necessary to grab hold of a symbol with the power of Burnside that people all over the world can recognize. This is why peace, love, and war are so popular. This is also why peace, love, and war fail to generate any real passion in so many people – they are too abstract. This is a problem, but as 54/40 or Fight (sorry no digital copy to post) illustrates there is no inherent barrier to constructing symbols that are locally specific and appeal to people in different places. The political success of the left depends on generating such symbols that are rooted in place but are capable of transcendence as well
4.18.2007
Political Rhetoric
This short article by Julian Baggini discusses a certain type of rhetorical device that is common in politics, where what is said is uncontroversial but what is implied is not. It meshes nicely with DM's comments in another thread about the invocation of strength in a lot of the right's political rhetoric. From the article:
Baggini doesn't offer any solutions. One good question, I think, is what the best response is to this sort of rhetorical device. Do you call out its implications? Or do you reply with your own rhetoric? Or do you ridicule it? Or does it vary from case to case?
When a political party is making its case by, in effect, not really making a case at all but creating an impression, it can be hard to pinpoint errors of reasoning. Indeed, a really good campaign will only use slogans and arguments that are irrefutable.What I like about the article is that it does a pretty good job of highlighting the real tension I feel between the need to make your political position attractive, and presenting the best reasons for your political position. Ideally the latter would be the best way to do the former, but unfortunately this might not be the case.
Baggini doesn't offer any solutions. One good question, I think, is what the best response is to this sort of rhetorical device. Do you call out its implications? Or do you reply with your own rhetoric? Or do you ridicule it? Or does it vary from case to case?
4.12.2007
Next Level Blogging
The subject of Iraqi blogs came up in conversation with TC08 and Greenmedallion last weekend, and I totally forgot about AliveInBaghdad, a video blog shot in Iraq and in Iraqi expat/refugee communities...very powerful, very depressing stuff; probably some of the best journalism on Iraq anywhere now.
On the music blog front, my vote for best music blog (criticism, not downloading, category) Woebot has branched out into video blogging with the amazing Woebot.tv The current "episode" is about British folk music, which should be of interest to at least one of the other contributors to this blog...whenever he puts up a new post, the old one disappears forever, so you gotta check back often (I think you can subscribe now too, and get e-mail notifications when a new post goes up).
Any of you have any recommendations for blogs taking it to the next level, breaking boundaries--or just doing typical blog stuff particularly well?
On the music blog front, my vote for best music blog (criticism, not downloading, category) Woebot has branched out into video blogging with the amazing Woebot.tv The current "episode" is about British folk music, which should be of interest to at least one of the other contributors to this blog...whenever he puts up a new post, the old one disappears forever, so you gotta check back often (I think you can subscribe now too, and get e-mail notifications when a new post goes up).
Any of you have any recommendations for blogs taking it to the next level, breaking boundaries--or just doing typical blog stuff particularly well?
4.08.2007
Army of Altruists - Getting Back to Our Discussion on Identity
There was an article in Harper's a few months ago that essentially argued that the military is an institution where working class Americans can fulfill the need to help others and lead meaningful lives. I think you should be able to access the article at: http://harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081344. If not I can possibly create a link to the PDF. Perhaps you've already read it. In any case I think it's quite interesting and it fits well with some of the discussions we were having earlier. If you agree with the author's (David Graeber) argument then it seems that creating institutions that facilitate the construction of a meaningful life in a non-militaristic manner is a worthy goal. Not to dredge up a topic that we have discussed to great extent in the comments section of another post, but it does seem that among the democratic candidates Kucinich is making proposals that move in this direction. The military offers a powerful myth/narrative in which one accomplishes great things, travels the world, and positions one's self to access a desirable career. It seems that offering other opportunities/narratives for accomplishing this is something that should be explored further.
4.06.2007
A super depressing start to your weekend:
Oy. Might try to comment later (when I'm done rocking back-and-forth and mumbling to myself). What do you think?
And how come I'm the only one putting any new posts up in, like, a week now?
And how come I'm the only one putting any new posts up in, like, a week now?
4.02.2007
Yeah for unions!
I started my new, union job yesterday. I've got the SEIU watching my back now. What does union membership get me? About $3600 more per year than the same position at my last workplace, annual cost of living increases and overtime pay. At the last place I worked the clinicians were expected to work 50 or more hours per week on salary. So better pay and 10+ hours more per week to live your life--to blog, start back running (soon, I hope), get a community garden going. That's a pretty sweet deal.
I think that increasing union membership and clout is one of the most important goals that progressives need to be supporting. Since political aesthetics and identity is such a hot topic on this blog; I think it's nice to read this which reports that 53% of Americans say that they would join a union if they could. Maybe the image of unions as mob run rackets that just keep lazy incompetents from getting fired that the corporate bosses is no longer operative. Anecdotally, when I caught the local news the other night they were doing man-on-the-street interviews about the threat of another grocery strike in the near future, and they didn't have anyone on who didn't support the workers and the strike. You know that if the TV news folks had found anyone to bitch about the inconvenience or how those people are already paid too much to bag groceries, they would've been prominently displayed to provide some "balance." I'm not sure how we could go about making the union worker identity a more appealing one, especially to our generation and younger, people growing up entirely in the age of shrinking unions. Maybe humorous, ironic ads would help?
I think that increasing union membership and clout is one of the most important goals that progressives need to be supporting. Since political aesthetics and identity is such a hot topic on this blog; I think it's nice to read this which reports that 53% of Americans say that they would join a union if they could. Maybe the image of unions as mob run rackets that just keep lazy incompetents from getting fired that the corporate bosses is no longer operative. Anecdotally, when I caught the local news the other night they were doing man-on-the-street interviews about the threat of another grocery strike in the near future, and they didn't have anyone on who didn't support the workers and the strike. You know that if the TV news folks had found anyone to bitch about the inconvenience or how those people are already paid too much to bag groceries, they would've been prominently displayed to provide some "balance." I'm not sure how we could go about making the union worker identity a more appealing one, especially to our generation and younger, people growing up entirely in the age of shrinking unions. Maybe humorous, ironic ads would help?
3.31.2007
Evaluating Identities
I’ve got no problem accepting the importance of aesthetics in the formation of political identities; but then comes the question of how you justify (if you can justify...) one choice of identity, one aesthetic, over another. Below is an attempt at evaluating a couple of the political lifestyles available to choose from in this day and age, a justification of my own choices; my response to this from DM in comments: “This would involve constructing an argument for why involvement in the Democratic Party enables the production of an identity that is more appealing than being an evangelical, an anarchist, or an apathetic academic....” This ended up pretty long, so rather than take up the whole front page with my post, I’m going to start it here and continue it in comments...there should be a way to collapse longer posts; I don’t feel like messing around with Blogger right now to figure out how, but if any of you know how, please fill me in! Anyhoo...
Basically, right now in the US you've got a coalition of evangelicals, neocons, and various other right wingers that has attained an enormous amount of power in our society. Intrinsic to these different strains of right wing identity is the desire to limit the ability of other people to freely form their own identities. This can be a very direct attempt to limit identity formation: The attempt to deny gays and women identities not confined to traditional gender roles. It can also be a more indirect, secondary effect of other actions: Economic policies that result in stagnating wages, the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the erosion of the social safety net leave more and more people, including increasingly more affluent members of the middle class, on shaky ground. In this state you're far less free to construct a a satisfying identity for yourself as you're too busy just trying to meet basic needs. My dream may be to, say, open a 24 Hour Pho Restaurant, but I can't follow that dream because I've got a health condition and can't afford to buy private health insurance; so I stay at a job I don't like that defines me in a way I didn't choose. Another example is the suppression of unions and unionization by the right. The ability of workers to take back a little control over their workplace, to improve the work environment and get fair hours and compensation, which allows them to pursue non-work identities in their leisure time. We could also mention the right’s attempts to limit immigration, their apathy and incompetence leading to lives lost and destroyed in New Orleans. We could talk about how the increasing authoritarian streak on the right limits political identity formation by limiting protest and conducting massive surveillance of their opponents. At the extreme end they've claimed the right to arrest Americans on American soil, classify them as enemy combatants, torture them and imprison them without trial indefinitely. I could seriously keep going in this vein for quite a while, but you all know about this stuff. If you want to talk about politics in terms of how we form identities that make us feel good or provide meaning to our lives, I think it's clear that the right wing in America wants and acts to seriously limit our ability to do so.
Continued in comments...
Basically, right now in the US you've got a coalition of evangelicals, neocons, and various other right wingers that has attained an enormous amount of power in our society. Intrinsic to these different strains of right wing identity is the desire to limit the ability of other people to freely form their own identities. This can be a very direct attempt to limit identity formation: The attempt to deny gays and women identities not confined to traditional gender roles. It can also be a more indirect, secondary effect of other actions: Economic policies that result in stagnating wages, the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the erosion of the social safety net leave more and more people, including increasingly more affluent members of the middle class, on shaky ground. In this state you're far less free to construct a a satisfying identity for yourself as you're too busy just trying to meet basic needs. My dream may be to, say, open a 24 Hour Pho Restaurant, but I can't follow that dream because I've got a health condition and can't afford to buy private health insurance; so I stay at a job I don't like that defines me in a way I didn't choose. Another example is the suppression of unions and unionization by the right. The ability of workers to take back a little control over their workplace, to improve the work environment and get fair hours and compensation, which allows them to pursue non-work identities in their leisure time. We could also mention the right’s attempts to limit immigration, their apathy and incompetence leading to lives lost and destroyed in New Orleans. We could talk about how the increasing authoritarian streak on the right limits political identity formation by limiting protest and conducting massive surveillance of their opponents. At the extreme end they've claimed the right to arrest Americans on American soil, classify them as enemy combatants, torture them and imprison them without trial indefinitely. I could seriously keep going in this vein for quite a while, but you all know about this stuff. If you want to talk about politics in terms of how we form identities that make us feel good or provide meaning to our lives, I think it's clear that the right wing in America wants and acts to seriously limit our ability to do so.
Continued in comments...
3.30.2007
"Change is now"
The Byrds most commonly appear as the poster boys of the 60’s peace rock revolution as it appears in the sweeping montage of love-ins and the mass hippy momentum that is all somehow signified in their 1965 song “Turn, Turn, Turn.” But this collapsing of image, historical moments and song is deeply unstable, just as are most representations of the complex decade of the 1960’s. Bob Dylan is of course the most idolized figure of this moment of “change,” one defined by a scale of mass cultural production and consumption very difficult to understand today. The Byrds made hits by making electrified pop versions of Bob Dylan songs like Mr. Tambourine Man and the Time Are A-Changin’, thus solidifying their “peace band” image. Of note however is that the majority of the songs from their ’65-’66 period albums are basically songs that demand anonymous sex with women that they encounter as world traveling peace-rockers. Intertwined with raw sexual pleas and peace anthems are also psychedelic romps like Wild Mountain Thyme, Fifth Dimension, Renaissance Fair, Mind Gardens that derive their content from the mainstream culture of “change” and contribute to it. I mention this loose outline of their role in that moment for the Byrds offer a stark contrast with the present situation of cultural production. At both the mainstream and the emergent sub-main field of cultural production, there has been no similar capitalization of “protest music” “peace music” or any other form that can engage the complexities of the present as naively as the Byrds once did. Any discussion of this particular group should also point out the popularity of the group at the sub-mainstream level which adores their pleasant sound and has spawned a handful of pastiche bands since Beachwood Sparks onwards.
But here I turn to the 1968 song “Change is Now” from the Byrds album “The Notorious Byrd Brothers”, released Janurary 3, 1968. Minimal pounding drums, a single note bass line, and a electric twelve string guitar line lay the foundation for this mind-blowing jam that demands not the fleeting pleasures of free love, but insists “Change is now.” This chanted prioritization of the present as the locus of “change” seems common sensical enough, and merely reasserts the urgency of the mass culture of “change” produced and consumed by a society conventionally represented as torn between “change” and the “status quo.” This opposition was on some level a political one for the same clearly meant war, racism and other bad stuff like the military-industrial complex. But not only is change now, the lyrcis continue to state that in this mass moment “things that seemed to be solid are not,” and thus possibilities abound. In fact, “All is now, all is now, The time that we have to live” which totalizes the present as the only moment in which reality exists. History and future utopia be damned, all is now is the infinite possibility of the present, now freed from that which was solid by the mass forces of “change.” But then the song’s driving chant is interrupted by its chorus, filled with harmonious country slide guitar and the simple lyrics, “Gather all that we can, Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan.” This chorus here presents a profound contradiction for the infinite possibilities of the present must be gathered to our ability as they accord with “love’s sweet plan.” There is order in the liberating possibilities of the present produced by “change ” and it demands we comply with an unknowable plan that is sweet and belongs to love. Luckily, while we are briefly thrown aback by this ambiguous demand to accumulate according to the invisible designs of agreeable pleasure evoked by the rush of slide guitars, we return to the driving foundation where fuzz guitars illuminate an expansive terrain with their aleatory harmonies. This middle passage offers a more concrete space representative of the possibilities stipulated by the phrase “Change is now.” For it is one that could go on forever, locked in a groove driving and pounding through the extensive immediacy of the present.
Coming aground in the second verse, from this brief glance at the abyss of the infinite groove, we come to the truth: “Truth is real, truth is real/ That which is not real does not exist”. This could be reduced to the phrase, “That which is not true it does not exist”, or “all that exists is truth, and it is real”. This logic of pure immediacy locates truth in the infinite present, forever bringing into existence the real and then instantly becoming untrue as it becomes past, where it no longer exists. Next we encounter a different temporal dimension: “In and out roundabout/ Dance to the day when fear it is gone” A day will come, (as a result of the change perhaps) when fear it is gone, and we can dance in and out, roundabout until then.
The circular form of the truth of the present, the bringing in and out of existence is oriented towards a future when “fear it is gone”. This phrase is the trajectory of “change” promised by this song. Rather than simply saying change will bring the day when “fear is gone” it seems that it could also say “‘fear it’, is gone” or “fear of ‘it is’, is gone”. The present tense ‘is’ reproduces the time of the present which here, although displaced to a future to come, embodies an immediacy without fear, where fear is not. However, the ‘it’ inserts a further ambiguity that is compounded by the chorus which reasserts itself at this point, almost as if from an entirely different sonic universe. “Gather all that we can/ Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan” The two interruptions by the chorus inscribe a thought provoking contradictory form within this anthem of change. Are we gathering the present, accumulating change in compliance with some divine plan that will bring the day when fear is gone? Is this a Buddhist ethics of karmic accumulation? Do we have here a primordial formulation of the experience economy which prioritizes the consumption of experiences and emotional intensities so well in tune to the marketing of extreme culture? Can we detect herein the deeply contradictory origins of present?
What is the point of confusingly unfolding the contents of a naive mainstream hippy jam? That “Change” is ambiguous, and to understand the present we might be able to trace its key features to specific moments of contradictions within the very fabric of aesthetic production and consumption (here I use the dictionary meaning of aesthetic that includes decorative and affective functions). Popular music seems to be a form ripe for these questions regarding the political. For example the present absence of self-described “political” music may be a fascinating point of departure for further inquiry. As DM demonstrated in his use of ZZ top, these forms have a very concrete way of illustrating abstract contradictions that define the recent past and present in complex but interesting ways.
Download “Change is Now” link in comments.
Lyrics:
Change Is Now (Hillman/McGuinn)
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
All is now, all is now
The time that we have to live
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Truth is real, truth is real
That which is not real does not exist
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
But here I turn to the 1968 song “Change is Now” from the Byrds album “The Notorious Byrd Brothers”, released Janurary 3, 1968. Minimal pounding drums, a single note bass line, and a electric twelve string guitar line lay the foundation for this mind-blowing jam that demands not the fleeting pleasures of free love, but insists “Change is now.” This chanted prioritization of the present as the locus of “change” seems common sensical enough, and merely reasserts the urgency of the mass culture of “change” produced and consumed by a society conventionally represented as torn between “change” and the “status quo.” This opposition was on some level a political one for the same clearly meant war, racism and other bad stuff like the military-industrial complex. But not only is change now, the lyrcis continue to state that in this mass moment “things that seemed to be solid are not,” and thus possibilities abound. In fact, “All is now, all is now, The time that we have to live” which totalizes the present as the only moment in which reality exists. History and future utopia be damned, all is now is the infinite possibility of the present, now freed from that which was solid by the mass forces of “change.” But then the song’s driving chant is interrupted by its chorus, filled with harmonious country slide guitar and the simple lyrics, “Gather all that we can, Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan.” This chorus here presents a profound contradiction for the infinite possibilities of the present must be gathered to our ability as they accord with “love’s sweet plan.” There is order in the liberating possibilities of the present produced by “change ” and it demands we comply with an unknowable plan that is sweet and belongs to love. Luckily, while we are briefly thrown aback by this ambiguous demand to accumulate according to the invisible designs of agreeable pleasure evoked by the rush of slide guitars, we return to the driving foundation where fuzz guitars illuminate an expansive terrain with their aleatory harmonies. This middle passage offers a more concrete space representative of the possibilities stipulated by the phrase “Change is now.” For it is one that could go on forever, locked in a groove driving and pounding through the extensive immediacy of the present.
Coming aground in the second verse, from this brief glance at the abyss of the infinite groove, we come to the truth: “Truth is real, truth is real/ That which is not real does not exist”. This could be reduced to the phrase, “That which is not true it does not exist”, or “all that exists is truth, and it is real”. This logic of pure immediacy locates truth in the infinite present, forever bringing into existence the real and then instantly becoming untrue as it becomes past, where it no longer exists. Next we encounter a different temporal dimension: “In and out roundabout/ Dance to the day when fear it is gone” A day will come, (as a result of the change perhaps) when fear it is gone, and we can dance in and out, roundabout until then.
The circular form of the truth of the present, the bringing in and out of existence is oriented towards a future when “fear it is gone”. This phrase is the trajectory of “change” promised by this song. Rather than simply saying change will bring the day when “fear is gone” it seems that it could also say “‘fear it’, is gone” or “fear of ‘it is’, is gone”. The present tense ‘is’ reproduces the time of the present which here, although displaced to a future to come, embodies an immediacy without fear, where fear is not. However, the ‘it’ inserts a further ambiguity that is compounded by the chorus which reasserts itself at this point, almost as if from an entirely different sonic universe. “Gather all that we can/ Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan” The two interruptions by the chorus inscribe a thought provoking contradictory form within this anthem of change. Are we gathering the present, accumulating change in compliance with some divine plan that will bring the day when fear is gone? Is this a Buddhist ethics of karmic accumulation? Do we have here a primordial formulation of the experience economy which prioritizes the consumption of experiences and emotional intensities so well in tune to the marketing of extreme culture? Can we detect herein the deeply contradictory origins of present?
What is the point of confusingly unfolding the contents of a naive mainstream hippy jam? That “Change” is ambiguous, and to understand the present we might be able to trace its key features to specific moments of contradictions within the very fabric of aesthetic production and consumption (here I use the dictionary meaning of aesthetic that includes decorative and affective functions). Popular music seems to be a form ripe for these questions regarding the political. For example the present absence of self-described “political” music may be a fascinating point of departure for further inquiry. As DM demonstrated in his use of ZZ top, these forms have a very concrete way of illustrating abstract contradictions that define the recent past and present in complex but interesting ways.
Download “Change is Now” link in comments.
Lyrics:
Change Is Now (Hillman/McGuinn)
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
All is now, all is now
The time that we have to live
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Truth is real, truth is real
That which is not real does not exist
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Gather all that we can
Keep in harmony with love's sweet plan
Change is now, change is now
Things that seemed to be solid are not
In and out roundabout
Dance to the day when fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Fear it is gone
Critical Theory Reading List
Not being very familiar with critical theory stuff, I'd like to ask the critical theory people: What critical theory texts (either "classic" or contemporary) do you think are most relevant to politics today? What would you recommend I read, and why? You can put Das Kapital on the list, but I'd also like to see some things I might actually have the time to read and understand.
3.27.2007
Continued Thoughts on Aesthetics, Identity, Value, ZZ Top, and Localism
I think the fundamental difference between Tigrenoche’s position and my own is in how we define value. Perhaps this moves us towards transcritiques initial question of “what is politics?” TN mentions the inability of anarchists or other small politically radical activist groups to have an important impact on “creeping authoritarianism and inequality.” In emphasizing the importance of aesthetics and identity for politics I am also questioning how authoritarianism and inequality are defined. Tigrenoche states, “It sounds a little too close to saying that striking some kind of radical pose and feeling good about yourself for doing so is more important than actually accomplishing anything; image over substance and all that.” In fact this is exactly what I am saying, although not necessarily that one is more or less important than the other, but that feeling good about yourself is accomplishing something. Just as working at a job that pays a living wage can improve a person’s mental well being, so can being accepted by one’s peers. If our notion of value is expanded to include the ability to construct a desirable identity or a meaningful life, then the purpose of political action must also be expanded.
Tigrenoche mentions the evangelical right, and I think that this is an excellent example of the successful linking of identity and politics. To be an evangelical is to construct a definite identity that is positively evaluated within a particular community. It is an identity that is closely related to consumer practices surrounding clothing, music, choice of neighborhood, housing, and food. In this sense, The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable.
The question is often raised of why the working class votes against their economic interests. In the United States this seems to frequently be the case among poor, rural or suburban whites. I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance. Differences in values are often overstated, and this was particularly common after the ’04 election with all of the blue state/red state talk. Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations. Rather, my argument here is that the political action of evangelicals is inseparable from a desire to feel good about one’s self, and attaining that desire represents a real accomplishment that cannot simply be explained away as ideology or false consciousness.
Returning to the Tigrenoche’s continual defense of the democratic party, I welcome a more in depth discussion of actual policy, particularly foreign policy. However I think this is only half of the discussion and we must also consider the sort of identities formed through participation in party politics. If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing. Because of the need to appeal to a broader audience macro level politics is inevitably problematic. I may enjoy dancing to a disco remix of sleeping bag, but I can be no more sincere in my appreciation for this experience than I can in my committment to party politics.
On earlier discussions of the aestheticization of politics, my notion of the term aestheticize here probably fits more closely with the dictionary definition of “beautify” and “decorate” that A mentions in a comment on transcritiques “ambiguous politics.” I welcome a more thorough discussion of Marx, Benjamin, and others (I think David Harvey deals with these issues in a relatively clear manner), but really all I am saying is that participation in politics is in part an attempt to beautify one’s life. That beauty comes both from changing laws and changing one’s identity. Neither should be prioritized over the other. In this sense, to acknowledge the aesthetic dimension of politics is to take identity seriously. This not only refers to identities directly produced through political action (anarchists and democrats), but the manner in which policy impacts one’s ability to construct an identity (for example, forest management may prevent people from becoming loggers).
Tigrenoche mentions the evangelical right, and I think that this is an excellent example of the successful linking of identity and politics. To be an evangelical is to construct a definite identity that is positively evaluated within a particular community. It is an identity that is closely related to consumer practices surrounding clothing, music, choice of neighborhood, housing, and food. In this sense, The Evangelical is similar to The Anarchist in that for both politics and lifestyle are inseparable.
The question is often raised of why the working class votes against their economic interests. In the United States this seems to frequently be the case among poor, rural or suburban whites. I would argue that no one votes against their interests, they simply define their interests differently. It is more important for the evangelical to have the peace of mind that comes with peer acceptance and success in the afterlife than to have a living wage or health insurance. Differences in values are often overstated, and this was particularly common after the ’04 election with all of the blue state/red state talk. Understanding the political differences between the left and the right as based in different systems of values is no better than analyzing the war on terror as a clash of civilizations. Rather, my argument here is that the political action of evangelicals is inseparable from a desire to feel good about one’s self, and attaining that desire represents a real accomplishment that cannot simply be explained away as ideology or false consciousness.
Returning to the Tigrenoche’s continual defense of the democratic party, I welcome a more in depth discussion of actual policy, particularly foreign policy. However I think this is only half of the discussion and we must also consider the sort of identities formed through participation in party politics. If, as I have argued, the Democratic party works to continually transform Progressive Obamas into Nationwide, Long-Beard, Sleeping Bag Era ZZ Top Obamas then we certainly need to question if this is the type of meaningful life that we wish to be producing. Because of the need to appeal to a broader audience macro level politics is inevitably problematic. I may enjoy dancing to a disco remix of sleeping bag, but I can be no more sincere in my appreciation for this experience than I can in my committment to party politics.
On earlier discussions of the aestheticization of politics, my notion of the term aestheticize here probably fits more closely with the dictionary definition of “beautify” and “decorate” that A mentions in a comment on transcritiques “ambiguous politics.” I welcome a more thorough discussion of Marx, Benjamin, and others (I think David Harvey deals with these issues in a relatively clear manner), but really all I am saying is that participation in politics is in part an attempt to beautify one’s life. That beauty comes both from changing laws and changing one’s identity. Neither should be prioritized over the other. In this sense, to acknowledge the aesthetic dimension of politics is to take identity seriously. This not only refers to identities directly produced through political action (anarchists and democrats), but the manner in which policy impacts one’s ability to construct an identity (for example, forest management may prevent people from becoming loggers).
Means and Ends
To me, asking “what is politics?” is asking about what kind of society I want to live in, how that society might function, and how to get “there” from “here.”
I was thinking that maybe trying to answer these questions would be a way of bridging my very pragmatic orientation, transcritique’s desire for a more radical re-thinking of the political, and the different posts and comments on localism.
So, whether you’re interested in the local, the national or international, whether you’re a radical or a moderate, what’s your end goal? What’s do you think it's going to take to get there? Do we need a revolution? Better elected officials? Communal living and more free love?
I’ll post my own thoughts later.
I was thinking that maybe trying to answer these questions would be a way of bridging my very pragmatic orientation, transcritique’s desire for a more radical re-thinking of the political, and the different posts and comments on localism.
So, whether you’re interested in the local, the national or international, whether you’re a radical or a moderate, what’s your end goal? What’s do you think it's going to take to get there? Do we need a revolution? Better elected officials? Communal living and more free love?
I’ll post my own thoughts later.
Who's responsible?
TC08 worries in comments that we're not addressing responsibility for the (Iraq, I assume) war. OK, starting with the Republicans, the whole party shares in the blame. I don't know of a single prominent Republican or Right Winger who opposed the war, at least not until it had already become obvious to everyone that it was an absolute disaster. Not only did none of them oppose it, they actively exploited it as a political cudgel to bash the Democrats and pick up seats in '02 and '04. The Republican party of today is corrupt from top to bottom, intellectually bankrupt, and run by and for authoritarian extremists and religious fanatics. I don't think there's anything redeemable left to it.
In the run-up to the war in '02 and '03, the vast majority of Democrats were either too chickenshit to speak out against the war, cynically hoping to achieve some political advantage by supporting it themselves, or actually thought it was a good idea. Regardless of which of these reason any individual dem was operating from, they failed miserably at the greatest political test of the decade (and beyond). Those that have admitted that they were wrong and show some signs of having learned from the experience (Edwards) I'm willing to cut some slack. Those that continue to support the idea of the war, and only criticize its execution (Hillary) deserve nothing but scorn. Those that didn't support the war (Obama, Gore) deserve praise. Talking about responsibility for the war's continuation into it's fifth year now is a bit more complicated a question as even though a growing number of dems have wanted to end the war for a while now, they're actual ability to do so is pretty limited. It's a lot easier to start a disastrous war than it is to end one.
The mainstream media also deserves huge heapings of blame and scorn for their role in this. They completely failed in their duty to question the claims made by the government, to investigate and try to find the truth. They were too excited about the ratings boost they'd get from showing bombs raining down on Baghdad and get to dress up as soldiers and embed with the troops.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think anyone should be let off the hook for their role in making the Iraq war a reality.
In the run-up to the war in '02 and '03, the vast majority of Democrats were either too chickenshit to speak out against the war, cynically hoping to achieve some political advantage by supporting it themselves, or actually thought it was a good idea. Regardless of which of these reason any individual dem was operating from, they failed miserably at the greatest political test of the decade (and beyond). Those that have admitted that they were wrong and show some signs of having learned from the experience (Edwards) I'm willing to cut some slack. Those that continue to support the idea of the war, and only criticize its execution (Hillary) deserve nothing but scorn. Those that didn't support the war (Obama, Gore) deserve praise. Talking about responsibility for the war's continuation into it's fifth year now is a bit more complicated a question as even though a growing number of dems have wanted to end the war for a while now, they're actual ability to do so is pretty limited. It's a lot easier to start a disastrous war than it is to end one.
The mainstream media also deserves huge heapings of blame and scorn for their role in this. They completely failed in their duty to question the claims made by the government, to investigate and try to find the truth. They were too excited about the ratings boost they'd get from showing bombs raining down on Baghdad and get to dress up as soldiers and embed with the troops.
I think that there's plenty of blame to go around, and I don't think anyone should be let off the hook for their role in making the Iraq war a reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)