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.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Not a bad start to explaining this topic; I suspect we agree more than not on this. I've got to get to bed so just wanted to quickly say I think that the sort of public/private division that I see you making is an important one ("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.") This is one of the most important and defining values of liberalism/progressivism/leftist politics as I define it: the belief that people should have a great deal of freedom to pursue the activities, interests, identities, etc that appeal to them (to create a beautiful, meaningful life), with the only limitations being that these pursuits can't cause harm to others (which needs to include the usually more indirect harm to others that damage to the envrironment inflicts; so pursuing an identity that involves driving real manly gas-guzzling cars might be one that needs to be curtailed).
These can be individual or collective pursuits; they can be religious, artistic, athletic, sexual, whatever. This, to me, is the primary realm of the aesthetic. A good politics will (among other things) provide as much space for this activity as possible, and provide means of mediating disputes between different groups when they arise so no one ends up killing each other over these "private" matters. This is very different from a right wing/conservative view of politics and aesthetics, in that they'll only recognize one identity as a correct one (heterosexual, traditional gender roles, christian, etc.) and support economic policies that leave a lot of the population struggling just to get by and thus without the freedom to pursue the activities/interests that would add meaning and beauty to their lives.
Ok; I've got more to say but it'll have to wait. I'm curious, anyone out there read Habarmas' Philosophical Discourse of Modernity? There's a section in this book that I remember as being relevant to this discussion that I wanted to re-read, but haven't been able to locate it.
I just spent a good hour expanding my thoughts on this...and then hit something, fuck knows what, and it all disappeared...fucking Blogger.
Ok, what can I remember writing?
TC08, mind explaining/justifying this: "although we may desire separate aesthetic and political realms, and a separation of public and private spheres from which to evaluate both, these separations have been eradicated by capitalist modernity and its aftermath. These remain mythological divisions that linger on into the present as historical images of what used to be called bourgeois societies."?
When I use this distinction, I don't mean to imply that there's any definite boundary between the public and private. Our private selves are determined by the public world that we inhabit (social construction of identity and all that), and our "private" values/interests/etc determine how we engage with the public realm.
But I think that this distinction does still have meaning and use. In part, I like this distinction because i think that there are some things I’d like government to do (provide universal health care, for example) and certain things I’d like the government to consider when making desicions (does this help to make a more just society?) and other things that I don’t want the government to do (discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, for one) and don’t want it to consider when making decisions (is this the will of God?). I think that there are certain areas that are legitimate subjects of goverment action (and thus politics) and other things that aren’t, or shouldn’t be.
This second category contains a lot of the activities that people consider the most important and valuable parts of their lives, the creative activities, religious pursuits, intimate relationships etc, that I think make up the bulk of what I would consider the aesthetic: The attempts to create meaning and beauty in your life, the attempt to create an identity. I think that a good society is one that provides people with as much opportunity as possible to pursue the aesthetic, thus defined; but I think that a lot of, maybe most of, these aesthetic activities don’t provide any kind of stable basis on which to base that society. They can answer personal questions of value and meaning, or the questions of value and meaning of relatively small, homogeneous groups--subcultures, families, congregations--which is great; but they aren’t as good at mediating between different groups and different values.
Oy, I had more, but once again it’s getting late; I really would like to hear an explanation from TC08 (or anyone that agrees with him) on why there is no distinction between the public and private. I just don’t buy this, though I suppose it depends a lot on how you define your terms.
It seems that for both A and tigrenoche "politics" is something we do in order to achieve aesthetic ends. Tigrenoche claims that a good politics provides space for meaning making. If that's the case then why bother with distinguishing the two. Of course A is correct that political goals and aesthetic goals are not necessarily the same. However, in practice they tend to be so intertwined that distinguishing between them does not seem useful.
A says: "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"
I'm not sure if I'm following you here. If people prefer something than how can it go against their interests? People do sometimes make mistakes and miscalculate which actions or policies will support their interests, but I don't think that implies a distinction between political and aesthetic interests.
In any case I guess I would challenge both tigrenoche and A to explain the analytical utility of distinguishing between aesthetics and politics.
Tigrenoche - If you're having trouble losing posts write them on a word document and then copy them to Blogger.
One more thing. Tigrenoche says:
" I think that there are certain areas that are legitimate subjects of goverment action (and thus politics) and other things that aren’t, or shouldn’t be."
This is interesting and may get at another fundamental reason behind our difference of opinion on the importance of party politics. Perhaps we should try to explore the limits of government in a future post. Also, is it possible to have politics without government?
Don't have time tonight to go into this too much, but I have just a few quick comments. I'll go into this in more detail later.
One example of how an aesthetic preference can go against my greater interests: I love chocolate but have a deadly allergy to it. Given that I prefer being alive to tasting chocolate, my liking of chocolate goes against my greater interests. (This doesn't mean I'm irrational to like chocolate, mind you.)
Your claim that aesthetics and politics are "so intertwined that distinguishing between them does not seem useful" is a very strong--and to me, counter-intuitive--claim, DM. You'll really have to argue for it. I mean, the grammar of the words is even different; I don't see how you could collapse the concepts. I frankly find it such a weird claim that I don't know how to understand it or argue against it. But here's an attempt at a counter-example:
Nazism could be found by some to be aesthetically compelling. The slogans, symbols, etc. are all fairly powerful. It doesn't follow that Nazism is the best political solution. In fact, it is deeply immoral, perhaps even by your own lights. You might even be Jewish and find it aesthetically compelling. This might seem far-fetched, but I've come across people who the above description matches.
Another: It could turn out that the only solution to our energy and carbon emissions problems would be to build huge, ugly wind farms in national parks. Few would find this an aesthetically compelling solution.
Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. When I say that politics and aesthetics are inextricably intertwined I don't mean that following one's preference in the aesthetic realm should dictate one's politics. As A points out this doesn't make much sense. However, all of A's example also illustrate the absurdity of analyzing politics independently from aesthetics. How can we understand the Nazi's without considering the manner in which they used symbols to promote a certain set of values? How can we understand Nazi aesthetics without considering their political goals? A is correct in cautioning against collapsing the two terms, and I may be guilty of doing this at times. However, I would still question the value of analyzing politics without considering aesthetics and vice versa.
Also, to clarify, I said that aesthetic and political GOALS are so intertwined that distinguishing between the two may lack utility. Distinguishing between the two concepts is very useful. Maybe distinguishing the goals is useful as well (I'll have to think about this), but an analysis that isolates aesthetic and political goals definitely seems problematic to me.
Okay, DM, I read too much into what you were saying. But my examples still seem to be counter-examples to your position that "aesthetic and political GOALS are so intertwined that distinguishing between the two may lack utility."
Here's another example: I want to write a nice instrumental guitar piece. That's my aesthetic goal. I don't see how that goal is political. You might be able to think of a situation where such a goal would be political (if we lived in a culture where making music with a guitar was understood as a way of praising the Republican party, say); but right here and now it doesn't seem political. This aesthetic goal seems irrelevant to any live political issues.
Of course I agree with you that you shouldn't ignore aesthetic issues when considering politics. As I said in this post: "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."
I think it's possible and sometimes useful to think about aesthetics separately from politics, however, so I don't agree with your "vice versa." I don't have an argument for this right now--I just know that my own aesthetic experiences rarely seem to engage me in any political way.
DM challenges A and I "to explain the analytical utility of distinguishing between aesthetics and politics." Here's some thoughts on it:
I think that politics and aesthetics differ in the sorts of actions and activities that make them up and the criteria by which we’d judge them successes or failures. Politics is by definition a group activity (we can talk about office politics or relationship politics, but the “politics’ of one guy alone in a room or stranded on a desert island just sounds nonsensical). Aesthetic activities or experiences on the other hand can very successfully be done or had by one person; sometimes it’s that very private aspect of the experience that gives it it’s meaning and importance to a person. I’d define politics as the means by which a society mediates conflicts, distributes resources and justifies its actions. I don’t see how my marriage, love of trippy music or enjoyment of distance running--three of the most important and identity defining things in my life--provide any useful guidelines for deciding those political tasks.
For a lot of people their religious beliefs (hope you don’t mind if I collapse the religious into the aesthetic here; to a secular dude like myself this makes perfect sense, though I imagine others might disagree) are one of--if not the--most important and meaningful aspects of their lives; but in a diverse society with people holding lots of different religious beliefs, basing our political decisions on the religious beliefs of one person or group is a recipe for conflict.
Politics involves, at least in a democratic society, things like negotiation and compromise, persuasion using both rational argumentation and rhetorical/emotional appeals, and (hopefully) good, sound policy development. Aesthetics can enter into this, especially when we’re talking about persuasion through rhetorical/emotional appeals, but if you want your government to actually work effectively, you want to base your actual policies on rigorous, empirical analysis.
Negotiation, compromise and distributing resources...I just don’t see how collapsing these activities into aesthetics makes any sense at all.
Lastly, when I think about this idea of erasing the distinction between politics and aesthetics, it makes me think of this quote from a “senior Bush aide” to the journalist Ron Suskind in 2004:
“The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
When we act, we create our own reality...that to me sounds like the very definition of politics swallowed up by aesthetics...and look how well that’s turned out for everyone. The “judicious study of discernible reality” and basing decisions on that study is an essential part of effective politics, but not a necessary part of aesthetic activities at all.
Hope this all makes decent sense...I feel I’m really rambling here. Anyways...looking forward to hearing your responses.
As an aside, I think it says something that the first examples of politics and aesthetics being combined that spring to mind tend to be the Nazis or leftist totalitarian states (Mao posters, Soviet socialist realism); as mentioned in the last post, I also tend to think of several aspects of the Bush administration. But what's the aesthetics of Scandinavian welfare state politics? The aesthetics of Canadian politics?
This is a very useful set of distinctions for me as these terms are always used in various inter-related ways in my mind. I just want to point out that the Nazi example returns us to the primary point of departure of the question of fascism. As TN's quote from the Bush aid points out, there are very strong implications in a certain way of collapsing these distinctions. The historical formulation of this fascist collapse between the aesthetic and the political clearly has something to do with certain political formations. The key features of these kinds of political groups are a appropriation of mass media to preserve or engender a particular mode of imperial capitalist expansion, and a perverse desire to usurp historical agency from a multitude of people into the hands of a few. This would suggest if the bush aide's menacing statement is representative of what know to be a particularly delusional administration, then we have some form of a fascist political formation to contend with. This would raises additional questions about the political future as to the Democratic party's ability to eradicate the existing fascist configuration. Will new, better policies be enough to return the state to a 'normal' mode of practice? Or will their success depend upon their ability to somehow reign in the blood thirsty imperial capitalism engendered by the current fascist configuration? I guess I am asking, in terms of this post’s discussion, if this fascist configuration has collapsed politics into a particular form of aesthetic practice, will the Democrats be able to restore this distinction as outlined here? Incidentally the OED online is full of interesting definitions and historical usage of these terms which help clarify for me the loose usage I myself have been employing:
To aetheticize: To render æsthetic, or agreeable to a refined taste, to refine.
And a particular definition of Aesthetic that I think we are more closely concerned with in regards to fascism rather than simply ‘to decorate’: Of or pertaining to sensuous perception, received by the sense, first used in 1798. Which also has a related meaning of : The science which treats of the conditions of sensuous perception.
Thus, when in my original post ‘ambiguous politics’ I raised Walter Benjamin’s distinction between a politicization of art (democracy) vs an aestheticization of politics (fascism), but now it is clear that this most directly and specifically refers to historical configurations of an ascendant fascist configuration that sought to appropriate and therefore dominate, control and structure “the conditions of sensuous perception” by employing both avant-garde artistic and mass media forms to bring into being a world akin to the bush aide’s vision of politics. So I think the distinction A and TN are outlining are very useful in understanding what distinguish political and aesthetics while at the same time DM has pointed out specific historical moments when and where these become intertwined. I really like A’s example of an instrumental guitar piece because he points out implicitly that although someone may have a particular aesthetic goal, this may become a political one depending upon the historical moment of not just production but its reception. That is, there are historical dimensions to these distinctions and I think deeply social ones as well, so that an instrumental guitar piece can be made for the mere sake of making it (what could be called art’s for art’s sake) with a purely aesthetic goal yet once it is recorded, circulated and or performed in another site, there can be political outcomes. Although it would be more accurate to say, these political outcomes of the moment of reception are already implicated in the aesthetic goals for no one creates in a pure vacuum of ahistorical time and space, but in their socialization and education bring into play the objective social forces determining this creative act. Not only do prior moments of music outline other sets of instrumental possibilities, the choice in the present to pursue a particular kind of aesthetic goal imply a history of aesthetic choices and an awareness (however isolated and limited) of its reception. Alternatively to choose to make a punk song about oil barons and fat cat Halliburton’s is also driven by aesthetic goals and has political outcomes less because of its content, but because of its reception and the choices it represents. But these are less illustrative of our present moment than speculative examples on my part, I would think taking up examples from choices that have been made in the past or present could better illustrate these complex distinctions. As a producer of several instrumental guitar pieces I tend to agree with A that these are largely made with aesthetic goals, but with some distance and time, I have come to see the political and apolitical implications they carry. For me it is usually more interesting to consider these outcomes and the way they change with time than the purely aesthetic goals at their time of production because most creative works continue to produce meaning well beyond the limited context of their production.
A few things re: TC08s last comment, particularly the first paragraph, talking about Dems and Republicans. As much as I hate them, I don't really think that it's accurate to refer to the current Republican party and Bush administration as fascist. Authoritarian, yes. Some fascist tendancies, sure. And it's conceivable that if left in power unchecked for another couple terms they could arrive at a full blown fascism, but I think that it's a little hyperbolic to refer to them that way now.*
What I think is interesting about the anonymous senior Bush aide quote I included in my prior comment is that, while it did appear quite menacing when I first read it back in October '04, it now just appears ridiculous. They claimed to create their own reality, but reality has had the last word. I suppose you can be fascist and ridiculous at the same time--Mussolini proved that. But as bad as American corporate media is, it's still independant and "reality based" enough that the admin. couldn't hide how badly they fucked up Iraq or Katrina, not forever anyways--and there's too many other sources of information available today.
As to whether the Dems would be able to return politics to being a "reality based" empirically grounded activity, I actually feel pretty hopeful. What I do worry about is that the Bush administration has replaced so many of the experienced, professional career people throughout the government with inexperienced and incompetent idealogically driven right-wing toadies, that it'll take ages to weed these people out and get in new people who know what they're doing (if you're following the Justice department attorney scandal at all, you know that amongst many other things, they were turning down applicants from Harvard and Yale law in favor of people from Pat Robertson's Regent University, which specializes in "Biblical law" and is generally considered a mediocre school). The other thing I worry about is that if the Dems don't really follow through with investigating the criminality and incompetence of this administration, then a lot of the key players will just lay low for awhile, then get hired back as soon as there's a Republican in the White house again and get right back to their work of wrecking the government. Look at how many of the people responsible for the worst excesses of the Bush admin. got their training in Watergate or Iran Contra.
*There's been some good blog-essays analyzing this question on the blog Orcinus (dneiwert.blogspot.com) that are worth reading (links on the left side of the main page, scroll down). TC08, you might also be interested in this guy as he's written several books about Japanese Americans in the Pacific Northwest during WWII and about militia types in Idaho and Montana.
Post a Comment