Professor J,
Good for your colleague trying to stem the tide of ignorance and
apathy. I wonder how many of his students appreciate his effort. I highly suspect that in the future at least some of his students will wish they had paid more attention.
"Porn is about getting off at someone else's expense." (p.57)
(Can I quote that? This is going to be tricky. :)) I have to say that
this idea and some others I'll mention were far more disturbing to me
than the descriptions of events and language in the second chapter.
While it made for some harsh reading the underlying attitudes of
callousness and cruelty were much more offensive. We could change that
quote to "getting rich at someone else's expense" for those purveyors of
the violence and degradation we see Hedges outline, or in the case of several men
quoted we could even change it to "getting even."
Let's start with getting rich, since the original quote is rather self explanatory. According to Internet Filter Review, that Hedges uses as a source, worldwide porn revenues topped $97 billion in 2006. "Annual
sales in the United States are estimated at 10 billion or higher. There
is no precise monitoring of the porn industry. And porn is very
lucrative to some of the nation's largest corporations. General Motors
owns DIRECTV, which distributes more than 40 million streams of porn
into American homes every month. AT&T Broadband and Comcast Cable
are currently the biggest American companies accommodating porn users
with Hot Network, Adult Pay Per View, and similarly themed services.
AT&T and GM rake in approximately 80 percent of all porn dollars."
Let's
give some people what they want and make a lot of money at it, while we
destroy other people. Tragic. Often, the women being used and abused in
these films are starting out at a disadvantage in life, Hedges gives an
example:
"Roldan, like many of the women who drift into the porn and
prostitution industry, had a difficult and troubled childhood, including
a physically abusive mother. Her mother threw her out of her home when
she was seventeen, and she spent time in homeless shelters." (p. 58)
While I will say that these women are responsible for
themselves and their decisions it is also true that for a variety of
reasons some people are more defenseless than others. The women we do
see emerge from the porn industry with their health, self image, and
money they've made from it in tact tend to come out of the Playboy
system. It's the only place we see women with anything resembling
business savvy, managers, and agents. Whatever else I might think about
Hugh Hefner, he does seem to genuinely like women, something that can't
be said for the majority of men in this chapter. Preying on the weak
which is what happens in this industry most of the time, is despicable.
Hedges exposes the standard thinking by quoting a director he met at a
porn convention:
"...they are nineteen. They are hookers. They don't care. (I wonder if he has asked them if they care)
They are a throwaway commodity in a throwaway world.' He turns to look, with disdain,
at Kenci and says to me, 'She doesn't know what a book is, I bet" (p.78)
Of all the depressing stories related in this chapter this one
made me especially angry. To destroy another human being for your own
profit and then mock them for their situation, is beyond cruel. As a former flight
attendant much of what is said by these women even when they weren't
performing reeked of Stockholm Syndrome to me, in which a hostage comes to
identify with, and even defend a captor. It seemed to be exactly what
had happened to Jollee as she relates the story of the men on the fire
truck. She had reframed the event in a way she could deal with gushing
about how grateful she was to the "pervert" (her word) who took her
there, when she was clearly under age, and considers him a friend and
says she will "thank him every day for the rest of my life." (p. 69)
Besides getting off and getting rich, lots of men are getting
even in
some warped way which they seem to use as justification for their
behavior. The titles of the films and the language and situations are
filled with humiliation and degradation. I don't include the doll guy in
this group because he is probably doing women everywhere a favor by
staying at home with his silicone harem. :)
"My whole reason for being in the industry is to satisfy the
desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women
and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they
couldn't have when they were growing up,' Bill Margold, a performer and
producer of porn, has said. 'I strongly believe this, and the industry
hates me for saying it ...We're getting even for their lost dreams. I
believe this. I've heard audiences cheer me when I do something foul
onscreen." (p.74)
His reasoning is interesting. Apparently in his mind one's lost
dreams are suitable cover for brutality and barbaric behavior.
Disturbing that large numbers of men are living these cruel scenarios
out vicariously. And so we watch the culture disintegrate further into an attitude of whatever I want, I should have. There is alarmingly less "us", less "we".
Where is that road taking us? Because we are an "us" whether we like it or not. So we have to ask the same question Robert Jenson is quoted as asking on p. 61. "What does it say about our culture that cruelty is so easy to market?" I think it says there are a million little fissures just under the surface in lots of areas, weakening us as a whole in all these areas we're discussing. I'm afraid it says that at some point we may find ourselves on the edge of a very ugly tipping point.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Hit Us Again, Chris
Madame:
To give reply to one of your first questions: It is not yet precisely clear to me why hosts do that, but polarization is the name of the game these days, as those who tune in regularly tend to be polarized (in one direction or another). And of course it is the political season now, and hosts’ often limited views only intensifies the natural processes. Political theater keeps the rabid masses coming back. More spectacle, as Hedges would say.
Most of Chapter 2 is unquotable? [*Professor works feverishly to delete most of his planned quoting* :)] I will try to keep my comments to paraphrasing, if I can, in the interest of sparing sensibilities [we can leave the occasional crudity to the Prof blog—as it should be, I’m sure! :)].
“They tell us where to look, decide what is important, and dictate what we think and talk about at any given time.” How you have encapsulated in such an eloquent phrase the essence of the corporatized things you mentioned, and what passes for our evaluation of them!
You are right about education—we process future workers, but we don’t create dynamic and critically thinking citizens. As my colleague who teaches government says to his new students: “I am going to work you hard, because for most of you this will be the last class like this you will ever have. The last class to help prepare you for the most important job you will ever have. Because whatever you decide to do, even in the unlikely event that you get lucky enough to do it your entire working life, that will be only 40 years or so. But you will be a CITIZEN your entire life. And what you do as a CITIZEN will shape your life, your family’s life, your community, your society, your country, and the whole world. And they only give me 15 weeks, 3 hours a week, to prepare you for this awesome responsibility.”
Yes, my good Madame, what you say about education: That may indeed be the point!
I am of mixed feelings about Steve Jobs. He accomplished many great things. He also coerced or bullied a lot of people, including many of the true designers of a number of the cool things he got credit for (but for which he marketed well, far better than they could have, no doubt).
Well, to BEGIN addressing the Chapter about pornography (Chapter 2): Hedges makes many good points about it, although his focus often becomes so narrow it doesn’t allow for the complexity and exceptions that usually accompany most human endeavors. For instance, Hedges is correct that much pornography promotes masturbation, isolation, dehumanizing, and social dysfunction rather than intimacy, socialization, respect, and healthy living, and is often numbing in its effects. It is often so far in the realm of illusive fantasy—crafted or artificially enhanced physical attributes or made up appearances, performances beyond realism, absurd endurance, etc., that it only contributes to illusive expectations, and often to the point of effective addiction. There are instances, of course, where this is not the case, and so I would not be as quick as Hedges to classify and dismiss categorically, but I would say these exceptions only demonstrate the general effect.
Porn, at least in its recent manifestation, often contributes to the social dysfunction, as I said. And we sure don’t need ANY more things that further disconnect us, either between the genders or as citizens, neighbors and community. And given the estrogen-laced assault on the male hormonal system—and all its effects—this is one more thing taking us in the wrong direction.
There are few actors/actresses in the porn industry—females especially—who emerge unscathed, let alone just as mentally and emotionally and physically healthy or healthier than when they entered it. This has particularly been the case, as Hedges describes, as porn has become more violent toward women. And often commoditized women in the process, further contributing to social dysfunction. The women often seek numbing substances to escape the reality of their status.
Although I think the connection to porn is a bit more tenuous than he believes it is, Hedges makes one of his laser-precise evaluations of a thing (Las Vegas) that ends up illustrating too much of what is America the Illusioned: “Las Vegas, a city built on illusions, lends itself to the celebration of porn. It is the corrupt, willfully degenerate heart of America. It is, in Marc Cooper’s memorable phrase, The Last Honest Place in America. Las Vegas strips away the thin moral pretention and hypocrisy of consumer society to reveal its essence. The commodification of human beings, the heart of the consumer society, is garishly celebrated in Las Vegas. Here there is no past, no history, no sense of continuity, and no real community. The mammoth resorts and casinos glittering in the desert are monuments to greed and vice, even as the rest of the country crumbles under the onslaught of physical decay, shuttered stores and factories, a disintegrating infrastructure, and mounting poverty.” (Hedges 63)
Keep hitting us hard, Chris Hedges. Maybe we’ll choose the hard work of living in reality, as it’s the only way we can, really. Live.
To give reply to one of your first questions: It is not yet precisely clear to me why hosts do that, but polarization is the name of the game these days, as those who tune in regularly tend to be polarized (in one direction or another). And of course it is the political season now, and hosts’ often limited views only intensifies the natural processes. Political theater keeps the rabid masses coming back. More spectacle, as Hedges would say.
Most of Chapter 2 is unquotable? [*Professor works feverishly to delete most of his planned quoting* :)] I will try to keep my comments to paraphrasing, if I can, in the interest of sparing sensibilities [we can leave the occasional crudity to the Prof blog—as it should be, I’m sure! :)].
“They tell us where to look, decide what is important, and dictate what we think and talk about at any given time.” How you have encapsulated in such an eloquent phrase the essence of the corporatized things you mentioned, and what passes for our evaluation of them!
You are right about education—we process future workers, but we don’t create dynamic and critically thinking citizens. As my colleague who teaches government says to his new students: “I am going to work you hard, because for most of you this will be the last class like this you will ever have. The last class to help prepare you for the most important job you will ever have. Because whatever you decide to do, even in the unlikely event that you get lucky enough to do it your entire working life, that will be only 40 years or so. But you will be a CITIZEN your entire life. And what you do as a CITIZEN will shape your life, your family’s life, your community, your society, your country, and the whole world. And they only give me 15 weeks, 3 hours a week, to prepare you for this awesome responsibility.”
Yes, my good Madame, what you say about education: That may indeed be the point!
I am of mixed feelings about Steve Jobs. He accomplished many great things. He also coerced or bullied a lot of people, including many of the true designers of a number of the cool things he got credit for (but for which he marketed well, far better than they could have, no doubt).
Well, to BEGIN addressing the Chapter about pornography (Chapter 2): Hedges makes many good points about it, although his focus often becomes so narrow it doesn’t allow for the complexity and exceptions that usually accompany most human endeavors. For instance, Hedges is correct that much pornography promotes masturbation, isolation, dehumanizing, and social dysfunction rather than intimacy, socialization, respect, and healthy living, and is often numbing in its effects. It is often so far in the realm of illusive fantasy—crafted or artificially enhanced physical attributes or made up appearances, performances beyond realism, absurd endurance, etc., that it only contributes to illusive expectations, and often to the point of effective addiction. There are instances, of course, where this is not the case, and so I would not be as quick as Hedges to classify and dismiss categorically, but I would say these exceptions only demonstrate the general effect.
Porn, at least in its recent manifestation, often contributes to the social dysfunction, as I said. And we sure don’t need ANY more things that further disconnect us, either between the genders or as citizens, neighbors and community. And given the estrogen-laced assault on the male hormonal system—and all its effects—this is one more thing taking us in the wrong direction.
There are few actors/actresses in the porn industry—females especially—who emerge unscathed, let alone just as mentally and emotionally and physically healthy or healthier than when they entered it. This has particularly been the case, as Hedges describes, as porn has become more violent toward women. And often commoditized women in the process, further contributing to social dysfunction. The women often seek numbing substances to escape the reality of their status.
Although I think the connection to porn is a bit more tenuous than he believes it is, Hedges makes one of his laser-precise evaluations of a thing (Las Vegas) that ends up illustrating too much of what is America the Illusioned: “Las Vegas, a city built on illusions, lends itself to the celebration of porn. It is the corrupt, willfully degenerate heart of America. It is, in Marc Cooper’s memorable phrase, The Last Honest Place in America. Las Vegas strips away the thin moral pretention and hypocrisy of consumer society to reveal its essence. The commodification of human beings, the heart of the consumer society, is garishly celebrated in Las Vegas. Here there is no past, no history, no sense of continuity, and no real community. The mammoth resorts and casinos glittering in the desert are monuments to greed and vice, even as the rest of the country crumbles under the onslaught of physical decay, shuttered stores and factories, a disintegrating infrastructure, and mounting poverty.” (Hedges 63)
Keep hitting us hard, Chris Hedges. Maybe we’ll choose the hard work of living in reality, as it’s the only way we can, really. Live.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
All Shook Up
Professor J,
If I've "latched onto" what Hedges is saying it is because I looked at it in the light of the larger discussion including what Franks and others were saying. I still think for a reader wholly unfamiliar with Hedges who just picks up this book, it is going to be a bit of a challenge to pull out his true feelings and the complexity of it given some of his language. You have probably figured out by now that I like to swim about in lots of information and ideas until I can put it together in a way that makes sense to me--some people call it hardheaded. ;)
We have churches where pastors disparage the intelligentsia but where are the great thinkers of the Christian community? The Lewis? The Chesterton? At what point did we decide that we could bow out of the discussion and leave it the academics, then complain that we don't have a voice in academia? The Church cannot have it both ways. It cannot disengage from the culture, put up walls, and isolate itself and then curse that very culture and its institutions for being "un-Christian."
I caught Joel Osteen on Piers Morgan last night and while he's not my favorite preacher (for many of the reasons Hedges specifies) I did think it interesting in light of what I wrote last week that while he was trying to stick to a message of love and redemption the host kept badgering him to give his opinion on several sticky political issues as well as endorse a candidate. Has this now just become part of the culture? Must all ministers go all Pat Robertson and take us into the voting booth with them? Or is it just more fun for these personalities to discuss politics than nearly anything else?
In chapter 2 (most of which is unquotable) I'm back to the guy with the dolls. Aside from being creepy and disturbing in the extreme, he says some very interesting things. Some of them I mentioned in a previous post, but among comments like "They all have personalities" (Sure pal, so do my dining room chairs.) and "...there is direct eye contact" (a window to her soul to be sure) he says "Their eyes are adjustable." I couldn't help thinking he could be talking about more than his dolls.
That comment could be more or less be used to sum up what Hedges is trying to point out about the culture. Our eyes are adjustable. By the media. By advertisers. By the education system. By the government and corporations. They constantly divert our eyes from things that need a good looking over. But as you pointed out it is all so much "bread and circuses." They tell us where to look, decide what is important, and dictate what we think and talk about at any given time.
If we're unhappy women we need "retail therapy" (which often has the odd effect of depressing us somehow). If that doesn't work, television ads compel us to ask our doctor about this pill or that, as you are so rightly pointing out on your blog, are probably deepening other problems. Unhappy men of course need the right beer or car and all can be made well. Yet underneath, deep down, we know we have been had. As Hedges says on p. 38 "Our favorite hobby, besides watching television, used to be, until reality hit us like a tsunami, shopping." I've often thought that "buyers remorse" is really just an unexcavated feeling that there should be more to life. And there should.
We'd hope that education would supply some of the depth and richness we sense is missing. Hedges doesn't give us much hope for that either, if we are defining "education" only in the form of a college experience:
"Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, The University of Toronto, and the Paris Institute of Political Studies, along with most elite schools, do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think. They focus instead, through the filter of standardized tests, enrichment activities, AP classes, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools, entrance exams, and blind deference to authority, on creating hordes of competent systems managers."
And in the next paragraph: "The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive." (p. 89)
As if on cue this week Kathleen Parker penned an article about the under-education taking place on college campuses. Here are some excerpts:
"Gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills are either 'exceedingly small or nonexistent for a larger portion of students."
"Thirty-six percent of students experience no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) over four years of higher education."
"Most universities don't require the courses considered core educational subjects--math, science, foreign languages at the intermediate level, U.S. government or history, composition, literature or economics."
"Only 5 percent require economics. Less than 20 percent require U.S. government or history."
I'm asking the same question as the journalist: "How can one think critically about anything if one does not have a foundation of skills and knowledge?" If no one understands economics then will it really matter if (as you pointed out recently) so few of the people commenting as "experts" on television news are actual economists? If we have no grasp of history how will we know that those in power use the same tactics over and over? Or that single minded people who are persistent and refuse to sit down and be quiet can make a difference? Or to recognize lies and illogical arguments when they are presented?
Or is having a population that DOESN'T know all of that, the point?
-----------------------------------
While I'm writing this the news is coming across that Steve Jobs has passed away. A college drop out who changed the world and made all of this possible for us.
If I've "latched onto" what Hedges is saying it is because I looked at it in the light of the larger discussion including what Franks and others were saying. I still think for a reader wholly unfamiliar with Hedges who just picks up this book, it is going to be a bit of a challenge to pull out his true feelings and the complexity of it given some of his language. You have probably figured out by now that I like to swim about in lots of information and ideas until I can put it together in a way that makes sense to me--some people call it hardheaded. ;)
We have churches where pastors disparage the intelligentsia but where are the great thinkers of the Christian community? The Lewis? The Chesterton? At what point did we decide that we could bow out of the discussion and leave it the academics, then complain that we don't have a voice in academia? The Church cannot have it both ways. It cannot disengage from the culture, put up walls, and isolate itself and then curse that very culture and its institutions for being "un-Christian."
I caught Joel Osteen on Piers Morgan last night and while he's not my favorite preacher (for many of the reasons Hedges specifies) I did think it interesting in light of what I wrote last week that while he was trying to stick to a message of love and redemption the host kept badgering him to give his opinion on several sticky political issues as well as endorse a candidate. Has this now just become part of the culture? Must all ministers go all Pat Robertson and take us into the voting booth with them? Or is it just more fun for these personalities to discuss politics than nearly anything else?
In chapter 2 (most of which is unquotable) I'm back to the guy with the dolls. Aside from being creepy and disturbing in the extreme, he says some very interesting things. Some of them I mentioned in a previous post, but among comments like "They all have personalities" (Sure pal, so do my dining room chairs.) and "...there is direct eye contact" (a window to her soul to be sure) he says "Their eyes are adjustable." I couldn't help thinking he could be talking about more than his dolls.
That comment could be more or less be used to sum up what Hedges is trying to point out about the culture. Our eyes are adjustable. By the media. By advertisers. By the education system. By the government and corporations. They constantly divert our eyes from things that need a good looking over. But as you pointed out it is all so much "bread and circuses." They tell us where to look, decide what is important, and dictate what we think and talk about at any given time.
If we're unhappy women we need "retail therapy" (which often has the odd effect of depressing us somehow). If that doesn't work, television ads compel us to ask our doctor about this pill or that, as you are so rightly pointing out on your blog, are probably deepening other problems. Unhappy men of course need the right beer or car and all can be made well. Yet underneath, deep down, we know we have been had. As Hedges says on p. 38 "Our favorite hobby, besides watching television, used to be, until reality hit us like a tsunami, shopping." I've often thought that "buyers remorse" is really just an unexcavated feeling that there should be more to life. And there should.
We'd hope that education would supply some of the depth and richness we sense is missing. Hedges doesn't give us much hope for that either, if we are defining "education" only in the form of a college experience:
"Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, The University of Toronto, and the Paris Institute of Political Studies, along with most elite schools, do only a mediocre job of teaching students to question and think. They focus instead, through the filter of standardized tests, enrichment activities, AP classes, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools, entrance exams, and blind deference to authority, on creating hordes of competent systems managers."
And in the next paragraph: "The elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent, and often subversive." (p. 89)
As if on cue this week Kathleen Parker penned an article about the under-education taking place on college campuses. Here are some excerpts:
"Gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills are either 'exceedingly small or nonexistent for a larger portion of students."
"Thirty-six percent of students experience no significant improvement in learning (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) over four years of higher education."
"Most universities don't require the courses considered core educational subjects--math, science, foreign languages at the intermediate level, U.S. government or history, composition, literature or economics."
"Only 5 percent require economics. Less than 20 percent require U.S. government or history."
I'm asking the same question as the journalist: "How can one think critically about anything if one does not have a foundation of skills and knowledge?" If no one understands economics then will it really matter if (as you pointed out recently) so few of the people commenting as "experts" on television news are actual economists? If we have no grasp of history how will we know that those in power use the same tactics over and over? Or that single minded people who are persistent and refuse to sit down and be quiet can make a difference? Or to recognize lies and illogical arguments when they are presented?
Or is having a population that DOESN'T know all of that, the point?
-----------------------------------
While I'm writing this the news is coming across that Steve Jobs has passed away. A college drop out who changed the world and made all of this possible for us.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ~ Albert Einstein
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Shaken AND Stirred (Up)
Madame M:
What’s The Matter With Kansas practically deserves its own complete discussion! You have delivered multiples of poignancy in what you have said already! And your point about the Christians’ tactics and what has been the effect—history repeats once again! Did not Gibbon tell us how the early Christians, who changed from a faith-based, loving , and brotherly community—nearly socialistic; how that fact is glossed over today!—into one often petty, violent, revengeful, spiteful, and hateful as Christians inserted themselves front and center into the politics and attempted to bend the culture to themselves (often by coercion!)? Gibbon, when pressed to name only one primary reason for the fall of Rome, replied simply, “Christianity.” Often this has been misinterpreted as meaning that the warlike Romans were made soft by Christianity, but as what I just described relates, the real meaning is something altogether different.
I think both Gibbon and Jesus, among others, would take pride in your words, Madame. Hard hitting truth it appears to these eyes and this discernment: “We should, if we are who we say we are, be appalled that the government would need to supply so much for so many when there are so many of us with so much.” Sounds very like something the Holy Spirit would inspire a modern prophet to say! The prophets of old, and the disciples and holy people who followed them, called out their culture when it was so wrong and/or so hypocritical.
I think that in all of what you have said in your exactingly good post, you have latched onto Hedges’ frustration with American Christianity, with what he calls “the church.” What could be the very spiritual soul-center of society, which should, if anything, be the hearth and deep-well of what is good and timelessly spiritual, has given itself over to the twisted or corrupt culture in one form or another. Worse, has often promoted it.
I have seen Hedges in interviews. Let me summarize some of what I heard him say. He has watched the rise of the Christian right—and he considers that group not Christians, but heretics. Jesus did not bless getting rich or dropping bombs. Additionally damning is that other Christian “leaders” did not denounce this zealous sanctioning of wealth accumulation and promotion of war. They refused to even remotely acknowledge that the price of the moral life may be death, as Jesus showed. The Christian right became a mass political movement wrapped in the flag and the cross. It is different only in naked violence to the fundamentalist and radical movements of the Islamic world. Most clerics are afraid to challenge the Christian right (just as many moderate Muslim clerics are afraid to challenge the radicals), and the ones that do are often silenced or impoverished and isolated (a better fate, to be sure, than the moderate imams who are killed in the Islamic world, but the chilling effect is nevertheless similar). Perhaps that is why theologian Paul Tillich once remarked: “All institutions, including the Christian church, are inherently demonic.” He understood quite well that fealty to religious value and fealty to religious institutions are different things.
Hedges is exacting in pointing out that far too many Christians hold secret and deceptive agendas. One example is Intelligent Design. Advocated as a viable alternative in teaching biological development in public schools, this seemingly reasonable “multiple viewpoints” stance is discarded in many of the Christians’ own schools—there one finds only one viewpoint taught; no alternative to learning creationism is permitted. “The Christian advocates’ purported love of alternative viewpoints and debates Is replaced by an iron and irrational conformity…” (Hedges 52)
And the minister you cite reinforces Hedges’ condemnation of the unrestrained “self.” Most especially the lack of self-restraint: “In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek nor want honesty or reality.” (49) Hedges quotes Gabler in saying that “both entertainment and consumption often provided the same intoxication: the sheer, endless pleasure of emancipation from reason, from responsibility, from tradition, from class, and from all the other bonds that restrained the self.” (49)
You have brought up Dave Ramsey, and quoting him seems appropriate here: “Children who reach the age of eighteen with their entire skill set composed of Nintendo and eating Doritos have been abused. The parents neglected the child by not giving him the character traits needed to live successfully. By giving in to every whim and attaching no consequences to actions the parents have given the child a false sense of reality.”
And this one also from Ramsey: “Giving makes children less self-centered. Giving brings your kids depth of character. Thos who never give become shallow, self-centered, and miserable adults.”
We have taken to ruinous absurdity this idea that the self should be so glorified. As if we needed more to unhinge us from reality!
“When a nation becomes unmoored from reality, it retreats into a world of magic. Our national discourse is dominated by manufactured events, from celebrity gossip to staged showcasings of politicians to elaborate entertainment and athletic spectacles. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and power. Reporters…no longer ask whether the message is true but whether the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusion.” (Hedges, 50-51)
How insidious and destructive is this illusion? “The flight into illusion sweeps away the core values of the open society. It corrodes the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense tell you something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to grasp historical facts, to advocate for change, and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways, and structures of being that are morally and socially acceptable. A populace deprived of its ability to separate lies from truth, that has become hostage to the fictional semblance of reality put forth by pseudo-events, is no longer capable of sustaining a free society.” (Hedges 52)
Recall how the Roman emperors used free bread and circus shows to distract the Roman population from the cascading problems. Eventually, the entire civilization collapsed.
We, the masses of this modern culture, are too often obsessed with the trivial, or with diversions such as sports-watching. We then have no time or energy to devote to addressing the problems that are unraveling us. Our actions in effect make us ignore the powerful. And so we give a pass to what they do about war, how they champion and carry out monstrous greed, and how they keep the masses (us) addicted to spectacle.
Ever wonder why we are not galvanized into action at what our intelligence and wisdom should be telling us is avoidable calamity coming right at us? Hedges says it is because we have become lotus-eaters lost in our misty dream world of delusion: “Those who slip into this illusion ignore the signs of impending disaster. The physical degradation of the planet, the cruelty of global capitalism, the looming oil crisis, the collapse of financial markets, and the danger of overpopulation rarely impinge to prick the illusions that warp our consciousness. The words, images, stories, and phrases used to describe the world in pseudo-events have no relation to what is happening around us. The advances of technology and science, rather than obliterating the world of myth, have enhanced its power to deceive. We live in imaginary, virtual worlds created by corporations that profit from our deception.” (Hedges 52)
Removing our illusion-producing virtual reality devices (which take many forms) from our minds reveals a rotting (and perhaps rotten) heart and corrupted soul within what remains of our Republic. Nonsense from the so-called liberal class about the Republic, civilized discourse, rationality, “established programs,” and the like merely provide ammunition for the right to fixate on. They do not obscure the root rot.
Wendell Barry, always an insightful commentator on the state of things and people, is quoted by Hedges: “People whose governing habit is the relinquishment of power, competence, and responsibility, and whose characteristic suffering is the anxiety of futility, make excellent spenders. They are the ideal consumers. By inducing in them little panics of boredom, powerlessness, sexual failure, mortality, paranoia, they can be made to buy (or vote for) virtually anything that is ‘attractively packaged.’” Hedges goes on to say “there are no shortages of experiences and products that, for a price, promise to stimulate us, make us powerful, sexy, invincible, admired, beautiful, and unique.” (Hedges 53)
Hedges closes Chapter 1 with these words that should haunt the awakening: “Blind faith in illusions is our culture’s secular version of being born again. These illusions assure that happiness and success is our birthright. They tell us that catastrophic collapse is not permanent. They promise that pain and suffering can always be overcome by tapping into our hidden, inner strengths. They encourage us to bow down before the cult of the self. To confront these illusions, to puncture their mendacity by exposing the callousness and cruelty of the corporate state, signals a loss of faith. It is to become an apostate. The culture of illusion, one of happy thoughts, manipulated emotions, and trust in the beneficence of power, means we sing along with the chorus or are instantly disappeared from view like the losers on a reality show.” (Hedges 53). Perhaps like those of the 70s and 80s in Latin America, only less violent—for the moment.
Well shaken Hedges, the real Morpheus of our own Matrix! If we listen, and respond to the shaking...
What’s The Matter With Kansas practically deserves its own complete discussion! You have delivered multiples of poignancy in what you have said already! And your point about the Christians’ tactics and what has been the effect—history repeats once again! Did not Gibbon tell us how the early Christians, who changed from a faith-based, loving , and brotherly community—nearly socialistic; how that fact is glossed over today!—into one often petty, violent, revengeful, spiteful, and hateful as Christians inserted themselves front and center into the politics and attempted to bend the culture to themselves (often by coercion!)? Gibbon, when pressed to name only one primary reason for the fall of Rome, replied simply, “Christianity.” Often this has been misinterpreted as meaning that the warlike Romans were made soft by Christianity, but as what I just described relates, the real meaning is something altogether different.
I think both Gibbon and Jesus, among others, would take pride in your words, Madame. Hard hitting truth it appears to these eyes and this discernment: “We should, if we are who we say we are, be appalled that the government would need to supply so much for so many when there are so many of us with so much.” Sounds very like something the Holy Spirit would inspire a modern prophet to say! The prophets of old, and the disciples and holy people who followed them, called out their culture when it was so wrong and/or so hypocritical.
I think that in all of what you have said in your exactingly good post, you have latched onto Hedges’ frustration with American Christianity, with what he calls “the church.” What could be the very spiritual soul-center of society, which should, if anything, be the hearth and deep-well of what is good and timelessly spiritual, has given itself over to the twisted or corrupt culture in one form or another. Worse, has often promoted it.
I have seen Hedges in interviews. Let me summarize some of what I heard him say. He has watched the rise of the Christian right—and he considers that group not Christians, but heretics. Jesus did not bless getting rich or dropping bombs. Additionally damning is that other Christian “leaders” did not denounce this zealous sanctioning of wealth accumulation and promotion of war. They refused to even remotely acknowledge that the price of the moral life may be death, as Jesus showed. The Christian right became a mass political movement wrapped in the flag and the cross. It is different only in naked violence to the fundamentalist and radical movements of the Islamic world. Most clerics are afraid to challenge the Christian right (just as many moderate Muslim clerics are afraid to challenge the radicals), and the ones that do are often silenced or impoverished and isolated (a better fate, to be sure, than the moderate imams who are killed in the Islamic world, but the chilling effect is nevertheless similar). Perhaps that is why theologian Paul Tillich once remarked: “All institutions, including the Christian church, are inherently demonic.” He understood quite well that fealty to religious value and fealty to religious institutions are different things.
Hedges is exacting in pointing out that far too many Christians hold secret and deceptive agendas. One example is Intelligent Design. Advocated as a viable alternative in teaching biological development in public schools, this seemingly reasonable “multiple viewpoints” stance is discarded in many of the Christians’ own schools—there one finds only one viewpoint taught; no alternative to learning creationism is permitted. “The Christian advocates’ purported love of alternative viewpoints and debates Is replaced by an iron and irrational conformity…” (Hedges 52)
And the minister you cite reinforces Hedges’ condemnation of the unrestrained “self.” Most especially the lack of self-restraint: “In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek nor want honesty or reality.” (49) Hedges quotes Gabler in saying that “both entertainment and consumption often provided the same intoxication: the sheer, endless pleasure of emancipation from reason, from responsibility, from tradition, from class, and from all the other bonds that restrained the self.” (49)
You have brought up Dave Ramsey, and quoting him seems appropriate here: “Children who reach the age of eighteen with their entire skill set composed of Nintendo and eating Doritos have been abused. The parents neglected the child by not giving him the character traits needed to live successfully. By giving in to every whim and attaching no consequences to actions the parents have given the child a false sense of reality.”
And this one also from Ramsey: “Giving makes children less self-centered. Giving brings your kids depth of character. Thos who never give become shallow, self-centered, and miserable adults.”
We have taken to ruinous absurdity this idea that the self should be so glorified. As if we needed more to unhinge us from reality!
“When a nation becomes unmoored from reality, it retreats into a world of magic. Our national discourse is dominated by manufactured events, from celebrity gossip to staged showcasings of politicians to elaborate entertainment and athletic spectacles. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and power. Reporters…no longer ask whether the message is true but whether the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusion.” (Hedges, 50-51)
How insidious and destructive is this illusion? “The flight into illusion sweeps away the core values of the open society. It corrodes the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense tell you something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to grasp historical facts, to advocate for change, and to acknowledge that there are other views, different ways, and structures of being that are morally and socially acceptable. A populace deprived of its ability to separate lies from truth, that has become hostage to the fictional semblance of reality put forth by pseudo-events, is no longer capable of sustaining a free society.” (Hedges 52)
Recall how the Roman emperors used free bread and circus shows to distract the Roman population from the cascading problems. Eventually, the entire civilization collapsed.
We, the masses of this modern culture, are too often obsessed with the trivial, or with diversions such as sports-watching. We then have no time or energy to devote to addressing the problems that are unraveling us. Our actions in effect make us ignore the powerful. And so we give a pass to what they do about war, how they champion and carry out monstrous greed, and how they keep the masses (us) addicted to spectacle.
Ever wonder why we are not galvanized into action at what our intelligence and wisdom should be telling us is avoidable calamity coming right at us? Hedges says it is because we have become lotus-eaters lost in our misty dream world of delusion: “Those who slip into this illusion ignore the signs of impending disaster. The physical degradation of the planet, the cruelty of global capitalism, the looming oil crisis, the collapse of financial markets, and the danger of overpopulation rarely impinge to prick the illusions that warp our consciousness. The words, images, stories, and phrases used to describe the world in pseudo-events have no relation to what is happening around us. The advances of technology and science, rather than obliterating the world of myth, have enhanced its power to deceive. We live in imaginary, virtual worlds created by corporations that profit from our deception.” (Hedges 52)
Removing our illusion-producing virtual reality devices (which take many forms) from our minds reveals a rotting (and perhaps rotten) heart and corrupted soul within what remains of our Republic. Nonsense from the so-called liberal class about the Republic, civilized discourse, rationality, “established programs,” and the like merely provide ammunition for the right to fixate on. They do not obscure the root rot.
Wendell Barry, always an insightful commentator on the state of things and people, is quoted by Hedges: “People whose governing habit is the relinquishment of power, competence, and responsibility, and whose characteristic suffering is the anxiety of futility, make excellent spenders. They are the ideal consumers. By inducing in them little panics of boredom, powerlessness, sexual failure, mortality, paranoia, they can be made to buy (or vote for) virtually anything that is ‘attractively packaged.’” Hedges goes on to say “there are no shortages of experiences and products that, for a price, promise to stimulate us, make us powerful, sexy, invincible, admired, beautiful, and unique.” (Hedges 53)
Hedges closes Chapter 1 with these words that should haunt the awakening: “Blind faith in illusions is our culture’s secular version of being born again. These illusions assure that happiness and success is our birthright. They tell us that catastrophic collapse is not permanent. They promise that pain and suffering can always be overcome by tapping into our hidden, inner strengths. They encourage us to bow down before the cult of the self. To confront these illusions, to puncture their mendacity by exposing the callousness and cruelty of the corporate state, signals a loss of faith. It is to become an apostate. The culture of illusion, one of happy thoughts, manipulated emotions, and trust in the beneficence of power, means we sing along with the chorus or are instantly disappeared from view like the losers on a reality show.” (Hedges 53). Perhaps like those of the 70s and 80s in Latin America, only less violent—for the moment.
Well shaken Hedges, the real Morpheus of our own Matrix! If we listen, and respond to the shaking...
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On
Professor J,
Excuse me, but are you finished with that soapbox? I'll give it right back. :)
Along with this book I read What's the Matter With Kansas? on your recommendation. That's a whole other discussion we could have at some point but something he brought out meshed with some of what Hedges is saying about the Christian Right (which he scatters throughout the book). The author of that book, Thomas Frank, points out casually and maybe a bit mockingly, that the more vocal Christians have been about the culture, the more the culture has deteriorated. His rather amused perspective was a political one, but as a person of faith I couldn't help thinking of his observation in spiritual terms. Because he's right.
Over the last few decades while we have become more vocal (and let's be honest, somewhat obnoxious) we have become less effective in bringing about the change we want, not more. How is it that when Christians were quietly going about their business doing the right things (go to any city and look at the names of the hospitals), working hard and being good neighbors the culture respected our message even if they didn't necessarily embrace it? We seem blind to the fact that our new tactics aren't working. We try harder. We get louder, more demanding, shriller and don't understand the culture's growing aversion to our message.
Maybe it isn't the message, but the messengers. We've become obsessed with who is getting a free government lunch when we should be offering to buy lunch for those in need. We should, if we are who we say we are, be appalled that the government would need to supply so much for so many when there are so many of us with so much.
Know, that before I am saying this to anyone else I am saying it to myself. I can certainly say with Paul that I am "chief among sinners."
Is it a coincidence that recently while Christians in America have become more politically focused we have seen an increasingly hostile response? God didn't call us to go out and be registers of voters, but fishers of men. Jesus didn't say to the disciples, "Okay guys, here's the plan: We are going to load up the school boards, get the textbooks changed, bring back prayer in schools." or "Let's get ourselves organized and get to Rome where we can make a difference." Where is it written, "Let's make sure everyone knows how we feel about every political issue and bring this empire back to God"?
It isn't.
We aren't instructed to do any of that. We should be asking ourselves, "Why not?" If Christ who came to THE ROMAN EMPIRE didn't think it was necessary to address all the political and social evils of His day but instead focused on the hearts of individuals, the hurting, and the broken, (when He wasn't rebuking religious leaders for their hypocrisy) then isn't that what we should be concerned with? We worry about whether or not our kids are going to be challenged in their faith by a professor in a classroom. I've heard parents and pastors talk a lot about them standing their ground and defending the faith. Maybe we should be telling our children to show up prepared for class, work hard and show love to everyone they come in contact with. We are called to give an account for our faith...when asked: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15 (italics mine.)
Jesus didn't say "Those people that hate you can be defeated at the ballot box", or "by a boycott of their product." He said "Pray for those who hate you and do good to those that persecute you. " Well, that doesn't sound like fun. It does however sound very, well--Christlike. Mother Theresa, a Christian revered as a good example even by unbelievers, never gave her political opinion. She quietly went about her business caring for the poor with compassion and dignity. Perhaps she didn't have time to give global politics much thought because she was so busy being an example of what love looks like. American Christians, who have succumbed so completely to conspicuous consumption, will wonder that she made such an impact without the trite t-shirt or or fish on her car, (oh wait, she didn't have a car either). No time to order the WWJD bracelet because she was acting it out in her life.
More believers are waking up to the fact that we have been numbed to the needs of others by our boundless consumerism and selfishness. Dave Ramsey has been teaching a "live within your means and avoid debt" lesson for years. Recently a more radical idea has come to the forefront led by minister David Platt, author of Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream.
Here's a quote from an interview with The Christian Post:
"I think with the way we have unprecedented material blessing, with the way we have a culture built on self, self-esteem, self-confidence. All of these things we begin to twist the gospel into something that it is not. We make it look like us and fit into our lifestyle instead of adjusting our lifestyle to the gospel. In the process we make following Jesus more American than it is biblical. As a result there seems to be a major disconnect between what it means to follow Christ in the first century and what it means to follow Christ in our definition in the 21st century America."
We have become so like the culture we rail against. Entangled. Enmeshed. Embracing the materialism while criticizing many who need our help. For Christians with a Biblical world view (to include belief in a literal spiritual enemy) wouldn't this be a brilliant diversionary tactic? It gives us the illusion of being busy with good things while letting the things Christ actually told us to do, go largely undone. It comes with the side benefit of drowning out a message of love.
Ten or fifteen years ago I had the opposite opinion on all this. I was busy lobbying, writing letters, calling my representatives, and not exactly showing very much love to those who disagreed with me. It felt right to be filled with such (probably self) righteous indignation. I would have argued shamelessly with someone saying what I'm saying here. But the proof should be in the fruit that comes of all this effort and energy we've expended. What are we getting for all this? The culture is getting worse, not better. Are our tirades winning hearts and minds to Christ (isn't that our goal)? We have become the persnickety spinster aunt of the culture who is miserable and doesn't want anyone having any fun, instead of the wise family member with a gentle spirit whose counsel is sought in hard times. Are we doing what Peter said and giving an account of our faith with gentleness and respect to anyone who asks?
Is anyone asking?
Excuse me, but are you finished with that soapbox? I'll give it right back. :)
Along with this book I read What's the Matter With Kansas? on your recommendation. That's a whole other discussion we could have at some point but something he brought out meshed with some of what Hedges is saying about the Christian Right (which he scatters throughout the book). The author of that book, Thomas Frank, points out casually and maybe a bit mockingly, that the more vocal Christians have been about the culture, the more the culture has deteriorated. His rather amused perspective was a political one, but as a person of faith I couldn't help thinking of his observation in spiritual terms. Because he's right.
Over the last few decades while we have become more vocal (and let's be honest, somewhat obnoxious) we have become less effective in bringing about the change we want, not more. How is it that when Christians were quietly going about their business doing the right things (go to any city and look at the names of the hospitals), working hard and being good neighbors the culture respected our message even if they didn't necessarily embrace it? We seem blind to the fact that our new tactics aren't working. We try harder. We get louder, more demanding, shriller and don't understand the culture's growing aversion to our message.
Maybe it isn't the message, but the messengers. We've become obsessed with who is getting a free government lunch when we should be offering to buy lunch for those in need. We should, if we are who we say we are, be appalled that the government would need to supply so much for so many when there are so many of us with so much.
Know, that before I am saying this to anyone else I am saying it to myself. I can certainly say with Paul that I am "chief among sinners."
Is it a coincidence that recently while Christians in America have become more politically focused we have seen an increasingly hostile response? God didn't call us to go out and be registers of voters, but fishers of men. Jesus didn't say to the disciples, "Okay guys, here's the plan: We are going to load up the school boards, get the textbooks changed, bring back prayer in schools." or "Let's get ourselves organized and get to Rome where we can make a difference." Where is it written, "Let's make sure everyone knows how we feel about every political issue and bring this empire back to God"?
It isn't.
We aren't instructed to do any of that. We should be asking ourselves, "Why not?" If Christ who came to THE ROMAN EMPIRE didn't think it was necessary to address all the political and social evils of His day but instead focused on the hearts of individuals, the hurting, and the broken, (when He wasn't rebuking religious leaders for their hypocrisy) then isn't that what we should be concerned with? We worry about whether or not our kids are going to be challenged in their faith by a professor in a classroom. I've heard parents and pastors talk a lot about them standing their ground and defending the faith. Maybe we should be telling our children to show up prepared for class, work hard and show love to everyone they come in contact with. We are called to give an account for our faith...when asked: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15 (italics mine.)
Jesus didn't say "Those people that hate you can be defeated at the ballot box", or "by a boycott of their product." He said "Pray for those who hate you and do good to those that persecute you. " Well, that doesn't sound like fun. It does however sound very, well--Christlike. Mother Theresa, a Christian revered as a good example even by unbelievers, never gave her political opinion. She quietly went about her business caring for the poor with compassion and dignity. Perhaps she didn't have time to give global politics much thought because she was so busy being an example of what love looks like. American Christians, who have succumbed so completely to conspicuous consumption, will wonder that she made such an impact without the trite t-shirt or or fish on her car, (oh wait, she didn't have a car either). No time to order the WWJD bracelet because she was acting it out in her life.
More believers are waking up to the fact that we have been numbed to the needs of others by our boundless consumerism and selfishness. Dave Ramsey has been teaching a "live within your means and avoid debt" lesson for years. Recently a more radical idea has come to the forefront led by minister David Platt, author of Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream.
Here's a quote from an interview with The Christian Post:
"I think with the way we have unprecedented material blessing, with the way we have a culture built on self, self-esteem, self-confidence. All of these things we begin to twist the gospel into something that it is not. We make it look like us and fit into our lifestyle instead of adjusting our lifestyle to the gospel. In the process we make following Jesus more American than it is biblical. As a result there seems to be a major disconnect between what it means to follow Christ in the first century and what it means to follow Christ in our definition in the 21st century America."
We have become so like the culture we rail against. Entangled. Enmeshed. Embracing the materialism while criticizing many who need our help. For Christians with a Biblical world view (to include belief in a literal spiritual enemy) wouldn't this be a brilliant diversionary tactic? It gives us the illusion of being busy with good things while letting the things Christ actually told us to do, go largely undone. It comes with the side benefit of drowning out a message of love.
Ten or fifteen years ago I had the opposite opinion on all this. I was busy lobbying, writing letters, calling my representatives, and not exactly showing very much love to those who disagreed with me. It felt right to be filled with such (probably self) righteous indignation. I would have argued shamelessly with someone saying what I'm saying here. But the proof should be in the fruit that comes of all this effort and energy we've expended. What are we getting for all this? The culture is getting worse, not better. Are our tirades winning hearts and minds to Christ (isn't that our goal)? We have become the persnickety spinster aunt of the culture who is miserable and doesn't want anyone having any fun, instead of the wise family member with a gentle spirit whose counsel is sought in hard times. Are we doing what Peter said and giving an account of our faith with gentleness and respect to anyone who asks?
Is anyone asking?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Shaking The Foundations On Purpose
Madame,
My forte? THAT’S a bit depressing! :)
You have well-spoken about the fixation on the present. A society that does not TRULY value (or at least the learning of lessons from it) what has gone before is a tool for the abusively powerful (how much better fortified we were when the classics were not pushed aside in curriculums as “irrelevant”!). And if the members of that society cannot or will not know, recognize, and become alarmed into action at how self-destructively similar they are to the Romans, then the future (and not the extremely far off future, either) will write a new chapter that replaces America and Americans, at least how we have known those terms. We may or may not be wiped off as a people and as a political entity (as the Romans were wiped), but the effect could be severe enough the distinction might not matter all that much. And after all, some of the Romans’ influences continued on (and some still do!) long after they themselves had ceased to exist.
And “living in the moment” is not even inappropriate advice much of the time. This frenetic culture does often need to focus on the now rather than always be working toward something else. Yet we don’t take our moments like African and other cultures do, but only as some sort of momentary diversion, a brief and often ineffective time-out from the perpetual “busyness” that rules our lives (and the mindlessness, as you’ve pointed out, that fills in when it isn’t). These twin poles of busyness and mindlessness chew up most all our TRULY rational decision making, and prevent our evaluating things clearly. “We cannot get a hold of the culture until we get a hold of ourselves. Lots of shaking will be necessary.” Oh, how very well said Madame!
Readers should pay extra heed to the wise words coming from Madame this week. They are especially hard-hitting and vitally relevant! I have been reading them over and over again. How very exacting she has described how we have disconnected ourselves by seeking only those like ourselves, by shutting our minds, by becoming extremely defensive when our propaganda is questioned, by clinging to things solely by emotion and then defending that by attempting “logic.” We have become a nation of extremes. Even the desire (a healthy one) to hold onto a piece of our inner child has been thrown to the other extreme of refusing to grow up (more irresponsibility, as you’ve pointed out). A nation of INDIVIDUALS who refuse to bear the responsibility of their own lives and their families is bad enough, but an additional (and wholescale destructive) side-effect is that those individuals aren’t stepping up to take responsibility and action for the future of their society. There is a marked lack of sufficient workers FOR the collective good. Many TAKERS, takers FROM the collective wealth of the society (social, institutional, infrastructural, financial, etc.), but few CONTRIBUTORS to that collective wealth. Civilizationist historians list that effect between the 2nd and final stages of a civilization’s downfall!
How a great people (should I say a “once great people”?) are falling by their own folly, weakness, selfishness, and willing abandonment of wisdom! WE ARE complicit, as you say, in refusing to evaluate. Too many of us are FAR too okay with being shallow, or leading what Socrates considered the greatest failure—the unexamined life. We let ourselves off the hook. How our descendants will despise us and what we’ve left them! That so many of us don’t even care about THAT is further evidence of how much our own ancestors would disown us if they could be present now. We would be Rosemary’s babies to them!
Those of us who have shaken off at least some of this seductive, sedative, enfeebling culture must shake the tree. People may get mad—actually, probably WILL—or ignore us, but we will despise ourselves if we do not take this stance. This is OUR moment in history. Others were given theirs, still others will be given theirs, but this is OURS. As Michael Jordan said: “I can accept failing. But I can’t accept not trying.”
Thomas Friedman—I don’t even agree with the guy a fair portion of the time—has, along with Michael Mandelbaum, written a book on what we used to be good at and how by getting back to that, we can get back to where we need to be. I hope it has an effect (and not just because it advocates a similar third-party stance as I’ve previously taken—Friedman, have you been sifting my ideas? Lol). For as I’ve stated before, it seems to me we are still at the stage where we have a great deal of latent strength, a great deal of possibility for correcting ourselves and not only jumping off this road to doom, but setting a good path. There are glimmers of recognition among some of the elites, like Republican governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana—another guy who I don’t agree with some of the time—that indicate some of the rich and/or powerful are awakening to the Potterville we have been forming and what is being lost in its wake.
As the year-long campaign “season” begins to accelerate, and as we try to “fix” the economy, we need armed with awareness. Hedges: “The most essential skill in political theater and a consumer culture is artifice. Political leaders, who use the tools of mass propaganda to create a sense of faux intimacy with citizens, no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have those qualities. Most of all they need a story, a personal narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. Those who are best at deception succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of entertainment, who fail to create a narrative or do not have one fashioned for them by their handlers, are ignored. They become ‘unreal.’” (48)
Over and over I hear the voice of one of my professors from school, shaking me out of lazy thinking and lazy accepting: “How do you know?” “HOW do you know?” How DO you know? How do YOU know? How do you KNOW?” Of course, even this questioning can be taken to an extreme too, but we are not questioning enough, and because of that, a small group at the top can control us. Meaning we have a democracy for the few.
The hour is SO late that our continued inaction will mean it indeed is too late (as Hedges largely believes it is). We have the Supreme Court ruling in favor of corporations and their allies in most instances, and one of the results has been a corrupted and abused campaign financing process. Lobbyists write much of the laws (witness, as one small example that is large in consequences, contractors being able to set their own expiration dates, meaning the government is forced to buy new things to replace “expired” ones), and blitzkrieg through the legislative sausage “process” what their corporate masters want. The revolving door spins so continually now that effective regulation and oversight have become the exception rather than the rule. So much money is offered for post-government employment that government officials and our representatives are often doing the bidding outright of their future corporate employers. A corporate-controlled media tailors and shades the political dialogue to suit itself and its fellow corporate allies. “Expert” news commentators, and “experts” in general, deceive a public paying scant attention anyway (only 4% of commenting “experts” on TV during the debt ceiling “crisis” were economists, for example, and yet hardly anyone commented on this. I say this, and I don’t even agree with the assumptive models and filters economists use!) The public then finds (when it does actually realize, which often isn’t the case) that its distraction, apathy, unexamined cynicism, and delusion have disempowered it. Their standard-of-living goes down, but instead of holding those responsible (and themselves), they lash out irrationally and are unwilling to consider alternate and relevant information. Corporate power increases, and the mechanisms of the republic become more of a sham. And as Hedges says, the worse this reality becomes for us, the less that we, the put-upon, want to hear about it.
It doesn’t need to be that way. Yes, we don’t need to become humorless curmudgeons devoid of enjoying some escapism from the pressures of modern life, but this entertainment/social media diverted/spectacle culture can no longer be embraced if we are going to make it.
Choosing not to resist means we are okay with the US in the not too distant future being a shadow of what it is today, let alone of what it was yesterday.
You’re not a baby anymore, America, so you both need and deserve the shaking!
My forte? THAT’S a bit depressing! :)
You have well-spoken about the fixation on the present. A society that does not TRULY value (or at least the learning of lessons from it) what has gone before is a tool for the abusively powerful (how much better fortified we were when the classics were not pushed aside in curriculums as “irrelevant”!). And if the members of that society cannot or will not know, recognize, and become alarmed into action at how self-destructively similar they are to the Romans, then the future (and not the extremely far off future, either) will write a new chapter that replaces America and Americans, at least how we have known those terms. We may or may not be wiped off as a people and as a political entity (as the Romans were wiped), but the effect could be severe enough the distinction might not matter all that much. And after all, some of the Romans’ influences continued on (and some still do!) long after they themselves had ceased to exist.
And “living in the moment” is not even inappropriate advice much of the time. This frenetic culture does often need to focus on the now rather than always be working toward something else. Yet we don’t take our moments like African and other cultures do, but only as some sort of momentary diversion, a brief and often ineffective time-out from the perpetual “busyness” that rules our lives (and the mindlessness, as you’ve pointed out, that fills in when it isn’t). These twin poles of busyness and mindlessness chew up most all our TRULY rational decision making, and prevent our evaluating things clearly. “We cannot get a hold of the culture until we get a hold of ourselves. Lots of shaking will be necessary.” Oh, how very well said Madame!
Readers should pay extra heed to the wise words coming from Madame this week. They are especially hard-hitting and vitally relevant! I have been reading them over and over again. How very exacting she has described how we have disconnected ourselves by seeking only those like ourselves, by shutting our minds, by becoming extremely defensive when our propaganda is questioned, by clinging to things solely by emotion and then defending that by attempting “logic.” We have become a nation of extremes. Even the desire (a healthy one) to hold onto a piece of our inner child has been thrown to the other extreme of refusing to grow up (more irresponsibility, as you’ve pointed out). A nation of INDIVIDUALS who refuse to bear the responsibility of their own lives and their families is bad enough, but an additional (and wholescale destructive) side-effect is that those individuals aren’t stepping up to take responsibility and action for the future of their society. There is a marked lack of sufficient workers FOR the collective good. Many TAKERS, takers FROM the collective wealth of the society (social, institutional, infrastructural, financial, etc.), but few CONTRIBUTORS to that collective wealth. Civilizationist historians list that effect between the 2nd and final stages of a civilization’s downfall!
How a great people (should I say a “once great people”?) are falling by their own folly, weakness, selfishness, and willing abandonment of wisdom! WE ARE complicit, as you say, in refusing to evaluate. Too many of us are FAR too okay with being shallow, or leading what Socrates considered the greatest failure—the unexamined life. We let ourselves off the hook. How our descendants will despise us and what we’ve left them! That so many of us don’t even care about THAT is further evidence of how much our own ancestors would disown us if they could be present now. We would be Rosemary’s babies to them!
Those of us who have shaken off at least some of this seductive, sedative, enfeebling culture must shake the tree. People may get mad—actually, probably WILL—or ignore us, but we will despise ourselves if we do not take this stance. This is OUR moment in history. Others were given theirs, still others will be given theirs, but this is OURS. As Michael Jordan said: “I can accept failing. But I can’t accept not trying.”
Thomas Friedman—I don’t even agree with the guy a fair portion of the time—has, along with Michael Mandelbaum, written a book on what we used to be good at and how by getting back to that, we can get back to where we need to be. I hope it has an effect (and not just because it advocates a similar third-party stance as I’ve previously taken—Friedman, have you been sifting my ideas? Lol). For as I’ve stated before, it seems to me we are still at the stage where we have a great deal of latent strength, a great deal of possibility for correcting ourselves and not only jumping off this road to doom, but setting a good path. There are glimmers of recognition among some of the elites, like Republican governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana—another guy who I don’t agree with some of the time—that indicate some of the rich and/or powerful are awakening to the Potterville we have been forming and what is being lost in its wake.
As the year-long campaign “season” begins to accelerate, and as we try to “fix” the economy, we need armed with awareness. Hedges: “The most essential skill in political theater and a consumer culture is artifice. Political leaders, who use the tools of mass propaganda to create a sense of faux intimacy with citizens, no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have those qualities. Most of all they need a story, a personal narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. The consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. Those who are best at deception succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of entertainment, who fail to create a narrative or do not have one fashioned for them by their handlers, are ignored. They become ‘unreal.’” (48)
Over and over I hear the voice of one of my professors from school, shaking me out of lazy thinking and lazy accepting: “How do you know?” “HOW do you know?” How DO you know? How do YOU know? How do you KNOW?” Of course, even this questioning can be taken to an extreme too, but we are not questioning enough, and because of that, a small group at the top can control us. Meaning we have a democracy for the few.
The hour is SO late that our continued inaction will mean it indeed is too late (as Hedges largely believes it is). We have the Supreme Court ruling in favor of corporations and their allies in most instances, and one of the results has been a corrupted and abused campaign financing process. Lobbyists write much of the laws (witness, as one small example that is large in consequences, contractors being able to set their own expiration dates, meaning the government is forced to buy new things to replace “expired” ones), and blitzkrieg through the legislative sausage “process” what their corporate masters want. The revolving door spins so continually now that effective regulation and oversight have become the exception rather than the rule. So much money is offered for post-government employment that government officials and our representatives are often doing the bidding outright of their future corporate employers. A corporate-controlled media tailors and shades the political dialogue to suit itself and its fellow corporate allies. “Expert” news commentators, and “experts” in general, deceive a public paying scant attention anyway (only 4% of commenting “experts” on TV during the debt ceiling “crisis” were economists, for example, and yet hardly anyone commented on this. I say this, and I don’t even agree with the assumptive models and filters economists use!) The public then finds (when it does actually realize, which often isn’t the case) that its distraction, apathy, unexamined cynicism, and delusion have disempowered it. Their standard-of-living goes down, but instead of holding those responsible (and themselves), they lash out irrationally and are unwilling to consider alternate and relevant information. Corporate power increases, and the mechanisms of the republic become more of a sham. And as Hedges says, the worse this reality becomes for us, the less that we, the put-upon, want to hear about it.
It doesn’t need to be that way. Yes, we don’t need to become humorless curmudgeons devoid of enjoying some escapism from the pressures of modern life, but this entertainment/social media diverted/spectacle culture can no longer be embraced if we are going to make it.
Choosing not to resist means we are okay with the US in the not too distant future being a shadow of what it is today, let alone of what it was yesterday.
You’re not a baby anymore, America, so you both need and deserve the shaking!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Can We Rise and Shine?
Professor J,
You make a good, yet somewhat depressing, point (your forte! ;)) about the rescuers of the motorcyclist. Another indication of our shortened attention spans and short sighted vision. We see glimpses of hope but as you indicate they are disconnected and short lived. Hoping to extend it long enough to make any real difference in the culture may be like Elvis asking "Why Can't Everyday Be Like Christmas?"
"They live in the eternal present." Think how popular this kind of thinking has become over the last few years. How many times have we heard "Live in the moment" repeated by talk show hosts and pop psychologists? While in a spiritual context it is beneficial (when balanced with recognizing that we are momentary inhabitors of a section of history and that our actions have consequences), it has become the clarion call of a people who have no historical framework through which to view current events and no concern for the future and little for our descendants. A case could even be made that as more people decide not to have children for a variety of reasons, the link to the future and cause to be concerned about it is lessened still more. All that matters is right here, right now. This is the demanding self-centered thinking of a small child. We are perpetually selling our birthright of freedom, literacy, and critical thinking for the cultural stew of celebrity worship, entertainment, and fleeting amusements.
I'd add to all the obstacles to finding solutions for our current predicament that you've named, a certain mindlessness that we are all familiar with. We click links from one site to another and realize an hour later we have read nothing substantial. We eat mindlessly in front of the television, numbing ourselves with food paying no attention to the quantity we are eating (or watching) until we reach the bottom of an empty bag. Any mother will be familiar with looking around the room where she's been watching cartoons only to realize that her children left at some point to find something more interesting to do. While I would say that the "Live in the moment" mantra, which gives little thought to how our current actions may affect a rapidly approaching future, is dangerous, I would say that learning to be conscious in the moment might be quite enlightening. We cannot get a hold of the culture until we get a hold of ourselves. Lots of shaking will be necessary.
The literacy statistics found in this book and elsewhere are staggering. We've lost more than our ability to read and understand complex written material. We have lost our ability to think. We take in information, filtered by our already strongly held premises, and fortify our strongholds of illusion. We choose our friends, news channels, and reading material, on the basis of whether or not we can remained unchallenged in our positions. We brush away conflicting views, and become angry instead of curious when a contrary opinion is presented. Are our beliefs so fragile and ill thought out that we cannot bear discussion? We let our emotions rule our thought process and become reactive instead of reflective. The new illiteracy is worse than not being able to read a paper or decipher a lease; we have lost the ability to understand the predicament we are in. We know if we cannot read a street sign and know that we should be embarrassed, but we may not recognize at all that we have lost our ability to comprehend. We can easily find legions of other non-understanders to comfort us in our shallow thinking. Truly challenging problems seem to be increasingly framed in ever simplistic terms as Hedges points out. When all else fails the conspiracy theorists allow us to feel superior in our delusions since everyone else cannot see what is so obvious. What they have, oh-so-cleverly, figured out. Any serious issues or inconsistencies are simply swept away with "That's just what they want you to think." Reason is rendered useless.
You are correct when you say "We have given ourselves passes on too much." We are living in the land of irresponsibility. An endless childhood ("induced childishness"). Think of how many adults you have heard say something about how they don't want to grow up, and adolescence now seems to last until thirty. Hedges quotes Marc Cooper's book, The Last Honest Place in America:
"In a television-marinated society in which the boundaries between childhood and adulthood have been blurred if not erased, increasingly and dismayingly, children and adults dress the same, eat the same, and often talk the same, where they certainly endlessly watch the same TV shows, where simulation is often valued over authenticity (look no further than the acrobatic contrivances of so-called "reality TV" or the reclassification of steel and concrete hotels into "scenery"), it should come as little surprise that the phony lava eruption and the staged pirate-show next door should bring equal glee to the ten-year olds and their parents. Add to that a certain solace Americans find in the worship of technology, even technology at this infantle level, and the Strip begins to make sense." (pp. 65-66)
In the article by Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Enquirer about the new fall TV lineup she points out that a couple of new shows like Pan Am and The Playboy Club are "set in the 'Mad Men' era of the early 1960s." Her article is gender related; she ends it with this: "Maybe TV, worried as the rest of us about staying employed, grows wistful for a world in which men are men and women are, well, girls."
Perhaps not only are we missing what was good about those days in male/female relationships (appropriate masculinity/femininity got thrown out with the bathwater of inequality), but we are missing that adults were adults and children were children. Mothers used to wear high heels and stockings-- their daughters? Lace socks and Mary Janes. Now we all run around in tennis shoes in an ever present overly friendly casualness that erodes respect. All the roles and lines of behavior are blurred; it adds to the confusion. I suspect it is part of what keeps us all feeling off balance. We may be hiding behind this new eternal childishness however, since responsibility is expected of grown ups. And as Jerry Seinfeld asked, "Who wants to be responsible?"
At some point we need to wake up and take a good look around. Whose fault is it if we can't read? Our first grade teacher's? ANY teacher's? How many parents have we seen interviewed who can't figure out their child's obesity, yet do all the purchasing of food for the household? How many hours do we think it's okay to spend in front of the TV? Are we depending on someone else to inform us? Care for our health? Educate us? We seem determined to pass responsibility for our lives off to others. At some point we may decide we don't like it that way, but it will be too late.
How many adults blame their ignorance on the fact that they didn't have an opportunity to go to college? Here's what Ray Bradbury had to say about that: "I spent three days a week for 10 years educating myself in the public library, and it's better than college. People should educate themselves - you can get a complete education for no money. At the end of 10 years, I had read every book in the library and I'd written a thousand stories." History is full of disadvantaged men and women who taught themselves complicated subjects like Latin and calculus, who solved problems and invented things. But if we aren't valuing history and reading biographies, how are we going to realize that? In this information age with so many resources available it is hard to watch people waste their health, minds, and opportunities. Whatever larger forces are at work (and Hedges covers them well) we are responsible; we are complicit in allowing things to continue the way they are.
Changing all that sounds like a lot of work.
Just as Plato feared, maybe we do prefer the flickering images after all.
You make a good, yet somewhat depressing, point (your forte! ;)) about the rescuers of the motorcyclist. Another indication of our shortened attention spans and short sighted vision. We see glimpses of hope but as you indicate they are disconnected and short lived. Hoping to extend it long enough to make any real difference in the culture may be like Elvis asking "Why Can't Everyday Be Like Christmas?"
"They live in the eternal present." Think how popular this kind of thinking has become over the last few years. How many times have we heard "Live in the moment" repeated by talk show hosts and pop psychologists? While in a spiritual context it is beneficial (when balanced with recognizing that we are momentary inhabitors of a section of history and that our actions have consequences), it has become the clarion call of a people who have no historical framework through which to view current events and no concern for the future and little for our descendants. A case could even be made that as more people decide not to have children for a variety of reasons, the link to the future and cause to be concerned about it is lessened still more. All that matters is right here, right now. This is the demanding self-centered thinking of a small child. We are perpetually selling our birthright of freedom, literacy, and critical thinking for the cultural stew of celebrity worship, entertainment, and fleeting amusements.
I'd add to all the obstacles to finding solutions for our current predicament that you've named, a certain mindlessness that we are all familiar with. We click links from one site to another and realize an hour later we have read nothing substantial. We eat mindlessly in front of the television, numbing ourselves with food paying no attention to the quantity we are eating (or watching) until we reach the bottom of an empty bag. Any mother will be familiar with looking around the room where she's been watching cartoons only to realize that her children left at some point to find something more interesting to do. While I would say that the "Live in the moment" mantra, which gives little thought to how our current actions may affect a rapidly approaching future, is dangerous, I would say that learning to be conscious in the moment might be quite enlightening. We cannot get a hold of the culture until we get a hold of ourselves. Lots of shaking will be necessary.
The literacy statistics found in this book and elsewhere are staggering. We've lost more than our ability to read and understand complex written material. We have lost our ability to think. We take in information, filtered by our already strongly held premises, and fortify our strongholds of illusion. We choose our friends, news channels, and reading material, on the basis of whether or not we can remained unchallenged in our positions. We brush away conflicting views, and become angry instead of curious when a contrary opinion is presented. Are our beliefs so fragile and ill thought out that we cannot bear discussion? We let our emotions rule our thought process and become reactive instead of reflective. The new illiteracy is worse than not being able to read a paper or decipher a lease; we have lost the ability to understand the predicament we are in. We know if we cannot read a street sign and know that we should be embarrassed, but we may not recognize at all that we have lost our ability to comprehend. We can easily find legions of other non-understanders to comfort us in our shallow thinking. Truly challenging problems seem to be increasingly framed in ever simplistic terms as Hedges points out. When all else fails the conspiracy theorists allow us to feel superior in our delusions since everyone else cannot see what is so obvious. What they have, oh-so-cleverly, figured out. Any serious issues or inconsistencies are simply swept away with "That's just what they want you to think." Reason is rendered useless.
You are correct when you say "We have given ourselves passes on too much." We are living in the land of irresponsibility. An endless childhood ("induced childishness"). Think of how many adults you have heard say something about how they don't want to grow up, and adolescence now seems to last until thirty. Hedges quotes Marc Cooper's book, The Last Honest Place in America:
"In a television-marinated society in which the boundaries between childhood and adulthood have been blurred if not erased, increasingly and dismayingly, children and adults dress the same, eat the same, and often talk the same, where they certainly endlessly watch the same TV shows, where simulation is often valued over authenticity (look no further than the acrobatic contrivances of so-called "reality TV" or the reclassification of steel and concrete hotels into "scenery"), it should come as little surprise that the phony lava eruption and the staged pirate-show next door should bring equal glee to the ten-year olds and their parents. Add to that a certain solace Americans find in the worship of technology, even technology at this infantle level, and the Strip begins to make sense." (pp. 65-66)
In the article by Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Enquirer about the new fall TV lineup she points out that a couple of new shows like Pan Am and The Playboy Club are "set in the 'Mad Men' era of the early 1960s." Her article is gender related; she ends it with this: "Maybe TV, worried as the rest of us about staying employed, grows wistful for a world in which men are men and women are, well, girls."
Perhaps not only are we missing what was good about those days in male/female relationships (appropriate masculinity/femininity got thrown out with the bathwater of inequality), but we are missing that adults were adults and children were children. Mothers used to wear high heels and stockings-- their daughters? Lace socks and Mary Janes. Now we all run around in tennis shoes in an ever present overly friendly casualness that erodes respect. All the roles and lines of behavior are blurred; it adds to the confusion. I suspect it is part of what keeps us all feeling off balance. We may be hiding behind this new eternal childishness however, since responsibility is expected of grown ups. And as Jerry Seinfeld asked, "Who wants to be responsible?"
At some point we need to wake up and take a good look around. Whose fault is it if we can't read? Our first grade teacher's? ANY teacher's? How many parents have we seen interviewed who can't figure out their child's obesity, yet do all the purchasing of food for the household? How many hours do we think it's okay to spend in front of the TV? Are we depending on someone else to inform us? Care for our health? Educate us? We seem determined to pass responsibility for our lives off to others. At some point we may decide we don't like it that way, but it will be too late.
How many adults blame their ignorance on the fact that they didn't have an opportunity to go to college? Here's what Ray Bradbury had to say about that: "I spent three days a week for 10 years educating myself in the public library, and it's better than college. People should educate themselves - you can get a complete education for no money. At the end of 10 years, I had read every book in the library and I'd written a thousand stories." History is full of disadvantaged men and women who taught themselves complicated subjects like Latin and calculus, who solved problems and invented things. But if we aren't valuing history and reading biographies, how are we going to realize that? In this information age with so many resources available it is hard to watch people waste their health, minds, and opportunities. Whatever larger forces are at work (and Hedges covers them well) we are responsible; we are complicit in allowing things to continue the way they are.
Changing all that sounds like a lot of work.
Just as Plato feared, maybe we do prefer the flickering images after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
