Clicking your fingers for a gothic twilight
Matthew King
: [1] Notice how "gothic" then shifts from the object to the subject of
: revival; the gothic is about reclamation, because that's what the Gothic
: Revival was about--but the Gothic Revival was about reclaiming the
: *gothic*.
Anyway, here's the a.g. FAQ on the matter: "Many of the new Goth followers
were introspective too. Some were a bit confused by the label and started
to think that the label Goth was in some way connected with the Victorian
Gothic revival and Gothic horror and because enough of them thought that
eventually it became true."
Matthew
-Matthew-King---"I-tried-to-tell-her-about-Marx-and-Engels------------
-Toronto---------God-and-angels-I-don't-really-know-what-for----------
-Canada----------but-she-looked-good-in-ribbons"-The-Sisters-of-Mercy-
Matthew King
supersedes swept through the overgrown alt.gothic woods, John Everett
wrote:
>> ... lo and behold, the Sisters have been making
>> fun of the goths since 1982 (or whatever). [Said Matthew.]
>
> Asumming the targets of "Floorshow", and "Anaconda", and "Alice", (or
> The March Violet's "Radiant Boys" and "BonBon Babies") were goths, and
> not just clubkids and artfags.
I think that if you follow the etymology of the word "goth", as either a
noun or an adjective, it has more to do with clubkids than it does with
anything you or Albatross or Ruskin would want to call "gothic". Which is,
of course, why Eldritch (like all the icons of goth music, as far as I'm
aware) has always wanted nothing to do with "goth".
Someone--Lester Bangs or somebody like that--once said that rock 'n' roll
went to hell when it lost the "roll" and became just plain rock. In my
teen years, I listened to not much but the Beatles, so they provide a
handy reference point for me in that regard: when you get to the end of
Sgt. Pepper and you hear Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - Reprise,
you know the page has been turned. I wasn't there, and it's harder to
trace, but I imagine something similar happened when "gothic" turned into
"goth".
According to the very thin evidence on Pete Scathe's History of Goth page,
that occurred sometime around 1982 or 1983, when Ian Astbury took to
calling Andi Sex Gang "the Gothic Goblin" and/or "Count Visigoth" (by
another account, I'm told, "the Gothic Pixie"), and the Sex Gang
Children's fans "goths"; a writer from NME picked it up from him, and it
took. A certain kind of music--Joy Division, Siouxsie, Bauhaus, at
least--had been called "gothic" for some four or five years prior to that
(and Scathe also notes Bowie calling Diamond Dogs "gothic" in 1974, musing
that his use of the word might have prompted later ones; he further pulls
a passage from a 1978 NME review of Siouxsie that refers to the Doors as
"gothic rock architects"--so what do you make of that?), but the word
"goth" was originally applied to the fans.
And what was the essential thing about the fans? Was it their devotion to
the music, or was it their distinctive freakish fashion? I don't know, but
while I couldn't back it up, I certainly suspect it was the latter. And if
it *was* the latter, then a "goth" really is just someone whose fashion
sense is governed by shades of death and sex, and "goth music" really is
whatever the "goths" happen to be listening to.
And if that's the case, then it isn't false advertising when they say
"goth" and give you VNV Nation--not only is VNV what the clubkids (at whom
the flyers are directed, obviously) mean when they say "goth", but the
history of the word "goth" dictates that "goth music" is just whatever
"goths" listen to. On the other hand, it is most assuredly false
advertising when VNV is called "gothic rock", as they actually were in a
Toronto paper's listings the last time they were here.
But then, you likely never will see "gothic" on a flyer for a night
featuring gothic music from the days before goth, because, as we all know
around here, only a klooless newbie says "gothic". (This despite the fact
that here is alt.gothic. Not alt.goth. As far as I can tell, btw, no
online history of alt.gothic exists; the alt.gothic FAQ is an FAQ about
goth. How it came to pass that a bunch of goths and assorted associated
rabble started yammering at each other on alt.gothic is a total mystery to
me.)
Anyway: I don't think Albatross's argument, that you can nail down the
meaning of "goth" because
> the term _goth_ is short for _gothic_
and
> _gothic_ is a real live adjective that does not have an infinitely
> elastic set of meanings,
works. "Goth" wasn't just short for "gothic"; it was a nick-name for a
certain kind of people who liked a certain kind of gothic music. (Think
about this: If John Everett had been hanging around Brixton in 1982, he
might have liked the Sex Gang Children, but would he have been one of the
people Ian Astbury was referring to as Andi Sex Gang's little goths? I
doubt it.)
Moreover, the term "gothic" itself may not be infinitely elastic, but it's
hardly rigid. The Gothic tribes that conquered Rome were considered
barbaric; a certain style of art and architecture that arose in the Middle
Ages was considered barbaric, and so it was called gothic. That style was
revived in the architecture of Victorian England, so the Victorian age
also came to be thought of as gothic. The Romantic movement gave birth to
forms of literature that took up barbaric themes; the latter too were
called gothic, and their mother is almost considered gothic by
association.
So what does "gothic" mean in relation to music? When John Everett talks
here about "gothic", what he takes it to mean, more than
anything--inspired principally by the Victorian Gothic Revival and its
prophet John Ruskin--is the reclamation of the styles of the past [1].
Hence what's gothic about the gothic music of the late '70s and early '80s
is that it revived rock after rock had been submerged by disco, perhaps
also had degenerated in punk [2]. And if the lyrics of bands like New
Model Army are explicitly concerned with a lost past, whether its revival
be a hopeless cause or not, so much the better [3].
Albatross, on the other hand, says that
> isolation is a central feature of gothic. [...] Gothic, as an adjective
> and a psychic state, roughly coorelates to isolation in space and
> dissolution through time.
What this means in relation to music, I don't really know. Again, it
clearly can be the subject matter of lyrics, but there's no reason to
expect those lyrics to be set to music that's anything like that of the
prototypical gothic rock bands. Can you paint a musical picture of
isolation and dissolution? Well, you can certainly try, but you're just as
likely to come up with Stravinsky or Schoenberg or industrial noise as you
are to come up with Joy Division or Bauhaus or the early Sisters.
Notice also the equivocal role played by dissolution--or decadence, to use
Everett's term--in relation to gothic. Anyone who follows Everett's posts
for a while is bound to be struck by an apparent contradiction: on one
hand, he claims to identify with decadents like Wilde; on the other hand,
he freely dispenses ostensibly fundamentalist Christian sexual morality.
What gives? With him particularly, I don't know, but it does point to a
similar contradiction more generally evident in the goth/ic scene: there
are those who play their decadence straight up, and there are those who
play it ironically. Do I wear black on the outside because black is how I
feel on the inside, or do I wear black in protest against a colourless
world--because black and white are the depth and the peak of colour? (How
terribly serious-sounding, I know, but seriously--why *do* I?)
For Nietzsche, the critique of decadence was always self-critique. His was
a decadent age, as he saw it; he was, then, inevitably a decadent himself.
He railed against the disease of his culture, all the while mindful that
he was himself--his railing was itself--another symptom. Such, perhaps, is
the gothic, as much as anything is the gothic.
--------
[1] Notice how "gothic" then shifts from the object to the subject of
revival; the gothic is about reclamation, because that's what the Gothic
Revival was about--but the Gothic Revival was about reclaiming the
*gothic*.
[2] I have to say I have a hard time buying this theory, given that, in
the mid-'70s, people like the Ramones and Iggy Pop were making music about
as rock as rock gets. And the New Model Army example raises a problem: NMA
doesn't sound much like the early gothic bands, or like anything that has
been called "goth" since--but the goths took to them, and their lyrics
are, by Everett's measure, certifiably gothic. But then, by another
measure, so are any lyrics inspired by the offspring of Dracula. Goths, as
we all know, are not vampyres, but vampires are undeniably gothic.
[3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
together again.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Notice also the equivocal role played by dissolution--or decadence, to use
: Everett's term--in relation to gothic. Anyone who follows Everett's posts
: for a while is bound to be struck by an apparent contradiction: on one
: hand, he claims to identify with decadents like Wilde; on the other hand,
: he freely dispenses ostensibly fundamentalist Christian sexual morality.
: What gives?
I can't speak for Mr. Everett.
But for me, it's all about a place where sex, death, spirituality and
alienation converge. Along with nineteenth century poetry in English and
French, my other and odder reading habit is seventeenth century divinity
and devotional literature. There was back then a positive cult of
melancholia, and an attractive belief that meditating on death makes you a
better person. I find this attractive, not in the least because its
Puritan value system becomes positively countercultural the more society
becomes saturated with commercialism, even as I can understand why those
who affirm life might find it oppressive.
I have not listened to much New Model Army. With a name like that, they
sound relatively well informed about the seventeenth century.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ NOLI Quam belli cothurni! ABDUCI +
+ Ceterum censeo sedem Romanam esse delendam. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Neal Stanifer
>
> Back in the "Has goth changed?" thread, before the renewing fires of
> supersedes swept through the overgrown alt.gothic woods, John Everett
> wrote:
>
> >> ... lo and behold, the Sisters have been making
> >> fun of the goths since 1982 (or whatever). [Said Matthew.]
> >
> > Asumming the targets of "Floorshow", and "Anaconda", and "Alice", (or
> > The March Violet's "Radiant Boys" and "BonBon Babies") were goths, and
> > not just clubkids and artfags.
>
> I think that if you follow the etymology of the word "goth", as either a
> noun or an adjective, it has more to do with clubkids than it does with
> anything you or Albatross or Ruskin would want to call "gothic". Which is,
> of course, why Eldritch (like all the icons of goth music, as far as I'm
> aware) has always wanted nothing to do with "goth".
Eldritch's objection could also have come from a resistance to being
placed into the ghetto of a presumably shortlived "scene." Popular
music is rife with this sort of thing, and has been so for several
decades. And as savvy a person as Eldritch is (whatever one might say
about his personal integrity) would probably be well advised to steer
clear of such marketing tactics as have felled better (and more popular)
musicians once their scene's star had set.
Or -- hell -- he might even have been sincere when he said, "Too much
contact, not enough feeling." Maybe he was looking for something purer
than what goth had to offer. If so, good luck to him.
>
> Someone--Lester Bangs or somebody like that--once said that rock 'n' roll
> went to hell when it lost the "roll" and became just plain rock. In my
> teen years, I listened to not much but the Beatles, so they provide a
> handy reference point for me in that regard: when you get to the end of
> Sgt. Pepper and you hear Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - Reprise,
> you know the page has been turned. I wasn't there, and it's harder to
> trace, but I imagine something similar happened when "gothic" turned into
> "goth".
I think I missed Gothic turning into Goth. I flowed into Goth like an
amoeba out of the political disillusionments of Punk. I don't think I
ever confused Gothic with Goth, even if I wished there were more overlap
than there actually was. Hell, when I find a Goth who can hold forth on
Maturin, or Walpole, or Copper, I'm delighted. And if I find a Goth who
has formulated a novel approach to the problem of how many "monsters"
there are in Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_, I'm fit to be tied and
bled. But my earliest Goth memories are club memories, concert
memories, and scene memories. They don't involve anything I would
describe as Gothic. Then again, my experiences are limited to Los
Angeles and its extended environs, so YMMV.
>
> According to the very thin evidence on Pete Scathe's History of Goth page,
> that occurred sometime around 1982 or 1983, when Ian Astbury took to
> calling Andi Sex Gang "the Gothic Goblin" and/or "Count Visigoth" (by
> another account, I'm told, "the Gothic Pixie"), and the Sex Gang
> Children's fans "goths"; a writer from NME picked it up from him, and it
> took. A certain kind of music--Joy Division, Siouxsie, Bauhaus, at
> least--had been called "gothic" for some four or five years prior to that
> (and Scathe also notes Bowie calling Diamond Dogs "gothic" in 1974, musing
> that his use of the word might have prompted later ones; he further pulls
> a passage from a 1978 NME review of Siouxsie that refers to the Doors as
> "gothic rock architects"--so what do you make of that?), but the word
> "goth" was originally applied to the fans.
I think it's appropriate that "goths" have always been the fans, while
"gothic" is reserved for some few musical accomplishments. Sort of
makes sense, doesn't it? Barbarian hordes, impressive architectural
achievements.
On another note, the inclusion of "Diamond Dogs" and the Doors as
fundaments of Gothic speaks to the controlling power of mood as the
motive force behind the scene (even if I'd be more likely to brand
"Scary Monsters" as Bowie's most gothic album). Anyone comparing
"Candidate" or "We Are the Dead" with "Riders on the Storm" or "Cars
Hiss By My Window" might note a superficial similarity of tone and mood,
and I'm not sure Gothic (or Goth) has ever gone much further distant
from Pop than could be accounted for by superficial changes of mood. If
it had, it would be a standout in the postmodern history of popular
music.
On the other hand, if the term "gothic" were to be applied structurally,
I can't think of any way in which the Doors approach Bowie on an
architectural level. Bowie tended to produce concept albums with some
pop-tune abberations. The Doors never went in for that, preferring to
craft blues-rock stand-alones. Bowie's albums, for a while (and lately)
drew strength and interest from his careful crafting of stories told in
disjunctive bits. In this sense, "Diamond Dogs" is second only to
"Outside" in its respect for the storytelling power of popular music.
>
> And what was the essential thing about the fans? Was it their devotion to
> the music, or was it their distinctive freakish fashion? I don't know, but
> while I couldn't back it up, I certainly suspect it was the latter. And if
> it *was* the latter, then a "goth" really is just someone whose fashion
> sense is governed by shades of death and sex, and "goth music" really is
> whatever the "goths" happen to be listening to.
Yes and no. While I tend (I think) to be more inclusive than John,
classifying as "goth" individual songs from artists as diverse as Peter
Murphy and Hank Williams, Sr., I think this is because I judge "goth" by
the mood it evokes in me, and this is hardly a translatable aesthetic
theory. From his posts, I tend to suspect John has firmer criteria
which he has chosen not to divulge.
But in another sense, one cannot simply say that "goth music" is
whatever "goths" happen to be listening to, if for no other reason than
the matter of canon-formation. While individual goths may quibble over
whether to include Murphy and Bauhaus, Eldritch and SOM, or even the
Damned, there is certainly a canon of gothic music. If gothic music
were all about death and sex, then certain of Siouxsie's songs would be
no more gothic than the oeuvre of -- say -- Britney Spears.
"Stargazer," for example, is one of the least death-and-sex songs I can
think of, as is "Kiss Them For Me." Even "Peek-a-Boo," despite its
wierdness and novelty, is hardly death-and-sex.
But then, one of the things you're contending with here is the fact that
a great many older goths have experienced enough of the massification of
popular music to have developed strategies of resistance to it. They
listen to what they like, they insert it into their lives, and they
legitimize it in a variety of ways, including (in my case) throwing
Patsy Cline into an otherwise traditionally goth song set as an Ironic
turn.
So we're back once more to the veneer. And here, I think, is the
salvatory element in Goth. A bunch of weirdos can get together in
makeup, facial piercings, and Nice Boots (tm), or no makeup, no facial
piercings, and Nice Shoes, and (while the rest of the world assumes they
are kidnapping, sodomizing, and sacrificing infants) can dance to a song
which has less to do with things Gothic than "(Hit Me) Baby, One More
Time." And if those same goths were to actually dance to a Britney
Spears song, while that song would never run the economic risk of
becoming "goth," those goths might actually be assumed to be doing
something somehow Ironic.
So in a sense, I think Goth is one of the few subcultures which has come
along in twenty years which exhibits the potential to train its
adherants in modes of resistance to cultural massification and economic
manipulation. Or in other words, goths can become comfortable with
whatever they listen to, knowing that they aren't obliged to follow a
"party line" which dictates what is and isn't cool. This was why I fell
in love with Punk, and consequently why I abandoned it, and this is why
I have been a Goth since about 1980.
>
> And if that's the case, then it isn't false advertising when they say
> "goth" and give you VNV Nation--not only is VNV what the clubkids (at whom
> the flyers are directed, obviously) mean when they say "goth",
Massification, and a predictable breed of such, at that. (1) Identify
niche market; (2) target niche market with trendy communique (fliers, if
possible); (3) downplay the absence at concert of older goths, prefering
instead to upsell the wonderful "youth-oriented" nature of the music.
Hell, it's worked for pop music since at least the 70's; why stop now?
> but the
> history of the word "goth" dictates that "goth music" is just whatever
> "goths" listen to. On the other hand, it is most assuredly false
> advertising when VNV is called "gothic rock", as they actually were in a
> Toronto paper's listings the last time they were here.
You're wrestling with two distinct concepts. Why? Can't you synthesize
them?
<snip>
>
> Anyway: I don't think Albatross's argument, that you can nail down the
> meaning of "goth" because
>
> > the term _goth_ is short for _gothic_
>
> and
>
> > _gothic_ is a real live adjective that does not have an infinitely
> > elastic set of meanings,
>
> works. "Goth" wasn't just short for "gothic"; it was a nick-name for a
> certain kind of people who liked a certain kind of gothic music. (Think
> about this: If John Everett had been hanging around Brixton in 1982, he
> might have liked the Sex Gang Children, but would he have been one of the
> people Ian Astbury was referring to as Andi Sex Gang's little goths? I
> doubt it.)
I'm assuming John has the advantage of acquiring his musical tastes at a
distance from the scene. I could be wrong, of course, but there it is.
And I think you may be placing too much weight on the obviously catty
invective of a handful of music critics. As if music critics had ever
been well-known for their prescience.
>
> Moreover, the term "gothic" itself may not be infinitely elastic, but it's
> hardly rigid. The Gothic tribes that conquered Rome were considered
> barbaric; a certain style of art and architecture that arose in the Middle
> Ages was considered barbaric, and so it was called gothic. That style was
> revived in the architecture of Victorian England, so the Victorian age
> also came to be thought of as gothic.
Not so. Certain architectural movements in the Victorian Age were
neo-gothic precisely because they sought to anachronistically revive a
dead architecture. This sounds like a quibble, but it's important.
Most of the Victorian Age was characterized (at least in our history
books) by the devotion to what was "proper, pleasing, and placid."
> The Romantic movement gave birth to
> forms of literature that took up barbaric themes; the latter too were
> called gothic,
Not barbaric themes. Themes concerning the "gothic" past. There is a
difference. Themes which drew upon and answered a "gothic" sense of
authority and majesty. This, too, is important. Most of what was
"gothic" in literature contested the notion that established
institutions (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc.) had some kind of
imprimatur on truth.
> and their mother is almost considered gothic by
> association.
Romantic and Gothic are not the same thing, at least in literature.
>
> So what does "gothic" mean in relation to music? When John Everett talks
> here about "gothic", what he takes it to mean, more than
> anything--inspired principally by the Victorian Gothic Revival and its
> prophet John Ruskin--is the reclamation of the styles of the past [1].
> Hence what's gothic about the gothic music of the late '70s and early '80s
> is that it revived rock after rock had been submerged by disco, perhaps
> also had degenerated in punk [2]. And if the lyrics of bands like New
> Model Army are explicitly concerned with a lost past, whether its revival
> be a hopeless cause or not, so much the better [3].
>
> Albatross, on the other hand, says that
>
> > isolation is a central feature of gothic. [...] Gothic, as an adjective
> > and a psychic state, roughly coorelates to isolation in space and
> > dissolution through time.
This could be better described as generally postmodern.
>
> What this means in relation to music, I don't really know. Again, it
> clearly can be the subject matter of lyrics, but there's no reason to
> expect those lyrics to be set to music that's anything like that of the
> prototypical gothic rock bands. Can you paint a musical picture of
> isolation and dissolution? Well, you can certainly try, but you're just as
> likely to come up with Stravinsky or Schoenberg or industrial noise as you
> are to come up with Joy Division or Bauhaus or the early Sisters.
This is probably why many Goths have in their music collections CDs by
Joy Division, Bauhaus, Sisters, New Model Army, Stravinsky, Schoenberg,
and a bunch of industrial noise. Not because they are traitors to the
cause, but because they are the best judges of what constitutes "gothic"
music. I would venture to say that they are certainly better judges
than some hack from NME, or even Tacitus.
>
> Notice also the equivocal role played by dissolution--or decadence, to use
> Everett's term--in relation to gothic. Anyone who follows Everett's posts
> for a while is bound to be struck by an apparent contradiction: on one
> hand, he claims to identify with decadents like Wilde; on the other hand,
> he freely dispenses ostensibly fundamentalist Christian sexual morality.
I took this to be John's attempt at Irony (tm). John's goal seems to be
to shake things up, to make people think of things from a radically new
perspective. I have no problems with this, however much we disagree.
John is obviously someone who has passionate opinions about what is and
is not gothic, and also someone who wants desperately to snap into
pieces the current dogma concerning sexuality and interpersonal
relationships. Is he wrong? I don't know.
But to conflate his pro-male position with a necessarily fundamentalist
Christian dogma is, I think, shortsighted and indicative of precisely
the mindset he criticizes. For at least the past twenty years, straight
white males have been taking one of the most arduous ideological
beatings in history. Perhaps (and I have no way of knowing the truth of
this) John thinks this has gone on long enough, or perhaps he thinks it
has reached a point of saturation (a view I would agree with), and he is
asking you to consider the source of your views on sexuality.
> What gives? With him particularly, I don't know, but it does point to a
> similar contradiction more generally evident in the goth/ic scene: there
> are those who play their decadence straight up, and there are those who
> play it ironically. Do I wear black on the outside because black is how I
> feel on the inside, or do I wear black in protest against a colourless
> world--because black and white are the depth and the peak of colour?
Or do I wear black because that's the color I was told to wear by the
guy who wouldn't let me into the club? Even an ironic subculture
ostensibly dedicated to shaking up the socio-political economic
situation has its modes of dissemination, its modes of production, and
its modes of consumption. Read your Marxists... You know, that
Horkadornaleuze fella. Why would Goth be exempt from the established
modes of production, dissemination, and consumption simply because a few
of its adherants were arrogant enough to think they were something new
under the sun?
> (How
> terribly serious-sounding, I know, but seriously--why *do* I?)
Couldn't tell ya. Have you visited your Therapist (tm)?
>
> For Nietzsche, the critique of decadence was always self-critique. His was
> a decadent age, as he saw it;
Who hasn't seen his own age as a decadent age?
> he was, then, inevitably a decadent himself.
> He railed against the disease of his culture, all the while mindful that
> he was himself--his railing was itself--another symptom. Such, perhaps, is
> the gothic, as much as anything is the gothic.
Or not.
>
> --------
>
> [1] Notice how "gothic" then shifts from the object to the subject of
> revival; the gothic is about reclamation, because that's what the Gothic
> Revival was about--but the Gothic Revival was about reclaiming the
> *gothic*.
There are many usages of "gothic," and they are hardly coterminous. For
example, the neo-gothic revival in architecture has little or nothing to
do with gothic literature, which in turn has nothing whatsoever to do
with what you describe as "gothic" music. The happy accident that the
music of Andi Sex Gang and March Violets appealed to folks who had read
some "gothic" literature probably does more to place Gothic into the
realm of high culture than it does to clarify a governing aesthetic.
>
> [2] I have to say I have a hard time buying this theory, given that, in
> the mid-'70s, people like the Ramones and Iggy Pop were making music about
> as rock as rock gets. And the New Model Army example raises a problem: NMA
> doesn't sound much like the early gothic bands, or like anything that has
> been called "goth" since--but the goths took to them, and their lyrics
> are, by Everett's measure, certifiably gothic. But then, by another
> measure, so are any lyrics inspired by the offspring of Dracula. Goths, as
> we all know, are not vampyres, but vampires are undeniably gothic.
As far as I've seen on here, John has not clarified his aesthetic
theories concerning what does and does not constitute "gothic" music.
Thus, your assumptions about lyrical content are anecdotal, at best.
>
> [3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
> with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
> moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
> modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
> the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
> together again.
This is an evocative and attractive statement. What does it mean? Are
you saying that the gothics are somehow the next step beyond the
postmoderns? Perhaps the postpostmoderns? And here all this time I
thought they were one of the strongest proofs of the postmoderns.
Veneer, veneer, veneer. Or the precession of simulacra. Or the
collapse of the grand narratives. Or something.
Neal
Lucid H. Dreaming
>> For Nietzsche, the critique of decadence was always self-critique. His was
>> a decadent age, as he saw it;
>
>
>Who hasn't seen his own age as a decadent age?
Polybius.
>
>Neal
?
--
In capitalism, man exploits man.
In socialism, it's exactly the opposite. -- sventhatcher
Matthew King
: >Who hasn't seen his own age as a decadent age?
:
: Polybius.
Or any liberal, by (some) definition. We're getting better all the time.
All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.
Matthew
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--
Neal Stanifer
>
> In article <3B4A5042...@igalaxy.net>, Neal Stanifer wrote:
>
> >> For Nietzsche, the critique of decadence was always self-critique. His was
> >> a decadent age, as he saw it;
> >
> >
> >Who hasn't seen his own age as a decadent age?
>
> Polybius.
Good point. I might add Norman Rockwell to begin a list, if I didn't
suspect he was slightly delusional, and I suppose Mike Brady doesn't
count because he was a fictional character.
Neal
Jennie
>I won't be satisfied with any less than a theory explaining *WHY* nice boots.
Why nice boots? Because they look sexy and fierce at the same
time, and goths won't take anything less. I don't think there's a shred of
postmodernism or irony in that one.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"Petrol bombs were P2 in the playground."
Jennie
>ever confused Gothic with Goth, even if I wished there were more overlap
>than there actually was. Hell, when I find a Goth who can hold forth on
>Maturin, or Walpole, or Copper, I'm delighted. And if I find a Goth who
>has formulated a novel approach to the problem of how many "monsters"
>there are in Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_, I'm fit to be tied and
There's always been a fair bit of overlap on this newsgroup,
though sometimes I think it may be the only such place. ;) For the
'Frankenstein' theories you shall, of course, have to wait until next
month.
>bled. But my earliest Goth memories are club memories, concert
>memories, and scene memories.
Mine are memories of velvet. Aesthetic. Textural. There's
always been some overlap there, even if most of those who use it don't
perceive it.
>I think it's appropriate that "goths" have always been the fans, while
>"gothic" is reserved for some few musical accomplishments.
From time to time I see us referred to as 'gothic fans'. I've
always felt vaguely confused and excluded by this, since I don't really
perceive myself as a fan of anything musical. I _like_ certain music a
great deal, but I don't worship it, nor those who produce it, and the
sacrifices which I would make for it are strictly limited. Maybe this
makes me shallow, but I don't think it makes me unique. ;) I do the
whole goth thing because of the people; because, more than most of the
world, it's a place where I can do what I'd be doing anyway with minimal
hassle.
>and I'm not sure Gothic (or Goth) has ever gone much further distant
>from Pop than could be accounted for by superficial changes of mood.
Perhaps so... yet it's not just goths who view that change,
superficial though it may be, as a thing of some might. Pop fans, and
members of popular mainstream culture in general, tend to react very
strongly against what they view as 'too dark'.
>Damned, there is certainly a canon of gothic music. If gothic music
>were all about death and sex, then certain of Siouxsie's songs would be
>no more gothic than the oeuvre of -- say -- Britney Spears.
>"Stargazer," for example, is one of the least death-and-sex songs I can
>think of, as is "Kiss Them For Me." Even "Peek-a-Boo," despite its
>wierdness and novelty, is hardly death-and-sex.
'Peek-a-Boo' is _anger_ and sex, which perhaps comes somewhere
close; certainly, Siouxsie herself has said as much about it. Perhaps
anger at sex, or at some people's approach to it, brings us closer to
sex-and-death.
>Time." And if those same goths were to actually dance to a Britney
>Spears song, while that song would never run the economic risk of
>becoming "goth," those goths might actually be assumed to be doing
>something somehow Ironic.
They may very well be doing something Ironic, but it'd still be
a bit shite, wouldn't it? Fucking 'nineties popular poison. Sure, we can
do Irony, but we _don't_ _have_ _to_.
Heh.
Tetsab
> Eldritch's objection could also have come from a resistance to being
> placed into the ghetto of a presumably shortlived "scene."
What was he worried about being shortlived about? He killed himself off!
[and now he misses out on the Gotham cash-grabs]. ;P ;P ;P
> (whatever one might say about his personal integrity)
Wot? That trying to keep his has cost him the Love of the Goths? ;P
> probably be well advised to steer clear of such marketing tactics
> as have felled better (and more popular) musicians
Well, he's seen the best of men go past; he doesn't want to be the last.
> "Too much contact, not enough feeling."
"Not enough sunshine too much rain!"
> But my earliest Goth memories are club memories, concert memories,
> memories, and scene memories.
Thanks for handily illustrating the point of the original post. :)
> While I tend (I think) to be more inclusive than John, classifying as
> "goth" individual songs from artists as diverse as Peter Murphy and
> Hank Williams, Sr., I think this is because I judge "goth" by the mood
> it evokes in me, and this is hardly a translatable aesthetic theory.
Now. If you think it's appropriate that goths have always been the fans,
while "gothic" is reserved for some few musical accomplishments. Why are
you confusing the matter by calling songs "goth"?
> But in another sense, one cannot simply say that "goth music" is
> whatever "goths" happen to be listening to, if for no other reason
> than the matter of canon-formation.
I don't believe the statement has wide reaching an impact as that. I
think it just means I have to shut my cake hole rather than whine when I
go into a club proclaiming itself to be Goth wanting March Violets and
getting Apoptygama Berzerk [goth keeps going 'cause it keeps growing..]
[and by extension... that if the club claims to play Goth(ic) Rock and
then gives me Apop *then* I can pull out the barbarity (but that if I go
to a club that says it plays gothic music and they give me Schoenberg
followed by some Industrial Noise I also can't complain... at least if
we're running of the "isolation & dissolution" definition of gothic...)]
It's all perfectly clear now... ;)
> While individual goths may quibble over whether to include Murphy and
> Bauhaus, Eldritch and SOM, or even the Damned, there is certainly a
> canon of gothic music.
Gothic music, goth music, or Gothic Rock? ;P
> If gothic music were all about death and sex
Did someone say that it is?
> one of the things you're contending with here is the fact that a great
> many older goths have experienced enough of the massification of
> popular music to have developed strategies of resistance to it.
What prompted you to say this?
> They listen to what they like, they insert it into their lives,
Sounds suspiciously like what younger goths do...
> and they legitimize it in a variety of ways
Legitimize it.. I thought we were just talking about what we like here.
I've said I like Simon and Garfunkel in the past here.. there's always
someone out there who seems to want to 'legitimize' it as gothic for me.
How very kind of them!
> including (in my case) throwing Patsy Cline into an otherwise
> traditionally goth song set as an Ironic turn.
Do ya'll follow it with some Alanis?
> if those same goths were to actually dance to a Britney Spears song,
> while that song would never run the economic risk of becoming "goth,"
Wot? You don't you know about that sugar pop band The Cure? ;P
> So in a sense, I think Goth is one of the few subcultures which has
> come along in twenty years which exhibits the potential to train its
> adherants in modes of resistance to cultural massification and
> economic manipulation.
But! But! What about that Horkadornaleuze fella!?!
[must be one dem dar 'inner contradictions of the text' thingmees..]
> goths can become comfortable with whatever they listen to, knowing
> that they aren't obliged to follow a "party line" which dictates what
> is and isn't cool.
Anyone who reads this group for longer than ten minutes knows that the
*real* Party Line is to aggressively claim that they listen to more than
just goth [oh, and btw, SOM suck].
Just check the reaction when some random Newbie pops up and remarks
about how proud they are that they listen to More Than Just Goth... A
pile of people will respond with a grandiose Me Too closely followed by
"anyone who listens to just goth music is a close-minded moron".
[The best is when the above gets to the legitimizing stage and people
start to explain in jest or mild+ seriousness how the Non-goth they just
listed 'is actually purty gothic if ya think about it because...']
It's a fun party. And kindly don't think that I'm not part of it. Simon
and Garfunkel, non?
> > the history of the word "goth" dictates that "goth music" is just
> > whatever "goths" listen to. On the other hand, it is most assuredly
> > false advertising when VNV is called "gothic rock", as they actually
> > were in a Toronto paper's listings the last time they were here.
> You're wrestling with two distinct concepts. Why? Can't you
> synthesize them?
::blink::
What two distinct concepts are being wrestled with? Goth and gothic?
[when the point of the post was their seperation]
> >"Goth" wasn't just short for "gothic"; it was a nick-name for a
> > certain kind of people who liked a certain kind of gothic music.
> I'm assuming John has the advantage of acquiring his musical tastes at
> a distance from the scene.
Heh.
http://jeverett0902.tripod.com/images/89-hallo.jpg
> And I think you may be placing too much weight on the obviously catty
> invective of a handful of music critics.
Er.
But just a few paragraphs ago you liked this whole 'goth' for the fans
'gothic' for the music thing.
> > That style was revived in the architecture of Victorian England, so
> > the Victorian age also came to be thought of as gothic.
> Certain architectural movements in the [VA] were neo-gothic precisely
> because they sought to anachronistically revive a dead architecture.
So the Victorian Age is *not* thought of popularly as gothic(y)?
> > and their mother is almost considered gothic by association.
> Romantic and Gothic are not the same thing, at least in literature.
Why does what they're considered to be in literature matter...
I want my veneer! <stamps Nice Boot>
[Re: goths owning music from JD to Schoenberg to industrial noise]
> Not because they are traitors to the cause, but because they are the
> best judges of what constitutes "gothic" music.
Are you saying this to Matthew or are you Just Saying?
> to conflate his pro-male position with a necessarily fundamentalist
> Christian dogma is, I think, shortsighted and indicative of precisely
> the mindset he criticizes.
*Where* do you get this??
Matthew said that he dispenses a fundamentalist Christian sexual
morality in appearance. Y'know.. veneer.
Not much to do with the Necessary. Not much to do with dogma. AFAIK
*nothing* to do with "his pro-male position".
I guess that's what you get if you consider fundamentalist Christian
sexual morality to be necessarily pro-male. ;P
'Restraint of appetite people! ('have some kamut', 'yer a whore') <bible
quote> .. Oh by the way, Oscar Wilde <quote> is Neat-O! <NMA quote>.'
On a first glance you don't think "what gives?" .. you don't think it's
a bit funny that they'd go together? So much for dogma.
> perhaps he thinks [the ideological beating of SWM's] has reached a
> point of saturation (a view I would agree with), and he is asking you
> to consider the source of your views on sexuality.
This might be an impressive spark for another expl^H discussion...
What does the source of your views on sexuality have to do with the
ideological beating of straight, white, males?
> Even an ironic subculture ostensibly dedicated to shaking up the
> socio-political economic situation
... with their $200 PVC pants ...
[shake your bon bon (babies)] !
> Why would Goth be exempt from the established modes of production,
> dissemination, and consumption
Was someone saying it was?
Well.. there is this..
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg040999.html
> There are many usages of "gothic," and they are hardly coterminous.
Was this not covered earlier with: "the term "gothic" itself may not be
infinitely elastic, but it's hardly rigid."?
> has nothing whatsoever to do with what you describe as "gothic" music.
With what who describes as "gothic" music?
> to clarify a governing aesthetic.
Which is something only Albatross seems to have attempted around this
particular here and now.
> As far as I've seen on here, John has not clarified his aesthetic
> theories concerning what does and does not constitute "gothic" music.
Clarification... How Dull!
> Are you saying that the gothics are somehow the next step beyond the
> postmoderns? Perhaps the postpostmoderns? And here all this time I
> thought they were one of the strongest proofs of the postmoderns.
> Veneer, veneer, veneer. Or the precession of simulacra. Or the
> collapse of the grand narratives. Or something.
Well it's Very Nice that you're up on your Lyotarillard but what it
actually means is Rozz really is better than Valor.
Tetsab.
>^..^< [ow, me poor cheek]!
--
"The first [utility] is that by it goeth forth the urine, or else it
should be shed thoughout al the Vulva: The seconde is, that when a
woman does set hir thies abrode, it altereth the ayre that commeth to
the Matrix for to temper the heate." -Thomas Vicary on clitori, 1548.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Anyone who reads this group for longer than ten minutes knows that the
>*real* Party Line is to aggressively claim that they listen to more than
>just goth [oh, and btw, SOM suck].
Are you kidding?
Everything I listen to is not only cool, but also goth, because
I listen to it and for no other reason.
Except when I'm talking to PVC dogs of course in which case I wouldn't
want to give them the idea that I might want to be friends with them.
>
>Tetsab.
Panurge
mak...@yorku.ca wrote:
>Someone--Lester Bangs or somebody like that--once said that rock 'n' roll
>went to hell when it lost the "roll" and became just plain rock.
Feh. Bangs, as usual, is full of shit. But I know where he's coming
from, even if I'm not coming from the same place.
>...what was the essential thing about the fans? Was it their devotion to
>the music, or was it their distinctive freakish fashion? I don't know, but
>while I couldn't back it up, I certainly suspect it was the latter. And if
>it *was* the latter, then a "goth" really is just someone whose fashion
>sense is governed by shades of death and sex, and "goth music" really is
>whatever the "goths" happen to be listening to.
ISTR the music mags at the time describing the scene this way. This bodes
well for yours truly's Insidious Scheme To Hijack The Scene, thereby
accomplishing MY REVENGE! MWAHAHAHAAA--oops. OK, start over... By this
definition, this makes me (at least undercover) A Goth, because my fashion
sense (on those rare occasions when I indulge it fully) can certainly be
described that way.
>...what's gothic about the gothic music of the late '70s and early '80s
>is that it revived rock after rock had been submerged by disco, perhaps
>also had degenerated in punk [2].
I don't think rock was "submerged in disco", only that it had (in some
quarters) acquired the beginnings of a kind of middle-age spread. It was
also the point at which it was finally apparent that rock was becoming a
mainstream music--but so what? As far as I was concerned, that just meant
"mission accomplished." What else is "changing the world" about? There
were problems, to be sure, but great music was still being produced. And
it was extremely popular, too--it was, after all, the era of
"stadium-rock." AFAI could tell, the late Seventies were "the disco era"
mainly in the view of the mass media, who probably didn't know any
better. For me, Styx expresses what that period was about better than
Donna Summer. (OTOH, a few disco elements crept into some of the
mainstream rock albums of the time; there's four-on-the-floor drumming
even on an early Rush album or two.)
Punk and post-punk, IMHO, would've been better employed as a new set of
elements expanding the language of rock than as something new. Punk set
itself up as rejecting the past in favor of the future, but what it wound
up doing was rejecting the present in favor of the past.
Understood as beginning with the Ramones and including '70s new wave in
the Elvis Costello mode and '80s indie-rock, both of which strike me as
direct results of its emergence, punk is rock's counterfactual music.
It's *Like The Hippies Never Happened*. (OTOH, on the back end a lot of
punk and post-punk is really '70s rock that doesn't want to admit as
much. The connection becomes more explicit in the late '80s, as--for
example--it becomes OK for "alternative" rockers to wear their hair long
again.)
And what do you mean by "revival"? Say what you will about Van Halen and
the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, they did, in fact, bring _something_
new. Maybe the newness was incremental, but it was no less real for all
that, especially in the case of VH. Too many people can't see beyond VH's
RAWK lineage and party-band image, though.
>Albatross, on the other hand, says that
>
>> isolation is a central feature of gothic. [...] Gothic, as an adjective
>> and a psychic state, roughly coorelates to isolation in space and
>> dissolution through time.
>
>What this means in relation to music, I don't really know. Again, it
>clearly can be the subject matter of lyrics, but there's no reason to
>expect those lyrics to be set to music that's anything like that of the
>prototypical gothic rock bands.
OTOH, once a certain set of practices has been established, I guess that
set is taken as given. Despite your references to Stravinsky (not the
neo-classical period or _The_Firebird_, obviously) and Schoenberg, it's
plain that gothic rock is/was made by people whose musical universe was
made up almost entirely of rock'n'roll.
>Anyone who follows Everett's posts
>for a while is bound to be struck by an apparent contradiction: on one
>hand, he claims to identify with decadents like Wilde; on the other hand,
>he freely dispenses ostensibly fundamentalist Christian sexual morality.
I don't know about "Christian". "Traditionalist" seems better. But
that's a thornier question than people like John seem to think it is. It
seems beset by a sort of mirror image of what Tories used to call "the
Whig fallacy", in which the current situation is a worrisome veering off
course in the journey to an idealized Tory version of The Best Of All
Possible Worlds. The Golden Age is simply the original Utopia.
>What gives? With him particularly, I don't know, but it does point to a
>similar contradiction more generally evident in the goth/ic scene: there
>are those who play their decadence straight up, and there are those who
>play it ironically. Do I wear black on the outside because black is how I
>feel on the inside, or do I wear black in protest against a colourless
>world--because black and white are the depth and the peak of colour? (How
>terribly serious-sounding, I know, but seriously--why *do* I?)
For me, it's probably the former, though it's probably more a matter of
cheap morbidity than anything else. :-P Sure, I feel alienated, but I'm
one of those who's alienated *even from the culture that purports to speak
for the alienated*. IMNSHO, the best response to a colorless world is to
*give it some color*, already--and, of course, to support your local
providers of color.
More to the point, though, this illustrates a question which I think is
endemic to the entire post-modern condition: What is our relationship
with "playing our situations ironically", and what is that "irony"
supposed to communicate? Isn't a Decadent playing his decadence
"ironically" still a decadent in the end? What about a Neo-Square?
The "irony" of the Decadent underscores his decadence, but that of the
Neo-Square, it seems to be generally understood, under_mines_ his apparent
squareness. But is that necessarily true? Plenty of Neo-Squares seem to
understand the value of irony as a way of establishing _bona_fides_;
surely someone who outwardly represents a re-assertion of the dominant culture
publicly addressing *his own situation* in such a way
must have a well-adjusted sense of himself as possessing a healthy
humility and a certain respect for the different situations of others--or
that's apparently the message we're supposed to get. But it might just be
a flies-with-honey situation; after all, they got pretty much what they
wanted, didn't they?
>[2] I have to say I have a hard time buying this theory, given that, in
>the mid-'70s, people like the Ramones and Iggy Pop were making music about
>as rock as rock gets. And the New Model Army example raises a problem: NMA
>doesn't sound much like the early gothic bands, or like anything that has
>been called "goth" since--but the goths took to them, and their lyrics
>are, by Everett's measure, certifiably gothic.
OTOH, apparently it just didn't influence the music those fans started to
make. Maybe that's the point where "gothic rock" becomes "Goth"--where
people within the scene notice, "Hey, we've got an esthetic here", and
become inspired by that to create what they can.
>[3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
>with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
>moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
>modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
>the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
>together again.
Certain posts of his lead me to be no longer convinced of John's good
faith, but this does seem to be the gist of his argument. But tell me:
Shouldn't the pieces of modernism be among those picked up?
And what, really, do we do with the pieces once we've gathered them?
Do we stick them together as a comment on our situation?
Or do we (*just maybe*) learn from their example as a way of fixing what's
currently broken?
When something is exposed as an idol, should we destroy it or change it?
Should we change our relationship with it?
Should we employ a different metaphor?
(Could doing so allow us to use what we know about the past to fix what
might be wrong with modernism, for example?)
Anyway... What the John Everetts of the world don't seem to realize is that:
1) Traditions in the Western world aren't really meant to be static;
2) New styles and traditions have been established all through Western
history;
3) Nothing comes from nothing:
http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2001/twombly/twombly2.htm
4) "In art, it must always be as it is in spring." --Arnold Schoenberg
Another important point: There are plenty of Moderns and even Pre-Moderns
in this day and age. What about them? (Personally, I consider myself
more a Modern than anything else, but not necessarily a Modernist, someone
who rejects the past out of hand. I still believe in Progress with a
capital P, in at least some form, and I understand myself as an actor in
earnest, though, I hope, leavened with a decent degree of benevolent irony
regarding the world and what I do in it.) It seems to be conventional
wisdom that to act in intellectual good faith is necessarily to be a
Post-Modern. I'm not so sure.
What lies beyond the post-modern condition STM to involve necessarily some
recovery of earnestness and "progress", with an understanding that
"progress" doesn't necessarily lie in just one direction. It's been
suggested that there isn't such a thing as "postmodern_ism_" as much as a
"postmodern condition", as in "Romantic" and "post-Romantic". Can there
be a "neo-Modernism" that's learned the lessons it needs to learn without
sliding into reaction? Maybe those are questions the Goth scene can
answer, in its own way(s).
--
Americans never solve their problems;
they just amiably bid them goodbye. --George Santayana
Panurge
>Eldritch...might even have been sincere when he said, "Too much
>contact, not enough feeling." Maybe he was looking for something purer
>than what goth had to offer.
Couldn't "something purer" be incorporated into The Goth Thing?
>I think it's appropriate that "goths" have always been the fans, while
>"gothic" is reserved for some few musical accomplishments. Sort of
>makes sense, doesn't it? Barbarian hordes, impressive architectural
>achievements.
Most Goth/ic music strikes me as being much smaller in scale and scope
than that. Little huts in the haunted forest, maybe.
>I'm not sure Gothic (or Goth) has ever gone much further distant
>from Pop than could be accounted for by superficial changes of mood.
Not yet, anyway...
>I think...goths can become comfortable with
>whatever they listen to, knowing that they aren't obliged to follow a
>"party line" which dictates what is and isn't cool. This was why I fell
>in love with Punk, and consequently why I abandoned it, and this is why
>I have been a Goth since about 1980.
To grind my own axe one more time, I've found that '70s progressive rock
does much the same thing (though not with complete success; too many
"prog" lovers, like lovers of other genres, appear to operate under the
assumption that the presence of certain elements somehow *guarantees* good
music). Punk never struck me as able to do the job all that well.
Besides, I just didn't like it and couldn't see a place for me in it.
Every definition includes implicit negation, and at the age of 13 or 14 I
saw myself being very decisively negated by punk.
>John's goal seems to be
>to shake things up, to make people think of things from a radically new
>perspective.
I'd say "a radically _old_ perspective." It _looks_ like independent
thinking in contrast to what's supposedly the mainstream, but that's about
it. What good is an iconoclast if he merely puts back an even older icon?
>For at least the past twenty years, straight
>white males have been taking one of the most arduous ideological
>beatings in history. Perhaps (and I have no way of knowing the truth of
>this) John thinks this has gone on long enough, or perhaps he thinks it
>has reached a point of saturation (a view I would agree with), and he is
>asking you to consider the source of your views on sexuality.
The problem is the tendency people have to conflate The Ruling Oligarchy
(which has historically been straight white males in
"square-cuts"-and-suits or their equivalent) with *all* straight white
males. There's simply a distinction that needs to be made here that isn't
always made. After all, the Ruling Oligarchy puts the yoke on millions of
straight white males, too.
My personal views on sexuality, I like to think, come from my own
experience and my sense of what makes something right or wrong.
>Even an ironic subculture
>ostensibly dedicated to shaking up the socio-political economic
>situation has its modes of dissemination, its modes of production, and
>its modes of consumption. Read your Marxists... You know, that
>Horkadornaleuze fella.
OK, lessee... Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and...who?
>Who hasn't seen his own age as a decadent age?
The Ruling Oligarchy? Kids? Man, I thought things were just gonna be
onward and upward until I was 12 or so. Weird.
>> [3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
>> with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
>> moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
>> modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
>> the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
>> together again.
>This is an evocative and attractive statement. What does it mean? Are
>you saying that the gothics are somehow the next step beyond the
>postmoderns? Perhaps the postpostmoderns? And here all this time I
>thought they were one of the strongest proofs of the postmoderns.
>Veneer, veneer, veneer. Or the precession of simulacra. Or the
>collapse of the grand narratives. Or something.
Maybe the gothics are the people charged with putting something _under_
the veneer--with finding a slice of bread on which to spread the jam?
:-P Veneer, yes, but I don't think The Goth Thing expresses anything so
sophisticated as the other two. It's definitely a narrative of its own,
though.
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >Eldritch...might even have been sincere when he said, "Too much
> >contact, not enough feeling." Maybe he was looking for something purer
> >than what goth had to offer.
>
> Couldn't "something purer" be incorporated into The Goth Thing?
I suppose it would depend upon what the purer something was, and whether
or not the purer something jarred with what goth has come to seem. Is
that vague enough? If not, I can throw in the words "ostensibly" and
"presumably" a few times.
>
> >I think it's appropriate that "goths" have always been the fans, while
> >"gothic" is reserved for some few musical accomplishments. Sort of
> >makes sense, doesn't it? Barbarian hordes, impressive architectural
> >achievements.
>
> Most Goth/ic music strikes me as being much smaller in scale and scope
> than that. Little huts in the haunted forest, maybe.
If we're talking about most goth bands I've listened to, I'd agree with
you; they're no more sophisticated than any other subclassification of
pop music. But if we expand the term "gothic," as I thought Matt might
have been trying to do in his post, we not only take in artists other
than the normally-recognized goth bands, but we can also examine how
pieces of music and even albums are structured and planned.
Not that this is necessarily desirable, mind you, or even something most
goths would give a damn about...
<snip>
>
> >John's goal seems to be
> >to shake things up, to make people think of things from a radically new
> >perspective.
>
> I'd say "a radically _old_ perspective." It _looks_ like independent
> thinking in contrast to what's supposedly the mainstream, but that's about
> it. What good is an iconoclast if he merely puts back an even older icon?
I'm *really* tempted to agree with you, but I can't. I personally find
the morality John espouses to be repugnant, but I'm not satisfied to
write him off as insane, stupid, or evil. He is none of these things.
So if he hefts an older dogma with which to smash currently popular
dogma, I can't say that alone obviates the need for re-examination of
*both* of those dogmas, not just the dismissal of the older dogma.
Hmm, I just unleashed a pack of dogmas in that last bit. I hope I
didn't muddy the waters too terribly.
>
> >For at least the past twenty years, straight
> >white males have been taking one of the most arduous ideological
> >beatings in history. Perhaps (and I have no way of knowing the truth of
> >this) John thinks this has gone on long enough, or perhaps he thinks it
> >has reached a point of saturation (a view I would agree with), and he is
> >asking you to consider the source of your views on sexuality.
>
> The problem is the tendency people have to conflate The Ruling Oligarchy
> (which has historically been straight white males in
> "square-cuts"-and-suits or their equivalent) with *all* straight white
> males. There's simply a distinction that needs to be made here that isn't
> always made. After all, the Ruling Oligarchy puts the yoke on millions of
> straight white males, too.
The problem is that the proposed solutions to the failure of equality
(or equity or parity or whatever) in the US don't target the privileges
of the RO; they target the Average-Joe SWM. The RO (where it can be
shown to exist at all) seems to go merrily about its business. In fact,
I propose to you that the true RO is composed of precisely those same
SWM politicians who punish the Average-Joe SWM. They have created
themselves the gatekeepers of equality, ensured plenty of work in
perpetuity for both themselves and their friends, and need not concern
themselves with the adverse consequences of their actions because they
will never feel those consequences.
I don't want to go much further with this because I think we're pulling
quickly away from the essence of Matt's original post.
>
> My personal views on sexuality, I like to think, come from my own
> experience and my sense of what makes something right or wrong.
Ah, but your own experiences could have been filtered by the approval
and disapproval of others, could they not? Furthermore, you've probably
grown up (like the rest of us) with images all around you reminding you
what is "right" and what is "wrong" w/r/t sexuality. Heterosexuality is
"right"; homosexuality is "wrong." That sort of thing. So when we go
against those dictums (both explicit and tacit), we are
"transgressing." Sometimes this makes us feel naughty or newly free,
but most often (as with the average person) it makes us feel dirty, as
though we are doing something "wrong."
I'm not questioning your sense of personal sexuality or its origins.
I'm simply trying to point out that what the cultural critics call
"hegemony" does in fact seem to influence all of us, whether or not we
think it has. The acceptable ideas of an age become so much background
radiation, and they not only render some behaviors unacceptable, they
supposedly close of inquiry into radically different ways of thinking
through social situations. So the cultural battle to be waged, it would
seem, concerns which ideas we wish to disseminate, and to what degree.
Personally, I think it would be better to awaken people to the influence
these idea-machines have on their lives and thinking. The problem is
that anyone doing such awakening must first root out those same
influences in himself or herself. That's not easy.
>
> >Even an ironic subculture
> >ostensibly dedicated to shaking up the socio-political economic
> >situation has its modes of dissemination, its modes of production, and
> >its modes of consumption. Read your Marxists... You know, that
> >Horkadornaleuze fella.
>
> OK, lessee... Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and...who?
Gilles Deleuze -- although I should probably have substituted his
sometime partner, Felix Guattari. Deleuze is more the philosopher,
Guattari more the revolutionary.
<snip>
>
> >> [3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
> >> with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
> >> moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
> >> modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
> >> the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
> >> together again.
>
> >This is an evocative and attractive statement. What does it mean? Are
> >you saying that the gothics are somehow the next step beyond the
> >postmoderns? Perhaps the postpostmoderns? And here all this time I
> >thought they were one of the strongest proofs of the postmoderns.
> >Veneer, veneer, veneer. Or the precession of simulacra. Or the
> >collapse of the grand narratives. Or something.
>
> Maybe the gothics are the people charged with putting something _under_
> the veneer--with finding a slice of bread on which to spread the jam?
Charged by whom? To what end? And what bread? (If it's Wonder bread, I
don't want any; I'll just stick with the jam)
> :-P Veneer, yes, but I don't think The Goth Thing expresses anything so
> sophisticated as the other two.
I'm not sure that's true. Certainly goth is not alone among club
cultures in its promotion of fashion over substance, and I'm not even
one who finds that blameworthy. And certainly goth is not alone in
producing people whose deeper grasp of their own subculture is virtually
nonexistent. But these things do tend to make of gothic a shell without
a heart. Not always, and not with everyone, but with the majority of
goths I've met, and more often than not.
I'd say, inasmuch as Baudrillard was right, he was right about specific
things at specific times; goth is one of those things, and this is one
of those times. The surface has become the only substance we
recognize. Here, of course, I use "we" simplistically and generally.
As for the grand narratives, perhaps you're right. I would have to
stretch Lyotard to the groaning point to make him fit, and perhaps I'd
better not.
> It's definitely a narrative of its own,
> though.
Here's where Lyotard popped into my head. I was thinking the same
thing, that goth had its own narrative with its own authority. Over the
last few years, though, I've really come to doubt that. Goth, I think,
has a personality which is a kind of amalgam of many disparate elements,
including the stereotypes foisted upon goth from outside (which often
become defiantly adopted and thus become twisted truths), but I don't
see a story arc here. Aside from some few beliefs held in common by a
majority of goths, there is little prescription and proscription going
on in goth -- at least outside the clubs.
Neal
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>> Most Goth/ic music strikes me as being much smaller in scale and scope
>> than that. Little huts in the haunted forest, maybe.
>If we're talking about most goth bands I've listened to, I'd agree with
>you; they're no more sophisticated than any other subclassification of
>pop music. But if we expand the term "gothic," as I thought Matt might
>have been trying to do in his post, we not only take in artists other
>than the normally-recognized goth bands, but we can also examine how
>pieces of music and even albums are structured and planned.
I've certainly tried to expand the term, if only for my own nefarious and
self-serving purposes!
>Not that this is necessarily desirable, mind you, or even something most
>goths would give a damn about...
A rather cutting assessment, as people keep saying it's ultimately about
the music.
>> >John's goal seems to be
>> >to shake things up, to make people think of things from a radically new
>> >perspective.
>>
>> I'd say "a radically _old_ perspective." It _looks_ like independent
>> thinking in contrast to what's supposedly the mainstream, but that's about
>> it. What good is an iconoclast if he merely puts back an even older icon?
>
>
>I'm *really* tempted to agree with you, but I can't. I personally find
>the morality John espouses to be repugnant,
Agreed.
>but I'm not satisfied to
>write him off as insane, stupid, or evil. He is none of these things.
Well... Let's just say he's got a bad attitude: self-righteous in a way
which he seems to think excuses him from being pleasant. He's one of less
than half a dozen people I've got kill-filed.
>So if he hefts an older dogma with which to smash currently popular
>dogma, I can't say that alone obviates the need for re-examination of
>*both* of those dogmas, not just the dismissal of the older dogma.
Sure. I'm just saying that examining the present "dogma" (if that's what
it really is) for the purposes of merely re-instituting the old one
doesn't strike me as really productive, despite its prevalence over the
last quarter-century.
>> After all, the Ruling Oligarchy puts the yoke on millions of
>> straight white males, too.
>The problem is that the proposed solutions to the failure of equality
>(or equity or parity or whatever) in the US don't target the privileges
>of the RO; they target the Average-Joe SWM. The RO (where it can be
>shown to exist at all) seems to go merrily about its business.
Exactly.
>In fact, I propose to you that the true RO is composed of precisely
>those same SWM politicians who punish the Average-Joe SWM.
Which is what I meant to say. I should've said "which has historically
been *made up of* straight white males in square-cuts and suits".
>> My personal views on sexuality, I like to think, come from my own
>> experience and my sense of what makes something right or wrong.
>Ah, but your own experiences could have been filtered by the approval
>and disapproval of others, could they not?
Well, I should've put my personal sense of things first. When I talk
about experience, I'm just speaking of the information I take in. Point
is, my personal views clash with those of just about everyone I know
outside the Goth scene (at least AFAIK). They certainly clash with my
family; I still suspect there's an outside chance I'd be disowned if I
made my situation completely known to them. After all, I'm talking about
a family that wouldn't let me grow my hair out in the late '70s and early
'80s; I'm not sure how far they can extend their Circle of Empathy.
>Furthermore, you've probably
>grown up (like the rest of us) with images all around you reminding you
>what is "right" and what is "wrong" w/r/t sexuality. Heterosexuality is
>"right"; homosexuality is "wrong." That sort of thing. So when we go
>against those dictums (both explicit and tacit), we are
>"transgressing." Sometimes this makes us feel naughty or newly free,
>but most often (as with the average person) it makes us feel dirty, as
>though we are doing something "wrong."
I think a lot of people conflate (once again) the concept of what's
socially desirable with the concept of what's moral. Have you noticed
(especially in the last few years) the fusillade of messages from Madison
Avenue (and Hollywood) re-inforcing old-dogma notions of masculinity?
"You always go back to the basics." "It's What Men Do." "Movies For Guys
Who Like Movies." Crewcuts unto death. Neo-con poster boys like Tiger
Woods ("See? We're not racist!") and Lance Armstrong. It's a rather
Everett-like situation; a new perspective arises and becomes popular, and
traditionalists take advantage of their losing situation to paint
themselves as anti-dogmatic independent thinkers with a sense of humor and
proportion. (I mean, I understand this; I tend to act that way myself
sometimes on behalf of all the uncool things _I_ love. You've gotta give
'em credit for their success.) Part of what I dislike about punk and
alt-culture is the way in which it actually dovetails with this impulse;
after all, both are all about Fighting ThemDamnSmellyHippies.
It's worked like a charm. OTOH, that they're doing it at all suggests
that they think they _have_ to. You can make many men do many things if
you tell them they're risking security, money, and/or nookie if they don't
do them.
>Personally, I think it would be better to awaken people to the influence
>these idea-machines have on their lives and thinking. The problem is
>that anyone doing such awakening must first root out those same
>influences in himself or herself. That's not easy.
Or at least exposing the "idea-machines" for what they are.
>> Maybe the gothics are the people charged with putting something _under_
>> the veneer--with finding a slice of bread on which to spread the jam?
>
>Charged by whom?
Circumstance?
>To what end?
If you're a traditionalist, that end would be putting Humpty together
again, probably, which is the problem with the job in a nutshell. If not,
it's a matter of laying another egg.
>And what bread? (If it's Wonder bread, I
>don't want any; I'll just stick with the jam)
You'll have a heck of a time eating it, then. That's part of why the
bread's important.
Anyway, I suppose the "bread" would be a moral and social system that
would work in an age of diverse esthetics and morals. People keep
talking about the need for "shared values"; can't respect for people's
differences be a shared value in itself, at least to a degree?
>> :-P Veneer, yes, but I don't think The Goth Thing expresses anything so
>> sophisticated as the other two.
>
>I'm not sure that's true. Certainly goth is not alone among club
>cultures in its promotion of fashion over substance, and I'm not even
>one who finds that blameworthy.
Maybe the fashion is the "substance", or is an expression of the
"substance"? What is "substance", anyway? Is a gesture necessarily less
sophisticated or mature for being on the surface?
>And certainly goth is not alone in
>producing people whose deeper grasp of their own subculture is virtually
>nonexistent. But these things do tend to make of gothic a shell without
>a heart. Not always, and not with everyone, but with the majority of
>goths I've met, and more often than not.
Maybe you just have to look elsewhere for the heart. What was it Chekhov
said: "When they serve you coffee, don't go looking for beer." OTOH,
might it be possible to _grow_ a heart to beat under the shell--to work
inward rather than outward by examining the possible implications of the
surface gestures?
>Goth, I think,
>has a personality which is a kind of amalgam of many disparate elements,
>including the stereotypes foisted upon goth from outside (which often
>become defiantly adopted and thus become twisted truths), but I don't
>see a story arc here.
OK, then--a personality. I suppose that's enough. The "narrative" would,
at least, be the history of the scene; I take it that what you mean is a
sociological purpose for the scene and a desired end-state. If that's
true, then what happens when it gets to the end-state? Either it ends, or
it goes "traditional" (though I'm not sure any esthetic progression really
has to end, even if it might lead the esthetic to places which its
originators couldn't conceive--and here we come to the prog-punk question
again)--and if it goes traditional, we're up against the idea that maybe a
certain degree of traditionalism isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself.
Neal Stanifer
<snip>
>
> >> >John's goal seems to be
> >> >to shake things up, to make people think of things from a radically new
> >> >perspective.
> >>
> >> I'd say "a radically _old_ perspective." It _looks_ like independent
> >> thinking in contrast to what's supposedly the mainstream, but that's about
> >> it. What good is an iconoclast if he merely puts back an even older icon?
> >
> >
> >I'm *really* tempted to agree with you, but I can't. I personally find
> >the morality John espouses to be repugnant,
>
> Agreed.
>
> >but I'm not satisfied to
> >write him off as insane, stupid, or evil. He is none of these things.
>
> Well... Let's just say he's got a bad attitude: self-righteous in a way
> which he seems to think excuses him from being pleasant. He's one of less
> than half a dozen people I've got kill-filed.
Understood. I'm not really comfortable talking about someone else when
one of us has got the person killfiled, but I understand your motives.
I came quite close to doing the same thing myself after the first
barrage of abusive ad hominem. I'll continue to discuss the phenomenon,
but I'm going to stay away from avoiding the person.
>
> >So if he hefts an older dogma with which to smash currently popular
> >dogma, I can't say that alone obviates the need for re-examination of
> >*both* of those dogmas, not just the dismissal of the older dogma.
>
> Sure. I'm just saying that examining the present "dogma" (if that's what
> it really is) for the purposes of merely re-instituting the old one
> doesn't strike me as really productive, despite its prevalence over the
> last quarter-century.
I'm not entirely convinced this older dogma ever left the scene. We'll
spent the last thirty years being told what we all believe in -- nothing
new, really. Only lately (since perhaps the 80's) have the doublespeak
and brittle logic of this newly manufactured concensus caused eyebrows
to rise. Perhaps the problem isn't so much that two dogmas are circling
one another, trading blows; perhaps the old dogma always held the
concensus and it was just waiting for the newly manufactured upstart to
stumble.
This whole matter is a bit confusing to me, if for no other reason than
the way each of these codes of proper behavior seems to pointedly
exclude opposition, and not in what I see as a healthy way. Example: We
have gone from a world in which gays stay in the closet in fear for
their lives and careers, to a world in which those who have religious
objections to homosexuality are branded with anathema if they speak
their minds. I don't see either situation as desirable. Forcing people
-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
how a democratic principle should operate in a free society.
Nor do we have to deal with issues of sexuality to see the differences
(and grotesque similarities) between these systems. Take national
culture... By the old dogmas, there is a single, monolithic culture; it
is white, male, and openly hegemonic. By the new dogma, assimilation is
tantamount to genocide; cultures must be respected in order to promote
the diversity which we are told we all want to celebrate.
The new dogmas are not really new; they are the dopplegangers of the
old. They are dogmas of reaction, born of anti-Establishment
antagonistic mindsets, and precisely because they do not (and have
never) encouraged independent thought, but merely erudite contradition,
they are now meeting their nemesis *not* in new agonistic argument, but
in a simple regurgitation of the old reasoning, ideas and mores and
ethics which have hung about like a dispossessed uncle, waiting for the
upstart nephew to take ill on the throne trying to fill his daddy's
shoes. And the cycle will continue until some new usurper comes along
to make a new argument.
True SWM hegemony is unrealistic and unworkable; "true" diversity is
merely a shibboleth of liberal politicians. Something must break.
<snip>
>
> >Furthermore, you've probably
> >grown up (like the rest of us) with images all around you reminding you
> >what is "right" and what is "wrong" w/r/t sexuality. Heterosexuality is
> >"right"; homosexuality is "wrong." That sort of thing. So when we go
> >against those dictums (both explicit and tacit), we are
> >"transgressing." Sometimes this makes us feel naughty or newly free,
> >but most often (as with the average person) it makes us feel dirty, as
> >though we are doing something "wrong."
>
> I think a lot of people conflate (once again) the concept of what's
> socially desirable with the concept of what's moral. Have you noticed
> (especially in the last few years) the fusillade of messages from Madison
> Avenue (and Hollywood) re-inforcing old-dogma notions of masculinity?
> "You always go back to the basics." "It's What Men Do." "Movies For Guys
> Who Like Movies." Crewcuts unto death. Neo-con poster boys like Tiger
> Woods ("See? We're not racist!") and Lance Armstrong. It's a rather
> Everett-like situation; a new perspective arises and becomes popular, and
> traditionalists take advantage of their losing situation to paint
> themselves as anti-dogmatic independent thinkers with a sense of humor and
> proportion.
See above. I think we're working toward similar solutions here.
> (I mean, I understand this; I tend to act that way myself
> sometimes on behalf of all the uncool things _I_ love. You've gotta give
> 'em credit for their success.)
I think this is precisely the problem. We're seeing this as a zero-sum
game, and I don't think it has to be. If we embrace the zero-sum view,
there are two sides to the Culture Wars, and "our team" must win, even
if our team does not really represent us. Unless and until we admit of
more choices, no one wins except the politicians and the academics whose
jobs rest on the perpetuation of the conflict.
<snip>
>
> It's worked like a charm. OTOH, that they're doing it at all suggests
> that they think they _have_ to. You can make many men do many things if
> you tell them they're risking security, money, and/or nookie if they don't
> do them.
Or if you convince them that they must meet certain criteria to be men.
The power to define is the power to control, and if I tell you (via
Madison Avenue fiat) that the only "real" men are those who are
comfortable with their masculinity to the point that they don't mind
crying... well, I'm going to get a lot of men who try to get a little
quim by turning on the eyefaucets. If, on the other hand, I say that
real men keep their emotions bottled up inside because they are the
strong right hands of Bog in His Heaven, you're going to see a lot of
men who have no skills in expressing their feelings.
The problem, as I see it, is that neither of these need be monolithic,
and taken bite by bite, they really aren't. For every Marlboro Man,
there is a Sensitive-Ponytail Boy. The damage is done when these are
the only two paths available, and when males try to choose sides rather
than synthesize. Take your pick: "Real Men Are In Touch With Their
Feminine Sides," or "Real Men Don't Have Feminine Sides, and Those Who
Do Are Abominations."
>
> >Personally, I think it would be better to awaken people to the influence
> >these idea-machines have on their lives and thinking. The problem is
> >that anyone doing such awakening must first root out those same
> >influences in himself or herself. That's not easy.
>
> Or at least exposing the "idea-machines" for what they are.
Yes, that's the ideal. I wonder if we'll be able to do this while
reserving judgment... I doubt it. Most people I've met who become
reasonably well-versed in the mechanisms of these idea-machines are just
as anxious to run the machines as they are to dismantle them.
To be honest, this is a problem I encounter when I teach my students
about the workings of propaganda (one of the most consistently popular
lectures in my course). I'm always concerned about the uses to which
the students will put the information. And I usually ask myself, How
does one teach about the techniques and risks of indoctrination without
seeking to indoctrinate one's students?
>
> >> Maybe the gothics are the people charged with putting something _under_
> >> the veneer--with finding a slice of bread on which to spread the jam?
> >
> >Charged by whom?
>
> Circumstance?
>
> >To what end?
>
> If you're a traditionalist, that end would be putting Humpty together
> again, probably, which is the problem with the job in a nutshell. If not,
> it's a matter of laying another egg.
Considering that what was left of Mr. Dumpty was a mere shell, I'll go
with the new-egg approach. Gothic has a number of qualities I'd like to
see more widespread in America: sexual tolerance, appreciation of irony,
and willingness to judge. It also can be cliquish and snooty without
having earned the right to be so.
>
> >And what bread? (If it's Wonder bread, I
> >don't want any; I'll just stick with the jam)
>
> You'll have a heck of a time eating it, then. That's part of why the
> bread's important.
>
> Anyway, I suppose the "bread" would be a moral and social system that
> would work in an age of diverse esthetics and morals.
Okay, I'm going to propose something here you probably will not agree
with. We are not in an age of diverse aesthetics and morals. We are on
a see-saw. One one end of the see-saw are the hegemonic SWMs
(homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.); on the other end is the doppleganger
hegemony (diversity for its own sake, multiculturalism, heteroglossia,
and relativism). This is not diversity; it is the same old Culture War:
hundreds of miniature issues artificially bundled into packages by those
thinkers "bold" enough to perform a shoehorn synthesis for the purposes
of categorization and ease of publication.
Gothic does not embrace diverse aesthetics; it embraces its own
aesthetics, just as Yuppies and Hippies have. Gothic does not embrace
diverse morals; it embraces its own morals, just as the Christian Right
and the Liberal Left do. Gothic does nothing to break the mold; it
merely reshapes it, as every other subculture has done and will continue
to do.
Again, Wonder Bread. Or to put it another way, gothic does away with
vanilla ice cream in the interest of offering us vanilla with sprinkles.
I don't want a new ideology; I want a new ideation.
> talking about the need for "shared values"; can't respect for people's
> differences be a shared value in itself, at least to a degree?
Sure they can. Why not? And what about the respect for the person who
has no respect for diversity, the fellow who embraces something outside
our "shared values"? Is he part of our gothic utopia? Or shall we
begin narrowing the circle of inclusion with him? And once we start
narrowing that circle, what is there to force us to stop? Relativism
does not work; it defeats itself by its own logic.
>
> >> :-P Veneer, yes, but I don't think The Goth Thing expresses anything so
> >> sophisticated as the other two.
> >
> >I'm not sure that's true. Certainly goth is not alone among club
> >cultures in its promotion of fashion over substance, and I'm not even
> >one who finds that blameworthy.
>
> Maybe the fashion is the "substance", or is an expression of the
> "substance"? What is "substance", anyway? Is a gesture necessarily less
> sophisticated or mature for being on the surface?
When all you have is surface, surface is the only substance. Rather
than argue whether this substance is or is not deserving of the name,
why don't we see whether there is a way of growing surface from
substance rather than the other way round?
>
> >And certainly goth is not alone in
> >producing people whose deeper grasp of their own subculture is virtually
> >nonexistent. But these things do tend to make of gothic a shell without
> >a heart. Not always, and not with everyone, but with the majority of
> >goths I've met, and more often than not.
>
> Maybe you just have to look elsewhere for the heart. What was it Chekhov
> said: "When they serve you coffee, don't go looking for beer." OTOH,
> might it be possible to _grow_ a heart to beat under the shell--to work
> inward rather than outward by examining the possible implications of the
> surface gestures?
Carpenter's Gothic. Homes built to look good from the outside, and
devil take the inside: cramped spaces, awkward halls, narrow doorways,
protruding angles. But damn, these houses look good from the street.
And as long as you never go inside one, you might think they were quite
well-designed.
Build the exterior to look wonderful, then spend the rest of your life
barking your shins and banging your shoulders, weaving snakelike through
hallways and creeping carefully up too-steep stairways.
I enjoy Carpenter's Gothic to look at, but I wouldn't want to live
there.
>
> >Goth, I think,
> >has a personality which is a kind of amalgam of many disparate elements,
> >including the stereotypes foisted upon goth from outside (which often
> >become defiantly adopted and thus become twisted truths), but I don't
> >see a story arc here.
>
> OK, then--a personality. I suppose that's enough.
Fair enough. But then, we're settling, aren't we?
> The "narrative" would,
> at least, be the history of the scene; I take it that what you mean is a
> sociological purpose for the scene and a desired end-state.
It need not deploy any specific teleology, but it will acquire one in
short order, as all cultural movements do once they become movements.
I'm really more concerned with the normative functions of the scene.
Clearly, gothic is not an anything-goes culture; only those whose life
experience is limited to gothic and (insert "that other culture" here)
could possibly think so. I don't think anyone would make the statement
that nothing's shocking to a goth, that nothing (no view, no utterance)
could ever be a buzz-kill. So what are these things? And the
sixty-four-thousand-dollar question: Why? Are goths upset by
intolerance because gothic has grown from a natural affinity among
tolerant people, or does gothic perform an educational (or
indoctrinational) function which can actually *teach* tolerance? I
think this is important. If the former answer is the true answer, then
gothic really is an us/them culture just like so many others; if the
latter answer is correct, then gothic might have what it takes to
disseminate a moral and ethical system.
Naturally, I don't buy either of these answers. Big surprise, eh? I
think whichever answer you choose, you will see it break down and fall
apart when you begin to examine real, living, breathing people. And
then -- well -- so much for the Great Gothic Cultural Savior.
> If that's
> true, then what happens when it gets to the end-state? Either it ends, or
> it goes "traditional" (though I'm not sure any esthetic progression really
> has to end, even if it might lead the esthetic to places which its
> originators couldn't conceive--and here we come to the prog-punk question
> again)--and if it goes traditional, we're up against the idea that maybe a
> certain degree of traditionalism isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself.
Heh heh... Traditionalism is only a bad thing when it's someone else's
traditions, and when those traditions form the fallacious foundations
for arguments, and especially arguments against *your* culture, and
especially *dismissive* arguments.
"Body art? Why do you have to get those tattoos and piercings? No
one's going to hire you. Don't you have any respect for your body?
What happens when you get older and those things aren't fashionable
anymore?"
"Polyamory? Humans weren't meant to be polyamorous. That's why we have
marriages. Humans are supposed to mate for life."
"Alternative sexuality? You mean fags and dykes. God created Adam and
Eve, not Adam and Steve. Queers just aren't normal. They're deviants
whose actions go against nature."
"Fetish? That's just disgusting! Why do people want to do that? Those
people need to be locked up before they hurt somebody."
No, I don't think gothic is going to be elected to run the Cultural
Steering Committee anytime soon. That honor will have to go to one of
the other Cultural Steers.
Neal
The mythologist is condemned to live in a theoretical sociality; for
him, to be in society is, at best, to be truthful: his utmost sociality
dwells in his utmost morality. His connection with the world is of the
order of sarcasm.
-- Roland Barthes, "Mythologies"
Panurge
be arguing for gothic as a means of formulating a moral/ethical system; I
just think it's an interesting idea. Gothic has always been an esthetic
matter (and a rather problematical one, owing precisely to the
surface/substance problem) for me, but as cultural matters tend to have at
least some moral/ethical implications, I figure the connection is worth
discussing. This is largely what I mean by "working from the outside."
I'm really not sure I know my own mind on this, to be honest.
Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >So if he hefts an older dogma with which to smash currently popular
>> >dogma, I can't say that alone obviates the need for re-examination of
>> >*both* of those dogmas, not just the dismissal of the older dogma.
>>
>> >Panurge wrote:
>> Sure. I'm just saying that examining the present "dogma" (if that's what
>> it really is) for the purposes of merely re-instituting the old one
>> doesn't strike me as really productive, despite its prevalence over the
>> last quarter-century.
>I'm not entirely convinced this older dogma ever left the scene.
Well, obviously not. You're talking to someone who attended a Southern
Baptist church all through the '70s and through a majority of the '80s.
I've spent most of my life among social and political conservatives. As
such, I _may_ be subject to the sort of reactive impulse you decry, but I
like to think I've held that in check--either that or I'm still somewhat
in thrall to my upbringing.
>We've spent the last thirty years being told what we all believe in --
>nothing new, really. Only lately (since perhaps the 80's) have the doublespeak
>and brittle logic of this newly manufactured consensus caused eyebrows
>to rise.
I might place it around the late '70s; otherwise Ronald Reagan might not
have been elected President. I don't know how much of Reagan's election
was a result of a real conservative turn in the American public or the
fact that Jimmy Carter's _annus_horribilis_ turned out to be an election
year. If Carter had won in 1980, it's likely Reagan would never have
become President. OTOH, Reagan supporters in 1976 claimed that he had a
better chance than Gerald Ford did of beating him back then. And he'd run
in '68, too, so I hear. And now that I think of it, I'm sure he would've
run in '72 if Humphrey had won in '68.
But maybe you and I are speaking of different things. Annoyance with the
Left's obsession with being politically correct as opposed to thinking
things out did seem to mount around '90 or so.
>Perhaps the problem isn't so much that two dogmas are circling
>one another, trading blows; perhaps the old dogma always held the
>consensus and it was just waiting for the newly manufactured upstart to
>stumble.
Maybe. I'm inclined to think that, "liberal Hollywood" notwithstanding,
the old dogma has tended to be held by people with most of the money, and
hence most of the power. It may be that people re-adopt the old dogma
because at least it's stable; they'd rather adopt a new
perspective/dogma/whatever, but it seems there are problems with it that
no one's trying to work through.
>This whole matter is a bit confusing to me, if for no other reason than
>the way each of these codes of proper behavior seems to pointedly
>exclude opposition, and not in what I see as a healthy way. Example: We
>have gone from a world in which gays stay in the closet in fear for
>their lives and careers, to a world in which those who have religious
>objections to homosexuality are branded with anathema if they speak
>their minds. I don't see either situation as desirable. Forcing people
>-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
>how a democratic principle should operate in a free society.
Those who object to homosexuality often include people who'd like to push
gays back into the closet. As such, these people are interested in taking
away other people's freedom. People like that can't be just brushed off.
We can commit to protecting their right to speak, obviously.
>True SWM hegemony is unrealistic and unworkable; "true" diversity is
>merely a shibboleth of liberal politicians. Something must break.
Might liberal "diversity" be an intermediate step? Even if it's just
Opposite Day for the Establishment, surely it's some sort of advance?
Still, _must_ something break? It hasn't yet. (Or has it?)
>I think we're working toward similar solutions here.
I guess. I'm probably more comfortable with the liberal counter-dogma
than you are, but I like to think that it's not the end point--it's the
Antithesis which is necessary for the formulation of the Synthesis (which
is about all the Hegel I know, so don't push me). ;-) I thought we were
on our way toward the Synthesis in the first half of the '70s, but then
the Left lost heart and started playing a defensive game. "Alt-culture",
to me, has always had this frame of mind at heart, which is what's always
frustrated me about it.
>If we embrace the zero-sum view,
>there are two sides to the Culture Wars, and "our team" must win, even
>if our team does not really represent us. Unless and until we admit of
>more choices, no one wins except the politicians and the academics whose
>jobs rest on the perpetuation of the conflict.
I think it was E.J. Dionne who wrote that liberals want a truce in the
culture wars, and conservatives want to win. You seem to have an
understanding of liberalism that would preclude that outlook, but it jibes
with mine. Conservatism, OTOH, has no problem with both a zero-sum game
and a two-sided culture war. I mean, really--using the phrase
"counterculture McGoverniks" in 1995?? Liberals, ISTM, don't seem to have
a very well-formed picture of the conservative narrative in this country.
If I say so myself, I think I do. Alt-culture? Punks? Why, just More
Hippies! :-P I mean, they really don't make a distinction, which might
shock all the skinheads with "Kill The Hippies" T-shirts and the Sex
Pistols fans who hate That Bloated, Pretentious Seventies Rock. Kind of
odd, because certain parts of alt-culture seem rather accepting of
Republicans.
NOTE: Speaking of That Bloated, Pretentious Seventies Rock, a Google
search on "progressive rock" and "bloated" returned 240 results. Coupling
"progressive rock" and "pretentious" returned _1,270_ results. Coupling
all three returned 59 results. Is that enough counter-dogma for you? ;-)
>For every Marlboro Man,
>there is a Sensitive-Ponytail Boy. The damage is done when these are
>the only two paths available, and when males try to choose sides rather
>than synthesize. Take your pick: "Real Men Are In Touch With Their
>Feminine Sides," or "Real Men Don't Have Feminine Sides, and Those Who
>Do Are Abominations."
To say that real men are in touch with their feminine sides strikes me as
a bit disingenuous--it's an attempt to use the concept of "real men" for
the purpose of making it safe for a man to be more feminine. It's an end
I applaud, but I wish the means were a bit more honest: "I don't care
about your idea of what being a Real Man is, this is what *I* am." BTW:
Say what you will about the "hair bands" of the 80s, that image actually
strikes me as (at least being on the way to) a fairly effective
synthesis--one among many, of course.
>Most people I've met who become
>reasonably well-versed in the mechanisms of these idea-machines are just
>as anxious to run the machines as they are to dismantle them.
I must admit, taking the controls would be awfully tempting!
>Okay, I'm going to propose something here you probably will not agree
>with. We are not in an age of diverse aesthetics and morals. We are on
>a see-saw.
But a see-saw takes more than one to operate, no?
More to the point, I think pre-supposing an age of diverse esthetics and
morals is still useful for the sake of carrying the argument forward.
Even if it's not here yet, it's what we're working toward.
>One one end of the see-saw are the hegemonic SWMs
>(homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.); on the other end is the doppleganger
>hegemony (diversity for its own sake, multiculturalism, heteroglossia,
>and relativism). This is not diversity;
It's _some_ diversity. Maybe not enough, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
I think I can see (and share) the frustration you appear to experience;
the liberal model still has cracks between which some people might fall.
>it is the same old Culture War:
>hundreds of miniature issues artificially bundled into packages by those
>thinkers "bold" enough to perform a shoehorn synthesis for the purposes
>of categorization and ease of publication.
A cognitive sciences prof at UC-Berkeley named George Lakoff has given the
question of moral foundations enough thought to produce a book,
_Moral_Politics:_What_Conservatives_Know_That_Liberals_Don't_. There's
an earlier essay at http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html from which the
book was derived; it'd run about 25 pages on 8"x11" paper, I think.
Anyway, I think it's a highly valuable perspective--and I'll point out for
your sake that it seems to work from the foundations upward.
>Gothic does not embrace diverse aesthetics; it embraces its own
>aesthetics, just as Yuppies and Hippies have.
To an extent. OTOH, about the only thing IndustrialGoths and RomantiGoths
seem have in common is the color black. You often have to get down to
the social foundations of alt-culture to find even some common ground.
But yes, there are things which are "not Goth", if that's what you mean.
>Gothic does not embrace diverse morals; it embraces its own morals,
>just as the Christian Right and the Liberal Left do.
Gotta disagree with you on that one. I've seen a variety of moral/ethical
codes in at least the Atlanta scene. It may not _sanction_ diverse
morals, but it certainly _tolerates_ them.
>Gothic does nothing to break the mold; it merely reshapes it, as every other
>subculture has done and will continue to do.
What is "the mold"? Is it a set of qualifying behaviors, or maybe the
idea of such a set? I was under the impression that you wanted a "mold"
of some sort. Maybe I'm confused about where you're coming from.
>Again, Wonder Bread. Or to put it another way, gothic does away with
>vanilla ice cream in the interest of offering us vanilla with sprinkles.
That makes it sound like "the old dogma with improved esthetics." Could
you elaborate?
>I don't want a new ideology; I want a new ideation.
A new set of basic principles, you mean?
>> Can't respect for people's
>> differences be a shared value in itself, at least to a degree?
>Sure they can. Why not? And what about the respect for the person who
>has no respect for diversity, the fellow who embraces something outside
>our "shared values"? Is he part of our gothic utopia?
That might depend on his actions.
>Or shall we begin narrowing the circle of inclusion with him?
>And once we start narrowing that circle, what is there to force us to stop?
>Relativism does not work; it defeats itself by its own logic.
_Absolute_ relativism does not work, no. But I think there can be a
relativistic element; there has to be, because reasonable people disagree,
after all. There ought to be some underlying (moral?) principle that
would tell us where to stop "narrowing the circle of inclusion," though by
now we're not speaking of any particular esthetic sense, and as such we're
not talking about The Goth Thing.
I think what's getting me in some trouble is that I'm not taking the time
or trouble to figure out whether I'm speaking of The Goth Thing or not.
>> What is "substance", anyway? Is a gesture necessarily less
>> sophisticated or mature for being on the surface?
>
>When all you have is surface, surface is the only substance. Rather
>than argue whether this substance is or is not deserving of the name,
>why don't we see whether there is a way of growing surface from
>substance rather than the other way round?
I'm sure there is. For me, the question is the opposite: whether there's
a way of growing depth from surface. The conventional answer is "no", but
I don't think that answer came about from (to use your word, which I like
a lot) agonistic argument, but rather from experience with common
practice.
While we've been using the metaphor of the construction of a building,
another might be the planting of a seed, which then throws roots into the
ground, thereby "going deeper". Just an idea to throw out, no pun
intended. (OTOH, the "seed" metaphor doesn't do a good job of handling
the "surface" metaphor.)
>> ...might it be possible to _grow_ a heart to beat under the shell--to work
>> inward rather than outward by examining the possible implications of the
>> surface gestures?
>
>Carpenter's Gothic. Homes built to look good from the outside, and
>devil take the inside:
That's not what I'm talking about. I see plenty of that already, and not
just in the Goth scene. More than that, though, I see the moral
equivalent of ugly houses sold to the public under the pretense that they
_must_ be soundly and sensitively built inside. What I mean is that
"looking cool" need not be an impediment to building a solid,
well-designed foundation for the facade--an assumption we as a society
have tended to make over the last dozen years at the very least.
More concretely: We tend to assume that esthetics is a result of ethics,
if the two are related at all. Might esthetics be able to *point us
toward* ethics as well, even if we don't often see them doing so in
practice?
>> >Goth, I think, has a personality..., but I don't see a story arc here.
>>
>> OK, then--a personality. I suppose that's enough.
>Fair enough. But then, we're settling, aren't we?
Maybe we're just seeing for what it really is--no more, no less. That
doesn't mean we stop the search for a new moral system, or think any less
of Goth. It means we stop "looking for beer." Maybe I shouldn't have
used the word "enough."
>Are goths upset by
>intolerance because gothic has grown from a natural affinity among
>tolerant people, or does gothic perform an educational (or
>indoctrinational) function which can actually *teach* tolerance? I
>think this is important. If the former answer is the true answer, then
>gothic really is an us/them culture just like so many others; if the
>latter answer is correct, then gothic might have what it takes to
>disseminate a moral and ethical system.
>
>Naturally, I don't buy either of these answers. Big surprise, eh?
>I think whichever answer you choose, you will see it break down and fall
>apart when you begin to examine real, living, breathing people.
The process of meeting those real people can, I think, spur the learning
of a measure of tolerance. If we recognize that outwardly, the scene
might be an example to other segments of society. IOW, both answers look
*somewhat* right to me.
>No, I don't think gothic is going to be elected to run the Cultural
>Steering Committee anytime soon. That honor will have to go to one of
>the other Cultural Steers.
But wouldn't any new moral and ethical system, by definition, have basic
features that would offend traditionalists? If not gothic, then who?
Mark Wood
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
> >Panurge wrote:
> >> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> I might place it around the late '70s; otherwise Ronald Reagan might not
> have been elected President. I don't know how much of Reagan's election
> was a result of a real conservative turn in the American public or the
> fact that Jimmy Carter's _annus_horribilis_ turned out to be an election
> year. If Carter had won in 1980, it's likely Reagan would never have
> become President.
Between the Vietnam conflict, recession and the Iranian hostage
situation, much of the American public was feeling humiliated and
wanted to regain it's dignity. Reagan seized upon this desire and sold
people on the idea of embracing a retro culture to reclaim the elusive
power of our ancestors. All of our failures were blamed upon the rise
of the liberal counterculture and its weakening effect upon our
resolve.
> But maybe you and I are speaking of different things. Annoyance with the
> Left's obsession with being politically correct as opposed to thinking
> things out did seem to mount around '90 or so.
Yes, I clearly remember a conservative guest speaker at the
university I attended, being drowned out by unruly crowds of PC
students. The very idea that he might have a right to be heard was
offensive to them. That was in the early 90's.
> >Perhaps the problem isn't so much that two dogmas are circling
> >one another, trading blows; perhaps the old dogma always held the
> >consensus and it was just waiting for the newly manufactured upstart to
> >stumble.
IME most people are unwilling to think through the dogma they have
embraced, because it's too much mental effort for them. Every so often
I hear someone state their approval or disapproval of a politician,
and when I ask why they give vague responses like "he's doing a good
job," or "he's a fascist," but they can't explain why they believe
these things.
So the problem you face in formulating and disseminating a new more
philosophical morality which embraces tolerance, is that most people
will attempt to grasp it as a set of rules, while ignoring the
philosophical aspects of it, and vilify anyone who deviates from them.
> Maybe. I'm inclined to think that, "liberal Hollywood" notwithstanding,
> the old dogma has tended to be held by people with most of the money, and
> hence most of the power. It may be that people re-adopt the old dogma
> because at least it's stable;
Or as an affectation of power. Dressing for success in a way.
> they'd rather adopt a new
> perspective/dogma/whatever, but it seems there are problems with it that
> no one's trying to work through.
Actually it seems more often that one chooses sides, based on which
one will excuse the personal vices of the person making the selection.
Greed, for the conservative, and hedonism for the liberal. This
doesn't mean that everyone accepts the entire platform of their
respective party, but rather has a general affinity for much of it.
Not to discount the influence of rebellion against old authority
figures, or the desire to curry the favor of the same. I've met way
too many people who voted a party line one way or the other because
their parents voted a party line.
> >This whole matter is a bit confusing to me, if for no other reason than
> >the way each of these codes of proper behavior seems to pointedly
> >exclude opposition, and not in what I see as a healthy way. Example: We
> >have gone from a world in which gays stay in the closet in fear for
> >their lives and careers, to a world in which those who have religious
> >objections to homosexuality are branded with anathema if they speak
> >their minds. I don't see either situation as desirable. Forcing people
> >-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
> >how a democratic principle should operate in a free society.
>
> Those who object to homosexuality often include people who'd like to push
> gays back into the closet. As such, these people are interested in taking
> away other people's freedom. People like that can't be just brushed off.
> We can commit to protecting their right to speak, obviously.
Extremists typically fail to thrive without persecution. Despite the
regional popularity enjoyed by some hate groups, their very
outspokenness tends to prevent their spread. KKK marches and rallies
for instance don't tend to garner them support, but rather annoy the
community in which they are held. Similarly anyone who rants about
purging our society of homosexuality will find a sympathetic audience
in places, but probably not enough to actually make it happen. When
such groups do gain control of an area dissenters vote with their
feet.
> >True SWM hegemony is unrealistic and unworkable; "true" diversity is
> >merely a shibboleth of liberal politicians. Something must break.
>
> Might liberal "diversity" be an intermediate step? Even if it's just
> Opposite Day for the Establishment, surely it's some sort of advance?
The most frightening face of diversity I've seen, is the one that
tries to force individuals to conform to PC ethnic models. People
being "de-blacked" for not being liberal for instance.
> Still, _must_ something break? It hasn't yet. (Or has it?)
>
> >I think we're working toward similar solutions here.
>
> I guess. I'm probably more comfortable with the liberal counter-dogma
> than you are, but I like to think that it's not the end point--it's the
> Antithesis which is necessary for the formulation of the Synthesis (which
> is about all the Hegel I know, so don't push me). ;-) I thought we were
> on our way toward the Synthesis in the first half of the '70s, but then
> the Left lost heart and started playing a defensive game. "Alt-culture",
> to me, has always had this frame of mind at heart, which is what's always
> frustrated me about it.
So long as you have group identities which are at odds, synthesis
will not occur, because the group identity is valued more highly than
synthesis. It's the grown up version of fitting in to be popular, in
which personal values are rejected in favor of acceptance by ones
clique.
> >If we embrace the zero-sum view,
> >there are two sides to the Culture Wars, and "our team" must win, even
> >if our team does not really represent us. Unless and until we admit of
> >more choices, no one wins except the politicians and the academics whose
> >jobs rest on the perpetuation of the conflict.
>
> I think it was E.J. Dionne who wrote that liberals want a truce in the
> culture wars, and conservatives want to win. You seem to have an
> understanding of liberalism that would preclude that outlook, but it jibes
> with mine.
I'd disagree with mr. Dionne and yourself on that point. When I
lived in California, I heard liberals exclaiming that killing the
opposition would be a good thing, and many of them meant it. The only
time a truce was considered, was when it looked like they would lose
entirely otherwise.
> Conservatism, OTOH, has no problem with both a zero-sum game
> and a two-sided culture war. I mean, really--using the phrase
> "counterculture McGoverniks" in 1995?? Liberals, ISTM, don't seem to have
> a very well-formed picture of the conservative narrative in this country.
> If I say so myself, I think I do. Alt-culture? Punks? Why, just More
> Hippies! :-P I mean, they really don't make a distinction, which might
> shock all the skinheads with "Kill The Hippies" T-shirts and the Sex
> Pistols fans who hate That Bloated, Pretentious Seventies Rock. Kind of
> odd, because certain parts of alt-culture seem rather accepting of
> Republicans.
Should they not be accepting? Simply being republicans doesn't
necessarily make them one of the baseball bat wielding rednecks from
Easy Rider. You also may recall that the head of the PMRC was Al
Gore's wife.
> >Most people I've met who become
> >reasonably well-versed in the mechanisms of these idea-machines are just
> >as anxious to run the machines as they are to dismantle them.
>
> I must admit, taking the controls would be awfully tempting!
First you should recognize that they are belief machines, more than
idea machines. People tend to obey them without really giving it any
thought, and tend to be no better than the people following the
dictates of other peoples belief machines.
> >Gothic does not embrace diverse morals; it embraces its own morals,
> >just as the Christian Right and the Liberal Left do.
>
> Gotta disagree with you on that one. I've seen a variety of moral/ethical
> codes in at least the Atlanta scene. It may not _sanction_ diverse
> morals, but it certainly _tolerates_ them.
If that were really so, JE wouldn't be so unpopular a figure around
here. He defies the Moral norms of Gothic by being a heterosexist
neoconservative, and takes his lumps for it.
If you still believe otherwise, I suggest you conduct a political
affiliation poll.
> >Gothic does nothing to break the mold; it merely reshapes it, as every other
> >subculture has done and will continue to do.
>
> >I don't want a new ideology; I want a new ideation.
>
> A new set of basic principles, you mean?
>
> >> Can't respect for people's
> >> differences be a shared value in itself, at least to a degree?
Yes, that is largely what the rights of freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, and the right to peaceable assembly were about.
> I'm sure there is. For me, the question is the opposite: whether there's
> a way of growing depth from surface. The conventional answer is "no", but
> I don't think that answer came about from (to use your word, which I like
> a lot) agonistic argument, but rather from experience with common
> practice.
Surfaces tend to be symptomatic of what's going on inside. People
gravitate toward subcultures that express something they consider
vital about themselves. There probably is something substantive within
that you simply haven't laid your hands on yet. What are the common
threads that hold the subculture together? What is it about the music
and clothing that gives it resonance for those who've chosen it?
> More concretely: We tend to assume that esthetics is a result of ethics,
> if the two are related at all. Might esthetics be able to *point us
> toward* ethics as well, even if we don't often see them doing so in
> practice?
Yes, ethics are to be aspired to more often than realized, and
esthetics tend to be indicative of the subconscious yearnings of the
one that holds them.
> >Are goths upset by
> >intolerance because gothic has grown from a natural affinity among
> >tolerant people, or does gothic perform an educational (or
> >indoctrinational) function which can actually *teach* tolerance?
Or is goth tolerant, because it has grown from an affinity amongst
people who have experienced intolerance? I've read enough threads
about posters here having been persecuted for not fitting in to
suspect this is the case.
> But wouldn't any new moral and ethical system, by definition, have basic
> features that would offend traditionalists? If not gothic, then who?
Yes, the staunch traditionalists and the PC reactionaries both
reject anything different from what they have already asserted as
proper, particularly if it offers tolerance to those it has already
demonized.
-M. Wood
Neal Stanifer
>
> Before I go on, I should point out that I'm not really the best person to
> be arguing for gothic as a means of formulating a moral/ethical system; I
> just think it's an interesting idea. Gothic has always been an esthetic
> matter (and a rather problematical one, owing precisely to the
> surface/substance problem) for me, but as cultural matters tend to have at
> least some moral/ethical implications, I figure the connection is worth
> discussing. This is largely what I mean by "working from the outside."
> I'm really not sure I know my own mind on this, to be honest.
Understood. I'm not confirmed in my own views, either, which is one
reason I find this conversation worth the effort. ;)
<snip>
>
> >I'm not entirely convinced this older dogma ever left the scene.
>
> Well, obviously not. You're talking to someone who attended a Southern
> Baptist church all through the '70s and through a majority of the '80s.
> I've spent most of my life among social and political conservatives. As
> such, I _may_ be subject to the sort of reactive impulse you decry, but I
> like to think I've held that in check--either that or I'm still somewhat
> in thrall to my upbringing.
I don't decry the reactive impulse. In fact, I think reaction can be
just as culturally healthy as progressivism, depending upon the issues
at hand. What I decry is the dogmatization of the impulse, the placing
of certain views off the table and outside the range of discussion.
Thus, far from decrying an impulse toward reaction, I would welcome it;
when we treat values and ideas as outdated and unworthy of consideration
simply because we've found new values and ideas (or think we have), we
are building a dogma.
>
> >We've spent the last thirty years being told what we all believe in --
> >nothing new, really. Only lately (since perhaps the 80's) have the doublespeak
> >and brittle logic of this newly manufactured consensus caused eyebrows
> >to rise.
>
> I might place it around the late '70s; otherwise Ronald Reagan might not
> have been elected President. I don't know how much of Reagan's election
> was a result of a real conservative turn in the American public or the
> fact that Jimmy Carter's _annus_horribilis_ turned out to be an election
> year. If Carter had won in 1980, it's likely Reagan would never have
> become President. OTOH, Reagan supporters in 1976 claimed that he had a
> better chance than Gerald Ford did of beating him back then. And he'd run
> in '68, too, so I hear. And now that I think of it, I'm sure he would've
> run in '72 if Humphrey had won in '68.
I wasn't thinking about elections, but your point is well taken.
>
> But maybe you and I are speaking of different things. Annoyance with the
> Left's obsession with being politically correct as opposed to thinking
> things out did seem to mount around '90 or so.
This is what I meant by a cultural shibboleth. Though I think the
practice is beginning to be displace in some sectors, we have endured a
rather prolonged nightmare of political correctness, a torturing of
language and discourse which has not only utterly failed to produce the
magic elixir of diversity and tolerance it promised, but has also
granted a veil of amnesty to those whose hatred, condescension, and
ignorance would otherwise have been baldly obvious.
And yet a shibboleth is precisely a set of enforced codes without which
discussion is not permitted. If you don't speak the lingo, you don't
get to sit at the big table. The spirit of the codes (when they are
known and understood at all) need not be felt in the heart, so long as
the proper magic words are spoken.
"We're focusing on accountability while maintaining respect for
interpersonal diversity as a priority."
"Open, Sesame!"
>
> >Perhaps the problem isn't so much that two dogmas are circling
> >one another, trading blows; perhaps the old dogma always held the
> >consensus and it was just waiting for the newly manufactured upstart to
> >stumble.
>
> Maybe. I'm inclined to think that, "liberal Hollywood" notwithstanding,
> the old dogma has tended to be held by people with most of the money, and
> hence most of the power.
I tend to hold the opposite view, at least where Americans are
concerned. Blue-collar America is quite conservative and has very
little patience with Hollywood liberalism. Still, even those plutocrats
who espouse Hollywood liberalism don't actually believe themselves,
IMO. Shibboleth, y'know.
> It may be that people re-adopt the old dogma
> because at least it's stable; they'd rather adopt a new
> perspective/dogma/whatever, but it seems there are problems with it that
> no one's trying to work through.
Stability is key here, especially when you consider that the vast
majority of citizens in America are not at risk of being excluded by a
more conservative culture. Keep in mind that not every conservative in
America is organizing against certain excluded practices, but if those
who *are* can successfully portray those practices as deviant and
immoral, this permits the average American to set aside doubts about
whether it is in fact just and right to exclude these practices and
their practicioners.
The Left seems to be trying to do the same thing (build a hegemony, that
is), but it doesn't have the seeming historical imprimatur to succeed at
this task. I say "seeming" because I don't think the far Right in the
US has any kind of cultural or historical sanction for its views, or at
least not to the degree it thinks it has.
>
> >This whole matter is a bit confusing to me, if for no other reason than
> >the way each of these codes of proper behavior seems to pointedly
> >exclude opposition, and not in what I see as a healthy way. Example: We
> >have gone from a world in which gays stay in the closet in fear for
> >their lives and careers, to a world in which those who have religious
> >objections to homosexuality are branded with anathema if they speak
> >their minds. I don't see either situation as desirable. Forcing people
> >-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
> >how a democratic principle should operate in a free society.
>
> Those who object to homosexuality often include people who'd like to push
> gays back into the closet. As such, these people are interested in taking
> away other people's freedom. People like that can't be just brushed off.
> We can commit to protecting their right to speak, obviously.
We not only *can* commit to protecting their right to speak, we *must*
do so. Not to do so would be the height of hypocrisy and the most
deadly blow we could deal to American culture. When we once begin to
say that some people do not enjoy the right to speak on what is
essentially a political issue, we're well and truly fucked. However
repugnant the idea, we cannot afford to grant anyone -- *anyone* -- the
authority to say whether or not it may be expressed.
Sadly, we are moving toward this at a terrifying speed. In fact, we may
already have passed the point of no return.
>
> >True SWM hegemony is unrealistic and unworkable; "true" diversity is
> >merely a shibboleth of liberal politicians. Something must break.
>
> Might liberal "diversity" be an intermediate step? Even if it's just
> Opposite Day for the Establishment, surely it's some sort of advance?
I'm trying to organize my thoughts about this, and I'm not having an
easy time of it. But here goes...
I am not an opponent of diversity as a practice and as a consequence of
the absence of hatred and exclusion. Quite the opposite. But I am an
opponent of diversity as a codeword for bureaucracy and meddling. I am
an opponent of diversity as a method of exclusion and as a backhanded
loyalty test for the New Thought. As I said before, I don't like
dogmas, even if they produce some beneficial effects.
>
> Still, _must_ something break? It hasn't yet. (Or has it?)
Not yet. Our culture is in flux and has been for a few decades now.
Furthermore, things are not slowing down. This would make me feel
wonderful if it weren't for the nauseous feeling I get that we are
replacing one set of Culture Police with another. This won't do. So
yes, something must break if we want to find out what *true* diversity
is.
>
> >I think we're working toward similar solutions here.
>
> I guess. I'm probably more comfortable with the liberal counter-dogma
> than you are, but I like to think that it's not the end point--it's the
> Antithesis which is necessary for the formulation of the Synthesis (which
> is about all the Hegel I know, so don't push me). ;-)
You probably know about as much Hegel as I do.
I don't see any Synthesis coming from these two master-narratives. Or
if I do, I don't think it will be a healthy Synthesis. Rather, I think
the mainstream will do what it's always done: absorb those aspects of
the effective structures of both Far Right and Far Left that contribute
to the mainstream's own stability, and exclude the rest with tremendous
energy. Sadly, I think most of what I would wish to see survive will be
discarded.
<snip>
>
> I think it was E.J. Dionne who wrote that liberals want a truce in the
> culture wars, and conservatives want to win. You seem to have an
> understanding of liberalism that would preclude that outlook, but it jibes
> with mine. Conservatism, OTOH, has no problem with both a zero-sum game
> and a two-sided culture war.
You're right -- my understanding of liberalism precludes that outlook,
at least as liberalism is currently being practiced in the US. I see
both major political parties, and (at the tremendous risk of
oversimplifying) both major cultural mindsets engaged in the same war,
employing the same tactics, and making no creditable effort to
compromise except as such compromise becomes a political survival
tactic.
> I mean, really--using the phrase
> "counterculture McGoverniks" in 1995?? Liberals, ISTM, don't seem to have
> a very well-formed picture of the conservative narrative in this country.
> If I say so myself, I think I do. Alt-culture? Punks? Why, just More
> Hippies! :-P I mean, they really don't make a distinction, which might
> shock all the skinheads with "Kill The Hippies" T-shirts and the Sex
> Pistols fans who hate That Bloated, Pretentious Seventies Rock. Kind of
> odd, because certain parts of alt-culture seem rather accepting of
> Republicans.
I'm a bit confused when you say that certain parts of alt-culture seem
accepting of Republicans. Are you ascribing a volition to a subculture
*as* a subculture, or do you mean the core members of the subculture?
If the former, I'd say you're anthropomorphizing when you shouldn't be.
If the latter, I'd say this might be more a function of younger
Americans becoming more conservative.
<snip>
>
> >For every Marlboro Man,
> >there is a Sensitive-Ponytail Boy. The damage is done when these are
> >the only two paths available, and when males try to choose sides rather
> >than synthesize. Take your pick: "Real Men Are In Touch With Their
> >Feminine Sides," or "Real Men Don't Have Feminine Sides, and Those Who
> >Do Are Abominations."
>
> To say that real men are in touch with their feminine sides strikes me as
> a bit disingenuous--it's an attempt to use the concept of "real men" for
> the purpose of making it safe for a man to be more feminine. It's an end
> I applaud, but I wish the means were a bit more honest: "I don't care
> about your idea of what being a Real Man is, this is what *I* am."
Of course. But there will never be an end to those who would presume to
tell men what "men" are, anymore than women will ever be free of an
artificial standard of beauty. Not unless and until we decide at some
point to define ourselves rather than argue about which side of the
political ditch gets the power to define us *this* year.
On this note, back when I was far more an asshole than I am today, I
commented about a former girlfriend's hair color in a rather blunt and
insensitive way, and she responded with one of the funniest things I've
ever heard: "If you were a real man, you'd accept me as I am."
> BTW:
> Say what you will about the "hair bands" of the 80s, that image actually
> strikes me as (at least being on the way to) a fairly effective
> synthesis--one among many, of course.
My memories of hair bands are obviously quite different from yours. I
always got the impression that the overplayed macho and dickswinging was
some sort of compensation. Then again, my exposure was limited
(remember Gazarri's On the Strip? heh heh), so YMMV.
>
> >Most people I've met who become
> >reasonably well-versed in the mechanisms of these idea-machines are just
> >as anxious to run the machines as they are to dismantle them.
>
> I must admit, taking the controls would be awfully tempting!
It's a bit like slapping the shit out of your children because that's
what your daddy did to you. Somewhere along the line -- again --
something must break.
>
> >Okay, I'm going to propose something here you probably will not agree
> >with. We are not in an age of diverse aesthetics and morals. We are on
> >a see-saw.
>
> But a see-saw takes more than one to operate, no?
Precisely. It takes two -- and not three, five, or a million. Just
two. One sits on the Left, and the other sits on the Right.
>
> More to the point, I think pre-supposing an age of diverse esthetics and
> morals is still useful for the sake of carrying the argument forward.
> Even if it's not here yet, it's what we're working toward.
You want aesthetic diversity? I'll give you a place to start... Begin
an advertizing agency that uses actual women off the street to advertize
fashion clothing. See you at the bankruptcy proceedings.
Or how about moral diversity? Ask Peter Singer how many letters he
receives from people who think he's the anti-christ for proposing that
we routinely euthanize infants born with spina bifida.
We're not there yet, my friend, and the Left isn't getting us any closer
than the Right is.
>
> >One one end of the see-saw are the hegemonic SWMs
> >(homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.); on the other end is the doppleganger
> >hegemony (diversity for its own sake, multiculturalism, heteroglossia,
> >and relativism). This is not diversity;
>
> It's _some_ diversity. Maybe not enough, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
> I think I can see (and share) the frustration you appear to experience;
> the liberal model still has cracks between which some people might fall.
It's not the cracks I'm worried about; it's the walls. The Left is not
thinking through the problems it purports to solve. It is instead
creating a string of bureaucratic "solution-oriented programs" which are
designed to treat an existing problem in perpetuity, not to solve that
problem. This, to me, is no better than the Right's flat refusal to
even acknowledge the problem.
<snip>
>
> >Gothic does nothing to break the mold; it merely reshapes it, as every other
> >subculture has done and will continue to do.
>
> What is "the mold"? Is it a set of qualifying behaviors, or maybe the
> idea of such a set? I was under the impression that you wanted a "mold"
> of some sort. Maybe I'm confused about where you're coming from.
I think I may still lack the background to clearly express what I'm
trying to get across. If you're confused, I think the fault is mine.
Gothic goes further than most subcultures in accepting and even
applauding certain non-mainstream practices, including sexual practices
and forms of physical expression, but it is still dominated by the
mainstream. Fashion trends may not be the same in gothic as they are in
e.g. corporate America, but they are still fashion trends, and most
goths embrace fashion with as much gusto as any member of any other
sector of the culture, if not moreso. Goths are, in other words,
consumers like any other. This is not, in itself, a bad thing, but it
does make me doubt gothic's ability to stage a serious resistance to
production arrangements and ideologies which inform gothic itself.
Or think of it this way: What if America were ruled by a true
self-perpetuating oligarchy that created conveniently defeatable
"opposition parties" to foster the illusion that serious alternatives
were available? If mainstream culture is the self-perpetuating
oligarchy, gothic is an opposition party.
>
> >Again, Wonder Bread. Or to put it another way, gothic does away with
> >vanilla ice cream in the interest of offering us vanilla with sprinkles.
>
> That makes it sound like "the old dogma with improved esthetics." Could
> you elaborate?
I don't think gothic is revolutionary, and I don't think it ever can
be. The best it can hope for is to act as a catalyst for slow change.
If gothic can't break the mold, perhaps it can warp it a bit in the
right directions.
>
> >I don't want a new ideology; I want a new ideation.
>
> A new set of basic principles, you mean?
I guess that's as good a definition as any. All I know right now is
that I'm tired of seeing minor modifications of the mainstream touted as
serious opposition.
>
> >> Can't respect for people's
> >> differences be a shared value in itself, at least to a degree?
>
> >Sure they can. Why not? And what about the respect for the person who
> >has no respect for diversity, the fellow who embraces something outside
> >our "shared values"? Is he part of our gothic utopia?
>
> That might depend on his actions.
That's just it. It *doesn't* depend on his actions. It should, but it
doesn't. It depends on his words. Thus, if this fellow were simply
wise enough to pretend to appreciate diversity, he would pass the
shibboleth test and get along just fine. But if he seeks to give
arguments against diversity, he will be branded and probably cast out.
>
> >Or shall we begin narrowing the circle of inclusion with him?
> >And once we start narrowing that circle, what is there to force us to stop?
> >Relativism does not work; it defeats itself by its own logic.
>
> _Absolute_ relativism does not work, no. But I think there can be a
> relativistic element; there has to be, because reasonable people disagree,
> after all. There ought to be some underlying (moral?) principle that
> would tell us where to stop "narrowing the circle of inclusion," though by
> now we're not speaking of any particular esthetic sense, and as such we're
> not talking about The Goth Thing.
True enough, on all points.
>
> I think what's getting me in some trouble is that I'm not taking the time
> or trouble to figure out whether I'm speaking of The Goth Thing or not.
Same here. Goth, for me, is more than black clothes and music. It's a
cultural phenomenon. And I tend to assign a certain political value to
it which I think it usually (but not always) deserves.
>
> >> What is "substance", anyway? Is a gesture necessarily less
> >> sophisticated or mature for being on the surface?
> >
> >When all you have is surface, surface is the only substance. Rather
> >than argue whether this substance is or is not deserving of the name,
> >why don't we see whether there is a way of growing surface from
> >substance rather than the other way round?
>
> I'm sure there is. For me, the question is the opposite: whether there's
> a way of growing depth from surface. The conventional answer is "no", but
> I don't think that answer came about from (to use your word, which I like
> a lot) agonistic argument, but rather from experience with common
> practice.
You know, you might be right. I hadn't thought about that.
>
> While we've been using the metaphor of the construction of a building,
> another might be the planting of a seed, which then throws roots into the
> ground, thereby "going deeper". Just an idea to throw out, no pun
> intended. (OTOH, the "seed" metaphor doesn't do a good job of handling
> the "surface" metaphor.)
>
> >> ...might it be possible to _grow_ a heart to beat under the shell--to work
> >> inward rather than outward by examining the possible implications of the
> >> surface gestures?
> >
> >Carpenter's Gothic. Homes built to look good from the outside, and
> >devil take the inside:
>
> That's not what I'm talking about. I see plenty of that already, and not
> just in the Goth scene. More than that, though, I see the moral
> equivalent of ugly houses sold to the public under the pretense that they
> _must_ be soundly and sensitively built inside. What I mean is that
> "looking cool" need not be an impediment to building a solid,
> well-designed foundation for the facade--an assumption we as a society
> have tended to make over the last dozen years at the very least.
True. Pretty blondes, for example, are as a rule stupid, right? ;)
>
> More concretely: We tend to assume that esthetics is a result of ethics,
> if the two are related at all. Might esthetics be able to *point us
> toward* ethics as well, even if we don't often see them doing so in
> practice?
Interesting idea. Any thoughts on how this would work in practice?
>
> >> >Goth, I think, has a personality..., but I don't see a story arc here.
> >>
> >> OK, then--a personality. I suppose that's enough.
>
> >Fair enough. But then, we're settling, aren't we?
>
> Maybe we're just seeing for what it really is--no more, no less. That
> doesn't mean we stop the search for a new moral system, or think any less
> of Goth. It means we stop "looking for beer." Maybe I shouldn't have
> used the word "enough."
Or maybe I shouldn't have jumped on the word "enough." I see your
point, though. There must, of course, come a time when we stop waiting
for the nightcrawler to evolve into a butterfly, even if it IS the
prettiest nightcrawler in the garden.
>
> >Are goths upset by
> >intolerance because gothic has grown from a natural affinity among
> >tolerant people, or does gothic perform an educational (or
> >indoctrinational) function which can actually *teach* tolerance? I
> >think this is important. If the former answer is the true answer, then
> >gothic really is an us/them culture just like so many others; if the
> >latter answer is correct, then gothic might have what it takes to
> >disseminate a moral and ethical system.
> >
> >Naturally, I don't buy either of these answers. Big surprise, eh?
> >I think whichever answer you choose, you will see it break down and fall
> >apart when you begin to examine real, living, breathing people.
>
> The process of meeting those real people can, I think, spur the learning
> of a measure of tolerance. If we recognize that outwardly, the scene
> might be an example to other segments of society. IOW, both answers look
> *somewhat* right to me.
Okay, so we need to do something very UN-goth: turn gothic into an
example for the wider public. And to do this without the intercession
of imbecilic teevee noozkasters who can't seem to see beyond gothic's
sensational aspects, we would have to control the production and
distribution of the messages. Gothic Outreach Network. Do you see that
happening?
>
> >No, I don't think gothic is going to be elected to run the Cultural
> >Steering Committee anytime soon. That honor will have to go to one of
> >the other Cultural Steers.
>
> But wouldn't any new moral and ethical system, by definition, have basic
> features that would offend traditionalists? If not gothic, then who?
Probably something with a bit more vanilla and fewer sprinkles.
Neal
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> I don't decry the reactive impulse. In fact, I think reaction can be
> just as culturally healthy as progressivism, depending upon the issues
> at hand. What I decry is the dogmatization of the impulse, the placing
> of certain views off the table and outside the range of discussion.
> Thus, far from decrying an impulse toward reaction, I would welcome it;
> when we treat values and ideas as outdated and unworthy of consideration
> simply because we've found new values and ideas (or think we have), we
> are building a dogma.
Building dogmas is a natural human impulse. Like the rest of them, it's
likely wicked, and harmful if indulged. It astounds anyone who has ever
read Galatians and Romans without bringing a fixed interpretive framework to
the texts, that Christianity ever formulated dogma; yet it obviously had.
So it was also with the Left, who by the end of the Seventies had succeeded
in semi-institutionalizing themselves. Once they had done so, the tendency
towards making a tribe and raising totems and taboos sets in.
My hypothesis has always been that you can tell what political tendency is
on the ascendancy by seeing who has the best jokes. I remember in the early
1980's reading stuff by P. J. O'Rourke and R. Emmett Tyrrell. It was pretty
funny. Then I'd put on a Lenny Bruce record.
What intrigues me is that the hard right, as opposed to the "responsible"
right, is as much an alt.culture as anything else. They have a distinct
interpretive spin on the world that they don't recognise in the corporate
media. They know there is something rotten at the core of global corporate
capitalism. They may phrase their critique in terms of Biblical prophecy;
but being well read in seventeenth century political/religious tracts I
think I follow what they're getting at.
> The Left seems to be trying to do the same thing (build a hegemony, that
> is), but it doesn't have the seeming historical imprimatur to succeed at
> this task. I say "seeming" because I don't think the far Right in the
> US has any kind of cultural or historical sanction for its views, or at
> least not to the degree it thinks it has.
Both the cultural Left and the cultural Right are largely coopted by the
need to win battles over meaningless symbols like Ten Commandments plaques
and Confederate flags. The truly dangerous element in our government and
power system is happy to have these little wars to deflect energy and
attention.
> It's not the cracks I'm worried about; it's the walls. The Left is not
> thinking through the problems it purports to solve. It is instead
> creating a string of bureaucratic "solution-oriented programs" which are
> designed to treat an existing problem in perpetuity, not to solve that
> problem. This, to me, is no better than the Right's flat refusal to
> even acknowledge the problem.
An unfortunate legacy of its origins in the civil rights movement. Race has
become an industry, and those who are captains of this industry are
reluctant to see it become obsolete. Anything built on this model becomes a
perpetual engine of petty grievance and the typical stuff of "activism."
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Olim sudor Herculis, monstra late conterens,
Pestes orbis auferens, claris longe titulis enituit.
Sed tandem defloruit fama prius celebris,
caecis clausa latebris, Ioles illecebris
Alcide captivato.
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> I'm inclined to think that...the old dogma has tended to be held by people
>> with most of the money, and hence most of the power.
>I tend to hold the opposite view, at least where Americans are
>concerned. Blue-collar America is quite conservative and has very
>little patience with Hollywood liberalism. Still, even those plutocrats
>who espouse Hollywood liberalism don't actually believe themselves,
>IMO. Shibboleth, y'know.
I sometimes get that feeling; "diversity" means simply "women and
non-whites allowed." It's a step--and probably the most important
one--but it's not enough, if I can be so self-serving. (But where did
those blue-collar Americans get their conservatism?)
>The Left seems to be trying to do the same thing (build a hegemony, that is),
What, and we're not? ;-) I mean, aren't we trying to formulate a new set
of moral principles on which *the entire society* could run? That's why I
pointed you to the George Lakoff essay, BTW--it expresses well many ideas
toward which I'd been groping.
>> >Forcing people
>> >-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
>> >how a democratic principle should operate in a free society....
>We not only *can* commit to protecting their right to speak, we *must*
>do so.
Thank you for being as forceful as I should've been. ;-)
>However repugnant the idea, we cannot afford to grant anyone -- *anyone* --
>the authority to say whether or not it may be expressed.
>Sadly, we are moving toward this at a terrifying speed. In fact, we may
>already have passed the point of no return.
I'm more hopeful. It's harder to shout someone down on the Internet, and
if you try, there's always someone to call you on it. But hey--the price
of liberty, etc.
>> Still, _must_ something break? It hasn't yet. (Or has it?)
>Not yet. Our culture is in flux and has been for a few decades now.
"Flux"? I don't know. "Tension" might be a better word.
>Furthermore, things are not slowing down. This would make me feel
>wonderful if it weren't for the nauseous feeling I get that we are
>replacing one set of Culture Police with another. This won't do. So
>yes, something must break if we want to find out what *true* diversity
>is.
How about we set up a WWII-Eastern Front situation and try to get them to
decimate each other?? :-P
>I don't see any Synthesis coming from these two master-narratives. Or
>if I do, I don't think it will be a healthy Synthesis. Rather, I think
>the mainstream will do what it's always done: absorb those aspects of
>the effective structures of both Far Right and Far Left that contribute
>to the mainstream's own stability, and exclude the rest with tremendous
>energy. Sadly, I think most of what I would wish to see survive will be
>discarded.
Sounds like what happened in the '70s. :-P Well, at least a few people
keep their freak flags flying.
Might it be possible to let both narratives have their own space? I mean,
it's a BIG country, y'know.
>I'm a bit confused when you say that certain parts of alt-culture seem
>accepting of Republicans. Are you ascribing a volition to a subculture
>*as* a subculture, or do you mean the core members of the subculture?
>If the former, I'd say you're anthropomorphizing when you shouldn't be.
>If the latter, I'd say this might be more a function of younger
>Americans becoming more conservative.
I'm not sure myself--I'm mainly just reporting what I see. With a nod to
Mark Wood and what's probably as succinct a summation of what happened in
1980 as I've read in a long time, I get the idea that some people were
attracted to the pre-hippie retro-mania on the surface of late-'70s new
wave and '80s indie-rock and took it at face value rather than as the
"ironic" statement it was supposed to be. But it always did seem to be an
organizing principle of alt-culture to be as inclusive as possible, with
some prohibitions (no "butt-rawk", no hippie-prog--guess what I'm into
more than anything else?).
>[T]here will never be an end to those who would presume to
>tell men what "men" are, anymore than women will ever be free of an
>artificial standard of beauty. Not unless and until we decide at some
>point to define ourselves rather than argue about which side of the
>political ditch gets the power to define us *this* year.
And maybe that's one of the social uses of gothic.
>> Say what you will about the "hair bands" of the 80s, that image actually
>> strikes me as (at least being on the way to) a fairly effective
>> synthesis--one among many, of course.
>My memories of hair bands are obviously quite different from yours. I
>always got the impression that the overplayed macho and dickswinging was
>some sort of compensation. Then again, my exposure was limited
>(remember Gazarri's On the Strip? heh heh), so YMMV.
Well, yeah. I always wished they'd throw that off and just be the
nancy-boys they so obviously were. ;-) That's why I threw in "on the
way to".
You can always tell a metalhead from an alt-culture-head from the way they
view hair bands. Alt-culture-heads see "overplayed macho and
dickswinging"; metalheads see Fuckin' Glam Faggot Posers in makeup and
Spandex tights. There's a line of thought which holds that they felt they
_had_ to overcompensate in public to make up for the nancy-boy image; none
of them seemed to realize that sticking to what they were doing and fixing
the MUSIC instead of the image (I could buy Neuschwanstein if I had a
dollar for every band I saw touting their New Street Look in the wake of
Guns'n Roses and Metallica) would've gained them more respect than
anything else they could've done. Instead, they went for codified
post-Metallica "authenticity", and so a line of development started that
literally leads directly to, say, Linkin Park and Creed today. I can't
begin to express just how much damage I think Metallica has done to the
cultural dynamics of being in a rock band. Metallica gave "authenticity"
a _surface_, and if you think about it you'll realize that's a VERY BAD
THING.
>> >We are not in an age of diverse aesthetics and morals. We are on
>> >a see-saw.
>>
>> But a see-saw takes more than one to operate, no?
>
>Precisely. It takes two -- and not three, five, or a million. Just
>two. One sits on the Left, and the other sits on the Right.
Gotcha.
>You want aesthetic diversity? I'll give you a place to start... Begin
>an advertising agency that uses actual women off the street to advertize
>fashion clothing. See you at the bankruptcy proceedings.
It depends on the clothing. Homely is in these days, after all. And
besides, I'm sure I could find plenty of beautiful "actual women off the
street". And if nothing else, someone could make them look much more
beautiful in a photo--the right makeup, hair, and clothes--than they would
under "natural" conditions. Anyway, ISTM the fashion industry has been
making _some_ progress there, even if the clothes themselves are uglier.
>Or how about moral diversity? Ask Peter Singer how many letters he
>receives from people who think he's the anti-christ for proposing that
>we routinely euthanize infants born with spina bifida.
Fair enough. Maybe what I'm really arguing for is simply greater freedom
and a more inclusive society. Emphasize inclusion and respect for
individuality and the diversity question will take care of itself, no?
>It's not the cracks [in liberal practice] I'm worried about; it's the walls.
I think I see what you mean; is "diversity" another set of walls for you?
Do you want to re-build the walls outward (because at least on a moral
level, I admit there have to be *some* walls)?
>Gothic goes further than most subcultures in accepting and even
>applauding certain non-mainstream practices, including sexual practices
>and forms of physical expression, but it is still dominated by the
>mainstream. Fashion trends may not be the same in gothic as they are in
>e.g. corporate America, but they are still fashion trends, and most
>goths embrace fashion with as much gusto as any member of any other
>sector of the culture, if not moreso. Goths are, in other words,
>consumers like any other. This is not, in itself, a bad thing, but it
>does make me doubt gothic's ability to stage a serious resistance to
>production arrangements and ideologies which inform gothic itself.
OK. By "fashion", do you mean the tendency for a given element to be
popular largely as an outward sign of belonging, or do you mean the art
and craft in general of, say, clothing? I sometimes think that, yes,
people in the scene are informed by those arrangement and ideologies and
uses them as it sees fit, but they don't necessarily let it *rule* them,
which is what's really concerned as I see it.
>Or think of it this way: What if America were ruled by a true
>self-perpetuating oligarchy that created conveniently defeatable
>"opposition parties" to foster the illusion that serious alternatives
>were available? If mainstream culture is the self-perpetuating
>oligarchy, gothic is an opposition party.
I see the metaphor, but I also see its limits. Gothic isn't really trying
to take over society; it's perfectly happy being left autonomously alone,
like an opposition party that has actual control of a small state of its
own. A cultural Chiapas, maybe? Or is that too inappropriate an
example? OK--how about Quebec?
>I'm tired of seeing minor modifications of the mainstream touted as
>serious opposition.
Well, one minor modification at a time is how the neo-cons got so far;
that and a positive attitude. If it worked for them, it ought to be able
to work for anyone else. We just have to out-positive everyone else--and
_that's_ where we're out of practice.
>> >What about the respect for the person who
>> >has no respect for diversity, the fellow who embraces something outside
>> >our "shared values"? Is he part of our gothic utopia?
>>
>> That might depend on his actions.
>That's just it. It *doesn't* depend on his actions. It should, but it
>doesn't.
OK. I guess I should've written "should" myself. I already know what is,
for the most part. But there's at least one moderate Republican (or at
least anti-"liberal") [1] in Atlanta who has fairly conservative politics
and morals, and we all get along fine.
>> We tend to assume that esthetics is a result of ethics,
>> if the two are related at all. Might esthetics be able to *point us
>> toward* ethics as well, even if we don't often see them doing so in
>> practice?
>Interesting idea. Any thoughts on how this would work in practice?
'Fraid not. I guess it would depend on the individual. I know I've got
my own ideas forming ; I hope to be turning them into a musical project
before the year is out.
>Okay, so we need to do something very UN-goth: turn gothic into an
>example for the wider public....Gothic Outreach Network. Do you see that
>happening?
Well, there's always gothic.net! ;-)
[1] Mark Wood notes in his post that many people choose the side that
tolerates their own "vices". It's also been noted that many people take
the side opposite from the one that particularly annoys them. I think a
lot of people define themselves as being on the Right largely because the
Left annoys them so much, and that's not so true with the Left. If the
Left can just learn that annoying people is counterproductive, I think
they'll attract a lot of people.
Panurge
> Between the Vietnam conflict, recession and the Iranian hostage
>situation, much of the American public was feeling humiliated and
>wanted to regain it's dignity. Reagan seized upon this desire and sold
>people on the idea of embracing a retro culture to reclaim the elusive
>power of our ancestors. All of our failures were blamed upon the rise
>of the liberal counterculture and its weakening effect upon our resolve.
<applause> A very good summation. Don't forget the debut of
dollar-a-gallon gas. (I wonder if the emergence of punk as practiced had
something to do with it, too; some people have held that the emergence of
the radical hippie movement actually helped Richard Nixon get elected in
'68 by giving people someone to be scared of on the Left. But that would
be like blaming the hippies for the biz in Chicago in '68.)
What's doubly amazing is how well the retro culture took. An entirely new
generation or two has grown up since then not appearing to know the
difference. (Who would've thought that at the turn of the 21st century I
might still have a little kid ask me why I wore my hair "like a girl"?)
If they only knew just how different on the surface we expected things to
be by now... Well, some of it has come along, anyway.
(What Reagan elided, of course, was that some of those ancestors were
liberals!) :-)
>> I guess. I'm probably more comfortable with the liberal counter-dogma
>> than you are, but I like to think that it's not the end point--it's the
>> Antithesis which is necessary for the formulation of the Synthesis...
>
> So long as you have group identities which are at odds, synthesis
>will not occur, because the group identity is valued more highly than
>synthesis. It's the grown up version of fitting in to be popular, in
>which personal values are rejected in favor of acceptance by ones clique.
BTW, by "synthesis" I don't mean merely a third group identity to which
all of us would have to conform. I guess I should've made that clearer.
>> Conservatism, OTOH, has no problem with both a zero-sum game
>> and a two-sided culture war....Kind of odd, because
>> certain parts of alt-culture seem rather accepting of Republicans.
> Should they not be accepting? Simply being republicans doesn't
>necessarily make them one of the baseball bat wielding rednecks from
>Easy Rider. You also may recall that the head of the PMRC was Al
>Gore's wife.
Wasn't it Susan (Mrs. James) Baker, with Tipper as #2? But I see what you
mean. Yes, I think they/we have to be accepting, but they should
understand where we're coming from, too.
>> Gothic...may not _sanction_ diverse
>> morals, but it certainly _tolerates_ them.
>
> If that were really so, JE wouldn't be so unpopular a figure around
>here. He defies the Moral norms of Gothic by being a heterosexist
>neoconservative, and takes his lumps for it.
He takes his lumps for being an arrogant jerk, if I say so myself.
> Surfaces tend to be symptomatic of what's going on inside. People
>gravitate toward subcultures that express something they consider
>vital about themselves. There probably is something substantive within
>that you simply haven't laid your hands on yet. What are the common
>threads that hold the subculture together? What is it about the music
>and clothing that gives it resonance for those who've chosen it?
I think I see what you mean. I've always had an interest in the Goth
scene, but I've generally found the music to be
unsatisfying--Ramones-level music trying to convince people it's
Beethoven. (But then, I always figured that was due to its complicity in
The Great Po-Mo Jest.) I say, let's have Beethoven already. (But that
would be "prog", and we *can't have that*--it's *not rock'n'roll*!!) :-P
>[E]sthetics tend to be indicative of the subconscious yearnings of the
>one that holds them.
Which means it's a basic personal expression, and as such is why
protecting esthetic freedom in all areas is so important. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Mark Wood
>
> wads...@montana.com wrote:
>
> > Between the Vietnam conflict, recession and the Iranian hostage
> >situation, much of the American public was feeling humiliated and
> >wanted to regain it's dignity. Reagan seized upon this desire and sold
> >people on the idea of embracing a retro culture to reclaim the elusive
> >power of our ancestors. All of our failures were blamed upon the rise
> >of the liberal counterculture and its weakening effect upon our resolve.
>
> <applause> A very good summation. Don't forget the debut of
> dollar-a-gallon gas.
And the gas line, complete with fist fights.
> (I wonder if the emergence of punk as practiced had
> something to do with it, too;
If you were to look back at the mainstream media's portrayal of punk
at the time perhaps so. The only film i know of that didn't portray
punks as an army of vicious hooligans bent on destroying the world was
Repo Man.
> some people have held that the emergence of
> the radical hippie movement actually helped Richard Nixon get elected in
> '68 by giving people someone to be scared of on the Left. But that would
> be like blaming the hippies for the biz in Chicago in '68.)
>
> What's doubly amazing is how well the retro culture took. An entirely new
> generation or two has grown up since then not appearing to know the
> difference. (Who would've thought that at the turn of the 21st century I
> might still have a little kid ask me why I wore my hair "like a girl"?)
Part of that is the migration of previously rural Americans to the
urban centers. Once family farms became economically unsustainable the
people who depended on them had to find work elsewhere. They brought
their old provincial values and prejudices with them, and instilled
them in their children. If you look at the split in the last
presidential election on a color coded map you will clearly see that
the cities went left and the rest went to the right.
> > So long as you have group identities which are at odds, synthesis
> >will not occur, because the group identity is valued more highly than
> >synthesis. It's the grown up version of fitting in to be popular, in
> >which personal values are rejected in favor of acceptance by ones clique.
>
> BTW, by "synthesis" I don't mean merely a third group identity to which
> all of us would have to conform. I guess I should've made that clearer.
If the synthesis you speak of requires the co-opting of ideas that
were previously considered taboo, because they were of the enemy,
synthesis will not occur. Such synthesis would be considered a
betrayal by those who operate from dogma rather than principle, and as
they are the majority in any given movement they will trample the
would be pioneers of synthesis.
> > If that were really so, JE wouldn't be so unpopular a figure around
> >here. He defies the Moral norms of Gothic by being a heterosexist
> >neoconservative, and takes his lumps for it.
>
> He takes his lumps for being an arrogant jerk, if I say so myself.
I've seen plenty of people being arrogant jerks around here, without
eliciting such hostility, but when they are arrogant jerks in
asserting the beliefs that tend agree with one's own views they
somehow seem less offensive.
> > Surfaces tend to be symptomatic of what's going on inside. People
> >gravitate toward subcultures that express something they consider
> >vital about themselves. There probably is something substantive within
> >that you simply haven't laid your hands on yet. What are the common
> >threads that hold the subculture together? What is it about the music
> >and clothing that gives it resonance for those who've chosen it?
>
> I think I see what you mean. I've always had an interest in the Goth
> scene, but I've generally found the music to be
> unsatisfying--Ramones-level music trying to convince people it's
> Beethoven.
Since you said generally, what music would you say is the exception?
You also must remember that not all classical music is Beethoven
either.
> (But then, I always figured that was due to its complicity in
> The Great Po-Mo Jest.) I say, let's have Beethoven already. (But that
> would be "prog", and we *can't have that*--it's *not rock'n'roll*!!) :-P
I disagree, Beethoven was very visceral (sufficiently to be
criticized for it in his time), where prog is often intellectual at
the expense of feeling. Beethoven was "rock'n'roll!" I'm not against
complex music, but complexity for it's own sake tends to leave me
cold.
- M. Wood
Matthew King
Matthew King
was a post there when I posted it, really--and if it isn't here now, I'm
going to cry....
Neal Stanifer (nsta...@igalaxy.net) wrote:
: But my earliest Goth memories are club memories, concert
: memories, and scene memories. They don't involve anything I would
: describe as Gothic. Then again, my experiences are limited to Los
: Angeles and its extended environs, so YMMV.
My earliest goth memories involve a guy I knew from highschool suddenly
turning from Ralph-Lauren-and-a-briefcase to black-leather-pants-and-
eyeliner around the beginning of second year at the university we both
went to. As I've said before here, he and a half-dozen friends moping
in the corner of Clark Hall Pub at Queen's University, springing up to
pace back and forth hugging themselves when the Sisters or NIN came on,
constituted the goth-industrial scene in Kingston, Ontario at the time.
The time was 1993. I can't quite believe now that I'd never heard of
"goth" before then, but I'm pretty sure I hadn't. There was a really
serious goth-girl, white-face 'n' all, in my grade 9 English class--that
was around 1987. We had no idea what she was. She disappeared before the
end of the year.
A lot of my friends in highschool liked the Cure. Some of them also liked
Joy Division. There was a guy who tried to look like Morrissey, and his
girlfriend was way into the Sugar Cubes. Everyone liked New Order. They
were all a bunch of cool bands from across the ocean. I owned "Wish" a
year before I ever heard of "goth". A lot of people who bought "Wish"
never heard of "goth" longer than that, I bet--maybe not until Manson and
Columbine.
Anyway. I never went to a goth club until 1999. I really don't know
anybody who would call themselves a goth--though I was thinking today
about Eileen's comment about "a bunch of goths from Madison" coming to
Chicago, and how if I went to C7 or somewhere, someone might refer to me
as part of "a bunch of goths from Toronto." Then I passed a couple of
Gothic Fashion Victims walking down the street, and I thought, well,
*those* guys *know* that *they're* goths. And I'm just a guy in a black
T-shirt. Right?
I also thought, those guys probably listen to Fields of the Nephilim and
London After Midnight, and they've probably never heard of New Model Army
or Danse Society. (18 months ago, *I'd* never heard of New Model Army or
Danse Society, either.) They listen to *goth's* goth music.
Anyway. I've never really understood the idea of a goth "subculture".
There's a bunch of people who hang around the goth nights a lot. A lot of
them wear black. A lot of the black clothes are made of PVC. A lot of
mating-ritual kind of activity goes on. Most of the people don't look like
anybody I really want to know, any more than most other people. At a
quarter to three they turn off the music and turn on the lights and
everyone melts back into the world. From what I gather on the local
mailing lists, some of them hang out together in the wider world. The
great majority of them don't. The ones that do hang out together tend to
have mutual interests in the occult or in fetish-BDSM and suchlike. Or
they just happen to like each other for no more particular reason than
anyone happens to like anyone. Everyone likes dancing to VNV Nation. But
there's no movement, no mission, no "morality". There's not even a
coherent esthetic, let alone an ethos, let alone an ethic.
Maybe there was once a subculture, and I missed it. Maybe there is
somewhere a subculture, and I'm just not in it. I don't know. But I doubt
it. But I don't know....
: I'm not sure Gothic (or Goth) has ever gone much further distant
: from Pop than could be accounted for by superficial changes of mood.
I sometimes think that what decides whether a particular song ends up in
one pop genre or another is often nothing more than vocal style. I heard
something on the multicultural station a couple of weeks ago that might as
well have been Beborn Beton, except the vocals were in Italian and done in
that swoony Latin-European kind of way.
: On the other hand, if the term "gothic" were to be applied structurally,
: I can't think of any way in which the Doors approach Bowie on an
: architectural level. Bowie tended to produce concept albums with some
: pop-tune abberations. The Doors never went in for that, preferring to
: craft blues-rock stand-alones. Bowie's albums, for a while (and lately)
: drew strength and interest from his careful crafting of stories told in
: disjunctive bits.
You mean his non-linear Gothic Drama Hyper-cycles? ;)
"Gothic structure" or "gothic architecture" could surely mean any number
of things in reference to music. One thing the Doors and Joy Division
clearly have in common is the sparseness of their sound. If gothic =
primitive, then I guess sparseness is gothic. Bowie on Outside is all lush
and layered and overblown (I imagine you'd get quite a few matches on a
google search for Bowie, pretentious, and bloated, too)--like a gothic
cathedral or a Victorian garden.
But your comments above are more about the "concepts" that link, or don't
link, the songs together through their lyrics. I suspect that part of the
shift from "gothic" to "goth" that I was on about in my original post was
a shift in emphasis from music to lyrics--"goth" music is peculiar in that
it's a genre largely defined by the themes of its lyrics. And the
emphasis on "spooky" lyrics turned around and conditioned the music after
that, too. Goth bands today, as far as I can see, inevitably try to "sound
spooky", somehow or other. (But, really, I can't see very far, which is
illustrated to me every time someone pops talking about "cyber" versus
"trad". I haven't much clue what that means, really.) Joy Division, early
Siouxsie, early Sisters, et al., don't "sound spooky". They often sound
sombre, maybe sad, sometimes a little menacing, but not spooky.
: Yes and no. While I tend (I think) to be more inclusive than John,
: classifying as "goth" individual songs from artists as diverse as Peter
: Murphy and Hank Williams, Sr., I think this is because I judge "goth" by
: the mood it evokes in me, and this is hardly a translatable aesthetic
: theory.
Well, here's the last stop in the evolution of goth/ic, which I neglected
in my original post: the point where "goth" becomes a sort of feeling or
characteristic or essence that may be present or absent to varying degrees
in people and all sorts of things--Inner Darkness (TM), as Tetsab and I
like to say. Thus Hank Williams becomes goth, as does Beethoven's 5th and
Mozart's Requiem and Bach's organ music. Sing Sing Sing is just GAF, as is
some Simon & Garfunkel--when they're not being too sweetly pretty. The
night sky is goth. The PT Cruiser is goth. Whatever makes you feel
melancholic is goth, and however far you are melancholic, so far are you
goth, too.
: But in another sense, one cannot simply say that "goth music" is
: whatever "goths" happen to be listening to, if for no other reason than
: the matter of canon-formation. While individual goths may quibble over
: whether to include Murphy and Bauhaus, Eldritch and SOM, or even the
: Damned, there is certainly a canon of gothic music.
Sure. And anybody who's been to a club in Toronto in the last couple of
years knows that the at the very centre of the canon, as it has stood in
that period, are VNV Nation, Apoptygma Berzerk, Wolfsheim, and
Covenant--bands that have little more to do with Joy Division and Sex Gang
Children than Ricky Martin and Britney Spears do. (Anyway, really, if
Britney had been wearing black PVC and eyeliner in the "Hit Me Baby One
More Time" video, don't you think she would've been all over the goth
clubs?)
: If gothic music were all about death and sex
This has been said before, if not exactly directly, but I'll say it again:
that's not what I said, and if you think that's what I said, you missed
the main point of my original post.
I said that if goth is about the fans, and the fans are about fashion,
then goth is about a fashion-sense governed by shades of death and sex.
My point was that goth, in this sense, had nothing essential to do with
the gothic music of, roughly, 1978-1983.
: then certain of Siouxsie's songs would be
: no more gothic than the oeuvre of -- say -- Britney Spears.
Hi ho.
: So in a sense, I think Goth is one of the few subcultures which has come
: along in twenty years which exhibits the potential to train its
: adherants in modes of resistance to cultural massification and economic
: manipulation.
Y'know, I'm not embarrassed of the fact that I was, at one time, deeply
into Ayn Rand. I'm not embarrassed of the fact that I thought of myself,
at some other times, as some kind or other of revolutionary socialist.
But I *am* embarrassed that I ever saw any kind of political potential in
"goth".
Because, like I said above, I don't see any evidence that there *is* a
subculture. As far as I can see, anyone who hangs around the "scene" and
thinks it amounts to a "subculture" is seriously deluded. (And they might
have fallen prey, as I did, to the conflation of "goth" with "gothic".)
That's what David Gerard is on to when he says he'll "settle for nothing
less than a theory that explains *why* Nice Boots". That's why "What is
Goth?" is a taboo question. Goth is nothing. Goth is nice boots. And
that's why this thread has probably been killed or is being marked read by
most people who read this group. Because once you start theorizing about
the True Nature of Goth/ic, you might as well be theorizing about how to
turn lead into gold. You might as well be proposing a taxonomy of dragons
and angels. It's a subject which, as far as most people are concerned,
lacks an object.
It's a subject which, as far as most *goths* are concerned, lacks an
object. And if *they* think it lacks an object, then, de facto, it lacks
an object.
Unless they're suffering from some kind of False Gothic Consciousness.
*snarf*
Still, FWIW, Gerard's comment misses the particular mark it was aimed at,
as far as I'm concerned, because--as I was saying to Everett at the
beginning of my original post--what he calls "gothic" is only tangentially
related to "goth".
: and this is why I have been a Goth since about 1980.
OK: did you actually think of yourself as a "Goth" in 1980? Were people
called "goths", as far as you're aware, in 1980?
If, by any chance, any of the other people who were around in 1980 are
still following this--what do you say? Were there "goths" in 1980?
: > And if that's the case, then it isn't false advertising when they say
: > "goth" and give you VNV Nation--not only is VNV what the clubkids (at whom
: > the flyers are directed, obviously) mean when they say "goth",
:
: Massification, and a predictable breed of such, at that. (1) Identify
: niche market; (2) target niche market with trendy communique (fliers, if
: possible); (3) downplay the absence at concert of older goths, prefering
: instead to upsell the wonderful "youth-oriented" nature of the music.
The thing is, though, while I don't really know, I don't think anyone's
getting rich doing this--in Toronto, anyway. Club nights, and the clubs
themselves, come and go pretty quickly--even the more popular ones. The
biggest goth-oriented club in Toronto (Velvet Underground), which is
corporately owned, runs mainstream nights on Friday and Saturday. The
others, I suspect, are kind of like hobby-farms for their owners. After
all, if you wanted to make money in the club business, you wouldn't be
running a goth club in the first place (at least that's the case, as far
as I can see, in Toronto).
: And I think you may be placing too much weight on the obviously catty
: invective of a handful of music critics.
For better or worse, though, that's all we've really got to rely on. But
sure, sometimes, I think, some of the old scraps of scripture aren't just
catty; they're more or less inside jokes. That oft-quoted line from
Siouxsie about taking the band in a more gothic direction strikes me as if
might have been in the same spirit as Jeff Martin of the Tea Party saying
that their new, kind of Stabbing Westward-esque sound was a result of
"listening to a lot of Dead Can Dance".
(I'm not sure how well-known the Tea Party is outside Canada, but anyway:
prior to their turn, they sounded uncannily like Dead Can Dance. After,
they sounded like some band trying to cash in on the post-Downward Spiral
Goth/Industrial Thing--so, if all you knew about Dead Can Dance was that
they were some goth band, you might take him seriously.)
: Romantic and Gothic are not the same thing, at least in literature.
From what I gather recently, "romanti-goth" is now a near-synonym for
"trad-goth". Or something.
: > > isolation is a central feature of gothic. [...] Gothic, as an adjective
: > > and a psychic state, roughly coorelates to isolation in space and
: > > dissolution through time. (Albatross)
:
: This could be better described as generally postmodern.
How so?
: > Notice also the equivocal role played by dissolution--or decadence, to use
: > Everett's term--in relation to gothic. Anyone who follows Everett's posts
: > for a while is bound to be struck by an apparent contradiction: on one
: > hand, he claims to identify with decadents like Wilde; on the other hand,
: > he freely dispenses ostensibly fundamentalist Christian sexual morality.
:
: I took this to be John's attempt at Irony (tm).
<snip>
: But to conflate his pro-male position with a necessarily fundamentalist
: Christian dogma is, I think, shortsighted and indicative of precisely
: the mindset he criticizes.
All I know is he quotes the Bible a lot.
I used to wonder if John Everett was some kind of character created
specifically for alt.gothic. The Millais-Ruskin connection seems too much
to be coincidence. But he does the same schtick elsewhere on usenet. (Gets
pretty much the same response, too.)
: As far as I've seen on here, John has not clarified his aesthetic
: theories concerning what does and does not constitute "gothic" music.
I think that if you poke around on google, you'll find that he's clarified
his theories as much as anyone has.
: > [3] Combine this with Everett's penchant for postmodernism and you come up
: > with the outlines of a theory of history: with the hammer of reason, the
: > moderns sound out idols and shatter religion; the postmoderns turn the
: > modernist hammer on itself and reveal it as just another empty idol; and
: > the gothics come along to gather the pieces of the past and cobble them
: > together again.
:
: This is an evocative and attractive statement. What does it mean? Are
: you saying that the gothics are somehow the next step beyond the
: postmoderns?
I'm saying that Everett seems to be saying something like this. I've also
been saying that the gothics are not the goths. For all I know, on these
terms, Everett and Justin Sullivan may be the only "gothics" in the world.
Rebuilding a real culture--real beliefs, real values, real commitments,
real mythologies--out of the shambles of materialist individualism doesn't
look like anything but a hopeless cause at this point. And our very
materialism seems to preclude the love of hopeless causes. (Which is why
there are practically no Tories left, either.)
: And here all this time I thought they were one of the strongest proofs
: of the postmoderns. Veneer, veneer, veneer.
One more time: these "gothics" are not the goths.
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >Panurge wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm inclined to think that...the old dogma has tended to be held by people
> >> with most of the money, and hence most of the power.
>
> >I tend to hold the opposite view, at least where Americans are
> >concerned. Blue-collar America is quite conservative and has very
> >little patience with Hollywood liberalism. Still, even those plutocrats
> >who espouse Hollywood liberalism don't actually believe themselves,
> >IMO. Shibboleth, y'know.
>
> I sometimes get that feeling; "diversity" means simply "women and
> non-whites allowed." It's a step--and probably the most important
> one--but it's not enough, if I can be so self-serving. (But where did
> those blue-collar Americans get their conservatism?)
It's a step toward dogma. Respecting people for themselves is one
thing; selectively respecting people for their metaphorical value is
quite another. I'd say it's a step in the wrong direction. And before
you jump on me, remember that I believe that there are more than two
directions. Thus, veering clear of liberal dogma does NOT mean
regressing to "I Love Lucy" comic masculism.
>
> >The Left seems to be trying to do the same thing (build a hegemony, that is),
>
> What, and we're not? ;-) I mean, aren't we trying to formulate a new set
> of moral principles on which *the entire society* could run? That's why I
> pointed you to the George Lakoff essay, BTW--it expresses well many ideas
> toward which I'd been groping.
I'm not trying to do this. I don't hope for a counterhegemony. I'm
most hopeful that we will be able to offer young people (and the
occasional older person) methods of staging resistance against all
manner of bland assumptions, not just a particular flavor which it may
be fashionable to despise.
>
> >> >Forcing people
> >> >-- any people -- to shut up, sit down, and take it, is not my idea of
> >> >how a democratic principle should operate in a free society....
> >We not only *can* commit to protecting their right to speak, we *must*
> >do so.
>
> Thank you for being as forceful as I should've been. ;-)
You're welcome. I must give part of the credit to Guiness Stout (tm).
>
> >However repugnant the idea, we cannot afford to grant anyone -- *anyone* --
> >the authority to say whether or not it may be expressed.
> >Sadly, we are moving toward this at a terrifying speed. In fact, we may
> >already have passed the point of no return.
>
> I'm more hopeful. It's harder to shout someone down on the Internet, and
> if you try, there's always someone to call you on it. But hey--the price
> of liberty, etc.
I'm more concerned about the Seduction of the Innocent syndrome in our
culture. When we encounter a social problem, there is always some
dimestore populist with a million dollars in his checking account who is
ready to lash out at the nearest entertainment form as the ready
scapegoat. It began with Freddy-baby "Batman's a Fag" Wertham in the
1950's; it proceeded through the web-toed, inbred Tipper Gore and her
goosestepping PMRC; and it still endures with Sen. Joseph "I haven't the
balls to attack the gun lobby" Lieberman and his campaign against
violent movies and video games. They have all succeeded, to some
degree, in harnessing otherwise feckless and incredibly clueless
grassroots movements to convince entertainment to ban itself (despite
the fact of the First Amendment, which leaves me to wonder who's
stupider, the censors or the self-censoring). Yeah, I know this isn't
exactly political speech per se, but the chilling effect on what could
safely be said was as clear and present a danger as any nutcase with a
.22 flinging shells at the president.
Thus delinquency and homosexuality become the fault of violent comic
books; hate and spousal abuse become the responsibility of rap music;
and now schoolyard shootings are caused by Die Hard and Matrix. We are
paralyzed with fear at the very thought of blaming the effect on the
actual cause. Thus we bend over and grease ourselves up for the
faux-populists. And if that's how we insist on behaving, we deserve
what we get (and no, that doesn't come with a reach-around).
>
> >> Still, _must_ something break? It hasn't yet. (Or has it?)
>
> >Not yet. Our culture is in flux and has been for a few decades now.
>
> "Flux"? I don't know. "Tension" might be a better word.
Perhaps. I tend to see tension as having two poles, flux as being more
fluid, pulling and pushing in a dozen or more directions. I'll stick
with flux, but you must please yourself.
>
> >Furthermore, things are not slowing down. This would make me feel
> >wonderful if it weren't for the nauseous feeling I get that we are
> >replacing one set of Culture Police with another. This won't do. So
> >yes, something must break if we want to find out what *true* diversity
> >is.
>
> How about we set up a WWII-Eastern Front situation and try to get them to
> decimate each other?? :-P
They won't. They'll decimate us. We're the ones in the middle.
>
> >I don't see any Synthesis coming from these two master-narratives. Or
> >if I do, I don't think it will be a healthy Synthesis. Rather, I think
> >the mainstream will do what it's always done: absorb those aspects of
> >the effective structures of both Far Right and Far Left that contribute
> >to the mainstream's own stability, and exclude the rest with tremendous
> >energy. Sadly, I think most of what I would wish to see survive will be
> >discarded.
>
> Sounds like what happened in the '70s. :-P Well, at least a few people
> keep their freak flags flying.
>
> Might it be possible to let both narratives have their own space? I mean,
> it's a BIG country, y'know.
I'd love to do this. I am essentially an old-style liberal, but I find
much in conservative thought which appeals to me. But American politics
is at its heart agonistic, and until that changes (in other words, until
Congress and the Senate rediscover the true etymology of the word
"compromise"), it's more of a tug-of-war than a productive debate.
<snip>
>
> >[T]here will never be an end to those who would presume to
> >tell men what "men" are, anymore than women will ever be free of an
> >artificial standard of beauty. Not unless and until we decide at some
> >point to define ourselves rather than argue about which side of the
> >political ditch gets the power to define us *this* year.
>
> And maybe that's one of the social uses of gothic.
Precisely. I thought the move toward an androgynous aesthetic of
physical expression in the 70's would accomplish this, but it fell
short. Perhaps the third time's the charm. If not, there's always next
time.
<snip>
>
> >You want aesthetic diversity? I'll give you a place to start... Begin
> >an advertising agency that uses actual women off the street to advertize
> >fashion clothing. See you at the bankruptcy proceedings.
>
> It depends on the clothing. Homely is in these days, after all.
I disagree. Aestheticized "homely" may briefly enter the glossies, but
true homely will not be in so long as there are fashion models to play
dress-up with.
> And
> besides, I'm sure I could find plenty of beautiful "actual women off the
> street".
I won't dispute this. I've seen a great many women on the street I
thought were beautiful, some of them almost heart-stoppingly so. But
they aren't in the glossies.
> And if nothing else, someone could make them look much more
> beautiful in a photo--the right makeup, hair, and clothes--than they would
> under "natural" conditions.
I think you're taking me the wrong way here. I'm not saying the fashion
industry should hire women off the streets and dress them up like Kate
Moss and Laetitia Casta. I'm saying the fashion industry seeks out
beauty as it is traditionally and narrowly defined, and when that
traditional definition changes (when the next "it" girl is proclaimed),
they shift gears and begin to fill the glossies with the next big
thing. This has nothing to do with making fashion models out of female
secretaries and administrators. It has everything to do with foisting
an unrealistic and arbitrary image of beauty on women, and doing so in a
cynical manner, knowing all the while that the standard will change as
soon as big tits are back in, or buckteeth are out, or red hair is the
rage.
Now, if you wish to argue that women should have caught on to this
bullshit game at some point within the past two hundred years and more,
you'll get no argument from me. But be advised that men are now falling
for the same kind of bullshit.
> Anyway, ISTM the fashion industry has been
> making _some_ progress there, even if the clothes themselves are uglier.
I would flatly disagree that the fashion industry has made any progress
whatsoever except to make its major investors filthy rich, which is its
main objective. No other form of progress do I see.
>
> >Or how about moral diversity? Ask Peter Singer how many letters he
> >receives from people who think he's the anti-christ for proposing that
> >we routinely euthanize infants born with spina bifida.
>
> Fair enough. Maybe what I'm really arguing for is simply greater freedom
> and a more inclusive society. Emphasize inclusion and respect for
> individuality and the diversity question will take care of itself, no?
The way I see it, all people should be tolerated until they give cause
for society to treat them otherwise. But then, I'm arguing for a
reasoned appraisal of the demonstrable harm a person's lineage or views
could cause, and I'm unlikely to get such an appraisal, especially when
one considers that we require no training in logic prior to the college
level.
>
> >It's not the cracks [in liberal practice] I'm worried about; it's the walls.
>
> I think I see what you mean; is "diversity" another set of walls for you?
> Do you want to re-build the walls outward (because at least on a moral
> level, I admit there have to be *some* walls)?
See if this makes sense to you as it does to me. Get rid of phony
reasons to hold people back, and diversity will take care of itself.
But establish quotas and selectively and correctively exclude white
males, and we are only replacing one form of discrimination with
another. The problem goes farther, of course, and involves vast amounts
of money tied up in numerous bureaucracies.
>
> >Gothic goes further than most subcultures in accepting and even
> >applauding certain non-mainstream practices, including sexual practices
> >and forms of physical expression, but it is still dominated by the
> >mainstream. Fashion trends may not be the same in gothic as they are in
> >e.g. corporate America, but they are still fashion trends, and most
> >goths embrace fashion with as much gusto as any member of any other
> >sector of the culture, if not moreso. Goths are, in other words,
> >consumers like any other. This is not, in itself, a bad thing, but it
> >does make me doubt gothic's ability to stage a serious resistance to
> >production arrangements and ideologies which inform gothic itself.
>
> OK. By "fashion", do you mean the tendency for a given element to be
> popular largely as an outward sign of belonging, or do you mean the art
> and craft in general of, say, clothing?
I intended to mean the former: fashion, to me, is a signal of group
allegiance, and goths are no different from anyone else in this regard.
The sense of style emerges from the details, and the cleverer the goth,
the more his or her details will evoke some statement. But one would
not expect e.g. to find a goth in pink polo shirt, khakis, and a white
visor with a picture of Gumby on it. Limits are set and obeyed within
any culture or subculture.
> I sometimes think that, yes,
> people in the scene are informed by those arrangement and ideologies and
> uses them as it sees fit, but they don't necessarily let it *rule* them,
> which is what's really concerned as I see it.
Some certainly don't; some certainly do.
>
> >Or think of it this way: What if America were ruled by a true
> >self-perpetuating oligarchy that created conveniently defeatable
> >"opposition parties" to foster the illusion that serious alternatives
> >were available? If mainstream culture is the self-perpetuating
> >oligarchy, gothic is an opposition party.
>
> I see the metaphor, but I also see its limits. Gothic isn't really trying
> to take over society;
Neither are the "opposition parties." Neither, in all truth, was punk.
> it's perfectly happy being left autonomously alone,
> like an opposition party that has actual control of a small state of its
> own.
But it doesn't have such control and autonomy, nor has it, nor will it.
>
> >I'm tired of seeing minor modifications of the mainstream touted as
> >serious opposition.
>
> Well, one minor modification at a time is how the neo-cons got so far;
> that and a positive attitude. If it worked for them, it ought to be able
> to work for anyone else. We just have to out-positive everyone else--and
> _that's_ where we're out of practice.
The neo-cons are anything but positive. They can't write in anything
but the invective mode, although they claim to have heroes of their
own. Whether we're talking about Mona Charen or George Will, they
embrace the cultural illogic of the New Jingo Right, flap their gums in
vituperation against whatever petty peeve has jumped their nerves this
week, and seek to corral all liberals into the same communist,
world-wrecking pen.
Then again, we're sidetracking again, comparing gothic to a political
party. It isn't that. And even if all goths were conservative or
liberal, gothic still wouldn't be a political party. Besides, what I'd
like to see is a gothic that sets an example of values not normally
associated with either political party. That, I think, is what would
make gothic truly valuable.
<snip>
Neal
"Take back what I paid
For another motherfucker in a motorcade"
Mark Wood
>
> > Anyway, ISTM the fashion industry has been
> > making _some_ progress there, even if the clothes themselves are uglier.
>
> I would flatly disagree that the fashion industry has made any progress
> whatsoever except to make its major investors filthy rich, which is its
> main objective. No other form of progress do I see.
The most amusing observation I've made concerning the fashion
industry, is that regardless of what the designer tells you is in this
season, he or she is wearing a black turtleneck and black pants
typically with black dress shoes on.
If the designers have set upon the slimming all black ensemble as
their uniform why should anyone else want to wear their new lineup of
garish costumes?
-M. Wood
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>> I mean, aren't we trying to formulate a new set
>> of moral principles on which *the entire society* could run?
>I'm not trying to do this. I don't hope for a counterhegemony.
But what if one of those moral principles is the avoidance of hegemony?
>I'm most hopeful that we will be able to offer young people (and the
>occasional older person) methods of staging resistance against all
>manner of bland assumptions, not just a particular flavor which it may
>be fashionable to despise.
Well, "resistance" is a concept for people on the defensive. I'd like to
think in terms of more than merely resisting. How about countering the
"bland assumptions" with well-argued conceptual frameworks?
>> Might it be possible to let both narratives have their own space? I mean,
>> it's a BIG country, y'know.
>
>I'd love to do this....But American politics
>is at its heart agonistic, and until that changes (in other words, until
>Congress and the Senate rediscover the true etymology of the word
>"compromise"), it's more of a tug-of-war than a productive debate.
"from Latin _compromissum_, 'mutual promise'", says dictionary.com.
Some people, ISTM, are so turned off by compromise that they've convinced
themselves that all of a loaf they didn't want is better than half of a
loaf they did. Too bad. After all, no side has a monopoly on truth; a
good compromise might be even better than anything any one side might put
forth.
>> >[T]here will never be an end to those who would presume to
>> >tell men what "men" are, anymore than women will ever be free of an
>> >artificial standard of beauty. Not unless and until we decide at some
>> >point to define ourselves....
>>
>I thought the move toward an androgynous aesthetic of physical expression in
>the 70's would accomplish this, but it fell short.
The story of how that "androgynous aesthetic" got rolled back is, to me,
one of the most important (yes, I said "important") and instructive of the
last 50 years of pop culture--possibly the single most important, if not
the story of its emergence in the first place. I've always contained and
continue to maintain that that esthetic didn't "die" (to the extent it
did), it was _killed_ deliberately and purposefully--and not just for the
purpose of making money. Even greedy people have worldviews and moral
perspectives and cultural preferences; making lots of money is, for some,
a way of amassing enough power to make a difference in the world.
Or are you saying the aesthetic itself fell short? If so, why not think
of it as a stage of development? (You'd think they could've conceived of
it this way back then if that was the case. <JOHN BELUSHI> BUUT
NOOOOOO... </JOHN BELUSHI>)
One important point: That "androgynous aesthetic" was primarily about
_men_. Look at the "traditional" look today; it's something that mainly
affects men. Girls, even when "retro", get to look like 1975 at farthest
back; boys and men, OTOH, are being shoehorned into this neo-con imagery
based on, say, the late '40s. (OK, so it's a more disheveled version of
the same, but I think you get the idea. It's certainly a pre-rock'n'roll
look.)
>Perhaps the third time's the charm. If not, there's always next time.
"Third"? When was the second?
>I've seen a great many women on the street I thought were beautiful, some of
>them almost heart-stoppingly so. But they aren't in the glossies.
But they _are_ on the street, which is what (I thought) we were talking
about. Should've known better, now that I think about it.
>This has nothing to do with making fashion models out of female
>secretaries and administrators. It has everything to do with foisting
>an unrealistic and arbitrary image of beauty on women,...
OK. OTOH, I'm not sure such an image is that unrealistic or arbitrary;
it's just that
(a) most people understandably don't want to put that much effort into
maintaining that image--if that's what you mean by "unrealistic", I'll
give you that; and
(b) I suspect that there's some sort of archetypal/psychological resonance
in most such images. But then, I like Hot Bikini Babes, so this may just
be self-interest. Point is, no one made me like this stuff.
>...be advised that men are now falling for the same kind of bullshit.
True--and in a way I find personally very distasteful. With men, it seems
to involve that Real Man concept--some men seem afraid to be different in
any way for fear they'll lose their friends/chance for nookie/etc.
>I would flatly disagree that the fashion industry has made any progress
>whatsoever except to make its major investors filthy rich, which is its
>main objective. No other form of progress do I see.
Tyra Banks and Naomi Campbell couldn't have been supermodels forty years
ago (or even thirty). Isn't that progress of a sort? (OK, not much, and
I'm not asking you to be satisfied, but any positive number is infinitely
larger than zero.)
>> >It's not the cracks [in liberal practice] I'm worried about; it's the walls.
>> I think I see what you mean; is "diversity" another set of walls for you?
>> Do you want to re-build the walls outward (because at least on a moral
>> level, I admit there have to be *some* walls)?
>See if this makes sense to you as it does to me. Get rid of phony
>reasons to hold people back, and diversity will take care of itself.
That's true _to_an_extent_. But you have to deal *quickly* with the
economic and social situations that have resulted from their being held
back. Surely other forms of affirmative action exist than racial quotas?
Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
>> >If mainstream culture is the self-perpetuating
>> >oligarchy, gothic is an opposition party.
>> I see the metaphor, but I also see its limits. Gothic isn't really trying
>> to take over society;
>Neither are the "opposition parties." Neither, in all truth, was punk.
Well, no. Punk _was_, however, trying to "take over" rock culture, AFAI
can see, with its restorationist fervor.
>> it's perfectly happy being left autonomously alone, like an
>> opposition party that has actual control of a small state of its own.
>But it doesn't have such control and autonomy, nor has it, nor will it.
True. But it's still a decent model to invoke, IMNSHO.
>The neo-cons are anything but positive.
They have funnier comedians (this is important--get people laughing and
they'll be more likely to listen to you) and more "up" Presidential
candidates, as a rule. Once they've got people hooked, the pundits can
unleash the invective on what'll then be a more sympathetic audience.
Thomas Parkin
Matthew King wrote:
<much snippage throughout>
I haven't had time to answer you point for point in this thread and
will continue not to have time - but there are a couple things here I
want to comment on.
> Well, here's the last stop in the evolution of goth/ic, which I neglected
> in my original post: the point where "goth" becomes a sort of feeling or
> characteristic or essence that may be present or absent to varying degrees
> in people and all sorts of things--Inner Darkness (TM), as Tetsab and I
> like to say. Thus Hank Williams becomes goth, as does Beethoven's 5th and
> Mozart's Requiem and Bach's organ music. Sing Sing Sing is just GAF, as is
> some Simon & Garfunkel--when they're not being too sweetly pretty. The
> night sky is goth. The PT Cruiser is goth. Whatever makes you feel
> melancholic is goth, and however far you are melancholic, so far are you
> goth, too.
You could take this further and ask what the essential nature of
melancholy is - and you'd begin get close again to definition I gave of
gothic. People attached to a whole, to the sun, to the mandala, to the
completness, to oneness or unity (as in a social movement) are not
melancholic. They may be sad in some way, more likely angry, but they
are not melancholic. (Having some precision with words that describe
emotions is not fruitless. The number of fundamental human emotions is
only infinite in degree. There are a limited number of basic human
emotions, and they can be named.) Melancholy is a sentimental emotion
expereinced by people who intuit the reality of their onlooking, their
seperation, their _isolation_.
> Y'know, I'm not embarrassed of the fact that I was, at one time, deeply
> into Ayn Rand. I'm not embarrassed of the fact that I thought of myself,
> at some other times, as some kind or other of revolutionary socialist.
>
> But I *am* embarrassed that I ever saw any kind of political potential in
> "goth".
Amen.
> Because, like I said above, I don't see any evidence that there *is* a
> subculture. As far as I can see, anyone who hangs around the "scene" and
> thinks it amounts to a "subculture" is seriously deluded. (And they might
> have fallen prey, as I did, to the conflation of "goth" with "gothic".)
But it has nothing to do with this conflation. Just the opposite. It is
only by divorcing goth from gothic that one could believe that there was
a guiding political force in goth that provides possibility for lasting
social change. Goth is not about changing the world precisely because it
does ahve to do with a gothic aesthetic. And again, this has to do with
acknowledging the nature of the psychic states that are ammenable to
gothic: dionysian, dissolute psychic states that abound, still, in the
goth subculture - although they are increasingly on the decline.
> That's what David Gerard is on to when he says he'll "settle for nothing
> less than a theory that explains *why* Nice Boots". That's why "What is
> Goth?" is a taboo question. Goth is nothing. Goth is nice boots. And
> that's why this thread has probably been killed or is being marked read by
> most people who read this group. Because once you start theorizing about
> the True Nature of Goth/ic, you might as well be theorizing about how to
> turn lead into gold. You might as well be proposing a taxonomy of dragons
> and angels. It's a subject which, as far as most people are concerned,
> lacks an object.
Gerard is wrong about the boots. The boots are peripheral. You could
still have a goth subculture if everyone decided it was spiffy to wear
sandals. You could not still have a goth subculture if everyone decided
to listen to Bread, and decided that what they'd most like to do on a
Friday night is help the neighbor clean up his yard - if that subculture
still chose to call itslef 'goth' they'd have accomplished nothing but
an etymological leap that would completely deprive the word of any valid
meaning - what I've been arguing from the start.
The fact that 'what is goth?' is a taboo question has always annoyed me
to no end. 'What is goth?' is the most meaningful question that can be
discussed on this newsgroup - and this thread is proof that it can be
done in interesting, fruitful ways. If people don't want to discuss it
it's not becuase it can't be discussed in interesing ways, but because
they can't discuss it in interesting ways.
> It's a subject which, as far as most *goths* are concerned, lacks an
> object. And if *they* think it lacks an object, then, de facto, it lacks
> an object.
Oh, pooh. I don't think you don't really beleive that. Goth is whatever
goths say goth is: well then, there is no foundation to it at all.
Tomorrow it might be a bunch of people singing happy songs and talking
about how letting love in will change the world. Oh, my good golly,
you're right after all. ;)
> Still, FWIW, Gerard's comment misses the particular mark it was aimed at,
> as far as I'm concerned, because--as I was saying to Everett at the
> beginning of my original post--what he calls "gothic" is only tangentially
> related to "goth".
The application of the label to the subculture didn't come from
nowhere. 'Gothic' had previous meanings, and any shifting of those
meanings to fit what they were attempting to describe in that pre-goth
post-punk culture was very minimal. If it was done with a bit of
self-mockery, or mockery by other, doesn't mean the associations were
any less accurate. I also disagree strongly that more recent goth bands
are far enough removed from those meanings of gothic to lessen the
association of the word 'gothic' with the culture as in is currently
constituted. The fact is, though, the the current culture is less
associated with those bands, increasingly being influenced from
everything to techno to anime - as I also argued at the start.
> If, by any chance, any of the other people who were around in 1980 are
> still following this--what do you say? Were there "goths" in 1980?
No. But it doesn't follow, at all, that there is no connection, or only
a tangental, accidental connection between the word goth and the word
gothic.
> : Romantic and Gothic are not the same thing, at least in literature.
Not the same thing - but closely related. (Everett is wrong to attach
'gothic' more to the fin-de-siecle than to the Romantics) And here I'll
take the word gothic all the way back to the Ostrogoths. The ostrogoths
sacked Rome. In doing so, they became representative of not only
barbarism, as Matthew has noted, but additionally of a Dionysian force
that overthrew the Classical, Rational Rome. Gothic continued to be
associated with those things a culture considered uncivilized and
barbarous - but beyond that as irrational and as having a dissolving,
destructive effect on the forms of thier culture - ie, the old,
established Catholic south observing what they considered barbarous in
the North - hence 'Gothic' architecture, etc. (the opposite was also
true - the progressive Protestants saw the south as essentially gothic -
and there is a history of nothern writers writing about the south in a
gothic style.) The fact is that this _dissolutive_ effect, the
overthrowing of reason and form, the revealing of the Dionysian in the
Appolonian structures, goes back to the very first definitions of
gothic. (And when people say 'oh, there is no meaning to gothic because
it was once used to describe gaudy cathedrals, or no meaning to goths
because it origianlly referred to a barbarous bunch of Germanics, they
are really just wrong. The meaning of the words haven't fallen all that
far from the original tree.) It is no suprise that as two epochs really
accelerated their unwinding during the Romantic Period: the aristocratic
age giving way to budding democracies, and the Enlightenment's trust in
reason being critiqued and in large part sacked by the maturing
Romantics, that a strong gothic element would emerge. And anyone who has
ever read Cain or Christabel can attest to this. And it is no wonder
that similar symbology emerged in the goth subculture, a culture that
also came to be in a strange time of dissolving traditional forms in
society: the nuclear family, trust in established forms of goverment,
sweeping changes reagrding moany if not most people's place in the
world; and was also, like the later Romantics, pessimistic concerning
politics. The gothic pessimism follows the the hippy optimism, just as
Byron followed Wordsworth (who became increasingly pessimistic and
eventually a true conservative) and Rousseau (who didn't live long
enough to discover just how silly his ideas were when applied in
reality. All the pantisocracies failed, almost immediately. A great book
that ponders this stuff is Babel Tower, by AS Byatt.)
> From what I gather recently, "romanti-goth" is now a near-synonym for
> "trad-goth". Or something.
I don't really gather that, at all. The trad-goth is closer to a punk.
I think the highly romantic goths came later. Though, I guess you could
look a few years and see the skirts and wispy swoops and such as
traditional from our current perspective.
>
> : > > isolation is a central feature of gothic. [...] Gothic, as an adjective
> : > > and a psychic state, roughly coorelates to isolation in space and
> : > > dissolution through time. (Albatross)
> :
> : This could be better described as generally postmodern.
>
> How so?
I would describe postmodernism as based in the idea that there is no
foundational reality; or, at least, that we cannot hope to apprehend any
foundational reality through our senses, or through language, which only
refers to itself. That might be really amenable to isolation in space
and dissolution in time - but isn't the same thing.
> All I know is he quotes the Bible a lot.
I think he wants to show the strength of that language compared to the
moral language of the current liberal morality - which is pretty much
the dogmatically held morality of most of the people on this newsgroup.
(that's just my guess) But, you know, the problem is always the same.
--
"AMOR. MAN IN A COMA, MA'AM. NEMO. AMEN." - Geoffrey Hill
Nick/Yaruar
> Neal Stanifer wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, ISTM the fashion industry has been
> > > making _some_ progress there, even if the clothes themselves are uglier.
> >
> > I would flatly disagree that the fashion industry has made any progress
> > whatsoever except to make its major investors filthy rich, which is its
> > main objective. No other form of progress do I see.
>
> The most amusing observation I've made concerning the fashion
> industry, is that regardless of what the designer tells you is in this
> season, he or she is wearing a black turtleneck and black pants
> typically with black dress shoes on.
Depends on the designer.
Nick/Yaruar
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: They have funnier comedians (this is important--get people laughing and
: they'll be more likely to listen to you) and more "up" Presidential
: candidates, as a rule. Once they've got people hooked, the pundits can
: unleash the invective on what'll then be a more sympathetic audience.
This seems to be an iron law of political discourse. The up and coming
factions are funny. They amuse by poking fun at the perceived absurdities
and failings of the fading notions.
Those belief systems that are on the down side of the wheel, by contrast,
sound shrill and insistent. They have hardened into dogma; their beliefs
are a sacred citadel which must be defended with moral earnestness.
I think that the American right is on the downside right now, though it of
course will be some time before this actually translates into movement in
politics. The early 80's had P. J. O'Rourke and R. Emmett Tyrrell, and
the beginnings of Rush Limbaugh, who used to be funny also. The late 90's
just have William Bennett: shrill and insistent.
It remains for the next Lenny Bruce to appear. Where is Jello when you
need him?
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ NOLI Quam belli cothurni! ABDUCI +
+ Ceterum censeo sedem Romanam esse delendam. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >Panurge wrote:
>
> >> I mean, aren't we trying to formulate a new set
> >> of moral principles on which *the entire society* could run?
>
> >I'm not trying to do this. I don't hope for a counterhegemony.
>
> But what if one of those moral principles is the avoidance of hegemony?
Good point. But wouldn't this end up in the same sort of confused hash
as the drive for tolerance has? Be tolerant, or else... In other
words, how could we enforce the eradication of hegemony, except through
hegemony? ;)
>
> >I'm most hopeful that we will be able to offer young people (and the
> >occasional older person) methods of staging resistance against all
> >manner of bland assumptions, not just a particular flavor which it may
> >be fashionable to despise.
>
> Well, "resistance" is a concept for people on the defensive. I'd like to
> think in terms of more than merely resisting. How about countering the
> "bland assumptions" with well-argued conceptual frameworks?
That's the ideal, I think. I'm hoping it will happen, if not with goth,
then with whatever follows goth.
>
> >> Might it be possible to let both narratives have their own space? I mean,
> >> it's a BIG country, y'know.
> >
> >I'd love to do this....But American politics
> >is at its heart agonistic, and until that changes (in other words, until
> >Congress and the Senate rediscover the true etymology of the word
> >"compromise"), it's more of a tug-of-war than a productive debate.
>
> "from Latin _compromissum_, 'mutual promise'", says dictionary.com.
>
> Some people, ISTM, are so turned off by compromise that they've convinced
> themselves that all of a loaf they didn't want is better than half of a
> loaf they did. Too bad. After all, no side has a monopoly on truth; a
> good compromise might be even better than anything any one side might put
> forth.
This is well-said. Now we have to convince party-voters and other sheep
that they have alternatives to bandwagon thinking.
>
> >> >[T]here will never be an end to those who would presume to
> >> >tell men what "men" are, anymore than women will ever be free of an
> >> >artificial standard of beauty. Not unless and until we decide at some
> >> >point to define ourselves....
> >>
> >I thought the move toward an androgynous aesthetic of physical expression in
> >the 70's would accomplish this, but it fell short.
>
> The story of how that "androgynous aesthetic" got rolled back is, to me,
> one of the most important (yes, I said "important") and instructive of the
> last 50 years of pop culture--possibly the single most important, if not
> the story of its emergence in the first place. I've always contained and
> continue to maintain that that esthetic didn't "die" (to the extent it
> did), it was _killed_ deliberately and purposefully--and not just for the
> purpose of making money.
Heh heh... "It's 1980! Can't you afford a fucking haircut?" -- Lee
Ving
> Even greedy people have worldviews and moral
> perspectives and cultural preferences; making lots of money is, for some,
> a way of amassing enough power to make a difference in the world.
And not all wealthy people are greedy. The world would be a much
simpler place if they were.
>
> Or are you saying the aesthetic itself fell short? If so, why not think
> of it as a stage of development? (You'd think they could've conceived of
> it this way back then if that was the case. <JOHN BELUSHI> BUUT
> NOOOOOO... </JOHN BELUSHI>)
I'm not sure the angrogynes of the '70's were thinking in terms of
social development; I think they were more likely thinking of how the
crop-top and lipstick would look with their silver hiphuggers. And you
know what? That's what they *should* have been thinking. And when they
abandoned all this, perhaps it was because the world refused to change
with them, and their mounting embarrassment caught up to their youthful
rebellion. Too bad.
>
> One important point: That "androgynous aesthetic" was primarily about
> _men_. Look at the "traditional" look today; it's something that mainly
> affects men. Girls, even when "retro", get to look like 1975 at farthest
> back; boys and men, OTOH, are being shoehorned into this neo-con imagery
> based on, say, the late '40s. (OK, so it's a more disheveled version of
> the same, but I think you get the idea. It's certainly a pre-rock'n'roll
> look.)
Personally, I love the '40's look. If I had my way, men would still be
wearing hats. Men would not, however, wear neckties -- stupid Croatian
magical armor which became a collar closure and then an obligatory
addition to the boardroom monkeysuit.
But I digress. The conservative three-piece look and its ilk have
survived because they look damn good. The silhouette is sharp and often
predatory, the contrasts are striking and commanding, and they announce
masculine purpose from across a crowded room. These things are hardly
bad things, unless you think that maleness is a bad thing.
Still, there should be options, I agree. And we'll see those options
take hold just as soon as some large group of males forces them to take
hold from the mainstream. I'm not going to hold my breath. And that
means I'll be looking for androgynes not in the boardrooms, but in the
night clubs, where they've always thrived.
>
> >Perhaps the third time's the charm. If not, there's always next time.
>
> "Third"? When was the second?
The '80's men's-cosmetics thing. Didn't last long. Quickly became
associated with the drag aesthetic of Culture Club and Dead or Alive,
and thus died a poof's death in the age of Reagan.
>
> >I've seen a great many women on the street I thought were beautiful, some of
> >them almost heart-stoppingly so. But they aren't in the glossies.
>
> But they _are_ on the street, which is what (I thought) we were talking
> about. Should've known better, now that I think about it.
>
> >This has nothing to do with making fashion models out of female
> >secretaries and administrators. It has everything to do with foisting
> >an unrealistic and arbitrary image of beauty on women,...
>
> OK. OTOH, I'm not sure such an image is that unrealistic or arbitrary;
> it's just that
> (a) most people understandably don't want to put that much effort into
> maintaining that image--if that's what you mean by "unrealistic", I'll
> give you that; and
> (b) I suspect that there's some sort of archetypal/psychological resonance
> in most such images. But then, I like Hot Bikini Babes, so this may just
> be self-interest. Point is, no one made me like this stuff.
I think you're right. And I'm not saying that I don't find Laetitia
Casta beautiful. And perhaps I don't have a right to ask that people
offer up their own visions of beauty rather than capitulate to Madison
Avenue's. But I'm one of those people who thought Charlize Theron was
the most beautiful woman in the world UNTIL she began to lose weight.
And the idea that Theron might have lost some of that weight because
some casting director told her she should... that thought chills me,
whether it's true or not.
Now, on the other hand, I have very little patience for the complaints
of a woman who sits in front of a television nine hours a day and then
bitches to me about being put down by the fashion industry and the evil
men who drive it. There is no law in heaven or earth which says that
mankind must find everyone attractive. Some people simply aren't as
attractive as others, at least to most people. And when the prevailing
"it" look is diametrically opposed to the look we have, we're pretty
much screwed, man or woman.
>
> >...be advised that men are now falling for the same kind of bullshit.
>
> True--and in a way I find personally very distasteful. With men, it seems
> to involve that Real Man concept--some men seem afraid to be different in
> any way for fear they'll lose their friends/chance for nookie/etc.
It actually has more to do with earnings. Many of the men who make use
of elective cosmetic surgery are trying to hold on to positions in firms
which require fast-paced selling and high-stakes negotions. The rest, I
think, are trying to pretend they aren't turning into Willie Loman.
The thing I find most fascinating about all this is that most of these
men deal with other men. So, is there an element of
homosocial/homosexual teasing going on here? Or is it simple vanity?
>
> >I would flatly disagree that the fashion industry has made any progress
> >whatsoever except to make its major investors filthy rich, which is its
> >main objective. No other form of progress do I see.
>
> Tyra Banks and Naomi Campbell couldn't have been supermodels forty years
> ago (or even thirty). Isn't that progress of a sort? (OK, not much, and
> I'm not asking you to be satisfied, but any positive number is infinitely
> larger than zero.)
Ah, the United Colors of Benetton. What happens when dark skin is not
longer an "it" look? Do we go back to the Scandinordic Vendelas?
I think the fashion industry does a lot more reacting than acting. The
Naomi Campbells and Tyra Banks get to be in the limelight because (a)
white Americans are no longer embarrassed by the fact that they find a
black woman attractive, and (b) American blacks are finally in a place
where they can shop for the designer fashions.
I don't think the fashion industry is into taking social risks, just
fashion risks. Then again, I could be wrong, and I welcome refuting
points.
>
> >> >It's not the cracks [in liberal practice] I'm worried about; it's the walls.
>
> >> I think I see what you mean; is "diversity" another set of walls for you?
> >> Do you want to re-build the walls outward (because at least on a moral
> >> level, I admit there have to be *some* walls)?
>
> >See if this makes sense to you as it does to me. Get rid of phony
> >reasons to hold people back, and diversity will take care of itself.
>
> That's true _to_an_extent_. But you have to deal *quickly* with the
> economic and social situations that have resulted from their being held
> back. Surely other forms of affirmative action exist than racial quotas?
Absolutely. How about heavy punitive penalties for bigoted hiring
practices?
> Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
Why non-meritocratic? If I understand your use of the term, I'm not
comfortable with the notion that some people will be necessarily
excluded by meritocratic hiring practices. This sounds suspiciously
like a resurgence of the "White Man's Burden."
>
> >> >If mainstream culture is the self-perpetuating
> >> >oligarchy, gothic is an opposition party.
>
> >> I see the metaphor, but I also see its limits. Gothic isn't really trying
> >> to take over society;
>
> >Neither are the "opposition parties." Neither, in all truth, was punk.
>
> Well, no. Punk _was_, however, trying to "take over" rock culture, AFAI
> can see, with its restorationist fervor.
I think punk was carving out a space of personal resistance, just as
gothic was, just as rave was. I'm not sure I buy into the "music is
universal" argument. And I certainly think that most people I've met
would consider their own tastes in music deeply personal (even if they
do insist on blasting it at high decibels from their car windows), and
thus the space that music helps them to carve is itself personal.
I don't want to dismiss the social aspects of subculture or even
counterculture; that would be foolish. But I think these cultures are
formed more by a coalescence than by a call-up.
>
> >> it's perfectly happy being left autonomously alone, like an
> >> opposition party that has actual control of a small state of its own.
>
> >But it doesn't have such control and autonomy, nor has it, nor will it.
>
> True. But it's still a decent model to invoke, IMNSHO.
I wouldn't disagree.
>
> >The neo-cons are anything but positive.
>
> They have funnier comedians (this is important--get people laughing and
> they'll be more likely to listen to you) and more "up" Presidential
> candidates, as a rule. Once they've got people hooked, the pundits can
> unleash the invective on what'll then be a more sympathetic audience.
You have a point. I'm not sure about the comedyians, but neo-cons do
tend to seem more optimistic outside the newspaper opinion columns.
It's really hard to listen to a dime-store McCarthy with a nervous
quaver in his voice (Sen. Joseph Lieberman) and NOT think of political
bowel complaints.
Neal
Mark Wood
>
> Personally, I love the '40's look. If I had my way, men would still be
> wearing hats.
If it worked with the shape of ones head, certainly. They've almost
made it back into the mainstream a few times. It's really just a
matter of time. All that's required is another Indiana Jones movie,
and they'll start appearing again.
> Men would not, however, wear neckties -- stupid Croatian
> magical armor which became a collar closure and then an obligatory
> addition to the boardroom monkeysuit.
I think that the mandarin collar is much sharper than the old button
down and tie, particularly when the shirt is the same color as the
jacket.
> But I digress. The conservative three-piece look and its ilk have
> survived because they look damn good. The silhouette is sharp and often
> predatory, the contrasts are striking and commanding, and they announce
> masculine purpose from across a crowded room. These things are hardly
> bad things, unless you think that maleness is a bad thing.
Agreed. Unfortunately the cut tends to be subject to the seasonal
whims of fashion, and by constantly changing the fashionable cut,
designers limit the potential for personal expression, and optimizing
your appearance. Recently the trend was toward short lapels and softer
shoulders which look good on tall thin men. Not being especially thin,
I really didn't care for the trend. I'd like to see a multiple looks
supported simultaneously.
I also miss the shawl collar. IMHO it looked much more sleek and
contemporary than the old notched collar.
> Still, there should be options, I agree. And we'll see those options
> take hold just as soon as some large group of males forces them to take
> hold from the mainstream. I'm not going to hold my breath. And that
> means I'll be looking for androgynes not in the boardrooms, but in the
> night clubs, where they've always thrived.
The boardroom is the hardest place to change fashion, or much else,
because people have largely come to accept that business has different
standards than society at large. It seems much more likely that
"casual clothes" will overtake the boardroom before any sort of
stylish androgynous look. By casual clothes of course I mean business
casual, dockers and polo shirts.
> > >I've seen a great many women on the street I thought were beautiful, some of
> > >them almost heart-stoppingly so. But they aren't in the glossies.
The glossies tend to be fixated on a look, where heart stopping
beauty has many looks. Some people consider a certain type as the
pinnacle of beauty, but I recognize that there are all sorts which can
be equally or more beautiful.
If fashion designers were really to catch on to this as an
opportunity for niche marketing rather than making square pegs desire
to be round pegs for the new season's fashions, I think everyone would
be happier.
> > But they _are_ on the street, which is what (I thought) we were talking
> > about. Should've known better, now that I think about it.
> >
> > >This has nothing to do with making fashion models out of female
> > >secretaries and administrators. It has everything to do with foisting
> > >an unrealistic and arbitrary image of beauty on women,...
What's really mind boggling, is when that image of "beauty" is ugly.
Lately I've been seeing glossies of women with really heavy sloppy eye
makeup that looks as though they've been crying and it ran, then was
dabbed at to straighten it up a little. Yuck! There are ways to do
heavy eye makeup if one is so inclined, but that's not one of them.
> > OK. OTOH, I'm not sure such an image is that unrealistic or arbitrary;
> > it's just that
> > (a) most people understandably don't want to put that much effort into
> > maintaining that image--if that's what you mean by "unrealistic", I'll
> > give you that; and
> > (b) I suspect that there's some sort of archetypal/psychological resonance
> > in most such images. But then, I like Hot Bikini Babes, so this may just
> > be self-interest. Point is, no one made me like this stuff.
>
> I think you're right. And I'm not saying that I don't find Laetitia
> Casta beautiful. And perhaps I don't have a right to ask that people
> offer up their own visions of beauty rather than capitulate to Madison
> Avenue's. But I'm one of those people who thought Charlize Theron was
> the most beautiful woman in the world UNTIL she began to lose weight.
> And the idea that Theron might have lost some of that weight because
> some casting director told her she should... that thought chills me,
> whether it's true or not.
Many good looking celebrities have lost their looks, by losing too
much weight, in the past eight years or so.
> Now, on the other hand, I have very little patience for the complaints
> of a woman who sits in front of a television nine hours a day and then
> bitches to me about being put down by the fashion industry and the evil
> men who drive it. There is no law in heaven or earth which says that
> mankind must find everyone attractive. Some people simply aren't as
> attractive as others, at least to most people. And when the prevailing
> "it" look is diametrically opposed to the look we have, we're pretty
> much screwed, man or woman.
The genetic lottery can be particularly cruel, and there's little we
can do to offset it's effects. Some things that people can't do much
about are simply going to be unappealing regardless of how broadminded
we might like to think we are, and it's one of the saddest things to
finally come to terms with.
> > >...be advised that men are now falling for the same kind of bullshit.
> >
> > True--and in a way I find personally very distasteful. With men, it seems
> > to involve that Real Man concept--some men seem afraid to be different in
> > any way for fear they'll lose their friends/chance for nookie/etc.
>
> It actually has more to do with earnings. Many of the men who make use
> of elective cosmetic surgery are trying to hold on to positions in firms
> which require fast-paced selling and high-stakes negotions. The rest, I
> think, are trying to pretend they aren't turning into Willie Loman.
>
> The thing I find most fascinating about all this is that most of these
> men deal with other men. So, is there an element of
> homosocial/homosexual teasing going on here? Or is it simple vanity?
Some of both I suspect, and trying to seem more dominant through
taking on the appearance of stereotypical dominant images. Handsome
men are generally given more credit than their unattractive, but no
less qualified counterparts. It's the good hair to which Scott Adams
refers in Dilbert.
> I think the fashion industry does a lot more reacting than acting. The
> Naomi Campbells and Tyra Banks get to be in the limelight because (a)
> white Americans are no longer embarrassed by the fact that they find a
> black woman attractive, and (b) American blacks are finally in a place
> where they can shop for the designer fashions.
Well put Mr. Stanifer.
> I don't think the fashion industry is into taking social risks, just
> fashion risks.
If they really took fashion risks, they wouldn't be bandwagoning to
a particular style every season. The bizarre runway outfits don't make
it to the department stores, but rather each designers take on the
outfit for this season does. How do they come to agreement on things
like the profusion of fuschia and orange that characterized this
spring's offerings?
> Then again, I could be wrong, and I welcome refuting
> points.
>
> >
> > >> >It's not the cracks [in liberal practice] I'm worried about; it's the walls.
> >
> > >> I think I see what you mean; is "diversity" another set of walls for you?
> > >> Do you want to re-build the walls outward (because at least on a moral
> > >> level, I admit there have to be *some* walls)?
> >
> > >See if this makes sense to you as it does to me. Get rid of phony
> > >reasons to hold people back, and diversity will take care of itself.
> >
> > That's true _to_an_extent_. But you have to deal *quickly* with the
> > economic and social situations that have resulted from their being held
> > back. Surely other forms of affirmative action exist than racial quotas?
>
> Absolutely. How about heavy punitive penalties for bigoted hiring
> practices?
Unfortunately the way such cases are assessed has little to do with
the actual circumstances that created a suspicious looking pool of
employees. If there is a shortage of persons with a combination of the
appropriate credentials and racial characteristics, the employer will
end up filling those positions with the people who have the right
credentials, rather than someone who is merely the desired minority
race. If this employer is later accused of bigoted hiring practices,
the composition of their present staff is taken as the totality of
evidence, rather than an examination of the resumes they received.
> > Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
>
> Why non-meritocratic? If I understand your use of the term, I'm not
> comfortable with the notion that some people will be necessarily
> excluded by meritocratic hiring practices.
Some racial and ethnic groups don't put as high a percentage of
their people through the university systems as others, and this leads
to proportionally non representative pools of degreed persons within
the workforce. For many professional positions a college degree is the
first hurdle in the hiring process, so people who haven't met that
hurdle will be excluded. Some PC types will tell you that this sort of
hiring practice is discriminatory, because it prevents the people of
those groups from accessing those jobs at an equal rate. It is a
position that I disagree with, and I think that attempts to quickly
make up for past injustices are doomed to unfairness. When I was in
college, I remember an uproar caused by certain universities favoring
non Asian racial groups in admissions, because admitting students on
the basis of merit alone would have created student bodies that were
entirely of Asian extraction. This would have been entirely
unrepresentative of the racial composition of the state, but in my
opinion more fair and correct than what was done by those
universities.
-M. Wood
Panurge
>Panurge <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>: They have funnier comedians....
>
>This seems to be an iron law of political discourse.
Ah, that was you. OK. Sorry for not pointing that out.
>I think that the American right is on the downside right now,
!! (Not a moment too soon. Maybe my youth will live to see The Future
after all!)
>It remains for the next Lenny Bruce to appear.
Considering that the Left is still viewed as being just as "shrill and
insistent" as the Right, it might be a while. Reading your second
paragraph, I figured you were winding up for an assault on Those Awful
Politically Correct People. (Master stroke by the neo-cons, BTW: Get the
very idea of dogmatism associated with your opponent's platform.)
>Where is Jello when you need him?
Ehhh... Jello would not like me. Therefore, I fell no need to like
Jello. Besides, he may be right, but that doesn't make him a good artist.
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>> >I don't hope for a counterhegemony.
>>
>> But what if one of those moral principles is the avoidance of hegemony?
>...how could we enforce the eradication of hegemony, except through
>hegemony? ;)
Well, here we are: Every society must have an Establishment of some
sort. The point is to have the _right_ one.
>> ...I've always contained and continue to maintain that '70s androgyny
... was >> _killed_ deliberately and purposefully...
>
>
>Heh heh... "It's 1980! Can't you afford a fucking haircut?" -- Lee Ving
This is what I mean by what I've said elsewhere about punk doing the
Ruling Oligarchy's work for it. If he'd said that to me, I (hope I)
would've said, "Yeah, _daaad_. Now go stick it up your ass." Fuck 'im.
>-(
>I'm not sure the androgynes of the '70's were thinking in terms of
>social development; I think they were more likely thinking of how the
>crop-top and lipstick would look with their silver hiphuggers. And you
>know what? That's what they *should* have been thinking. And when they
>abandoned all this, perhaps it was because the world refused to change
>with them, and their mounting embarrassment caught up to their youthful
>rebellion. Too bad.
True. And let's face it: It only works when you're sufficiently young.
(Now, _if_you_take_care_of_yourself_, you can probably do it past the age
of 40. Sean Brennan's been doing London After Midnight for about a dozen
years now and shows no signs of deterioration when he's in his splendor.
A 40-year-old Sean doing LAM looks doable from this point.) And when the
people who started it stop, the development gets mis-interpreted.
OTOH, I guess I should clarify my angle here. When you say "androgyny",
do you mean Ziggy Stardust-style camp-glam? I'm thinking of something
much broader. Someone on everything.com once called the '70s the time
when even short hair was long, and that to me strikes me as a sort of
synecdoche regarding an attempt to incorporate elements that were
previously thought "feminine" even into mainstream male fashion.
<Yea! I finally got to use "synecdoche" in a sentence! ...And remember,
folks, synecdoche is *not* a city in New York State! Ba-dump, BISH!>
>The conservative three-piece look and its ilk have
>survived because they look damn good. The silhouette is sharp and often
>predatory, the contrasts are striking and commanding, and they announce
>masculine purpose from across a crowded room. These things are hardly
>bad things, unless you think that maleness is a bad thing.
I think _unadulterated_ maleness is a bad thing. In fact, I tend to think
unadulterated *femaleness* is a bad thing, too.
Or, from another angle: I think that such a relatively constricted view
of either is a bad thing. In fact, I'm thinking of putting together a
sort of "androgynous" successor to the modern business suit; it's just a
matter of getting someone to make it, which is proving to be surprisingly
hard.
About the '40s thing: My dad showed me one of his high-school annuals
recently. They let some of the guys wear zoot suits instead of
"traditional" suits for the class photos, and I was surprised at the way
they reminded me (from the shoulders up, anyway) of the "leisure suits" of
the '70s. OTOH, with all due respect, the fact that we're even talking
this way shows just how far the neo-con campaign has gotten. I mean, that
was *55 years ago* on average. Tell you what: Imagine it's 1973, and
you're hearing someone discuss how we, in the real world, ought to go back
to (or at least be seminally influenced by) the fashions of around 1918.
That guy would've been dismissed out of hand. What's different about
now?
Of course, I suppose there's an upside to this, where (for example) the
music *we* cared about 25 years ago can still speak to people today.
>Still, there should be options, I agree. And we'll see those options
>take hold just as soon as some large group of males forces them to take
>hold from the mainstream. I'm not going to hold my breath. And that
>means I'll be looking for androgynes not in the boardrooms, but in the
>night clubs, where they've always thrived.
The boardroom would need new clothes of their own. I remember seeing a
photo of a painting from the High Italian Renaissance, and the honchos
back then are dressed pretty austerely, too, right next to the beautiful
boyz in their long hair and codpiece tights--the original Rock Stars, for
sure.
>> >Perhaps the third time's the charm. If not, there's always next time.
>>
>> "Third"? When was the second?
>The '80's men's-cosmetics thing.
I thought it might be.
>Died a poof's death in the age of Reagan.
Don't forget the hair bands. If all those acts had just made better
music, it might've caught on more. Unfortunately, the backlash from it
actually put us behind on balance--way behind.
>And when the prevailing "it" look is diametrically opposed
>to the look we have, we're pretty much screwed, man or woman.
Well, there are always those who think for themselves. And I suppose
there's some helping just about any one of us.
>What happens when dark skin is not longer an "it" look?
Someone cries "racism". :-P
>> Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
>Why non-meritocratic?
I just wanted to respond to the assertion that affirmative action is bad
because it's non-meritocratic. No hiring structure is completely
meritocratic. Remember how W. got into Yale.
>I think punk was carving out a space of personal resistance, just as
>gothic was, just as rave was.
I might've resented it less if I'd seen it that way. But I hear '77 punk
after '77 punk talking about BLOWING AWAY ALL THAT BLOATED CRAP and I just
can't see it as mere resistance.
>I'm not sure I buy into the "music is universal" argument.
No. But many rabid fans seem to think of their music that way, none the less.
>I think these cultures are formed more by a coalescence than by a call-up.
Fair enough.
Panurge
>Neal Stanifer wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I love the '40's look. If I had my way, men would still be
>> wearing hats.
>
> If it worked with the shape of ones head, certainly. They've almost
>made it back into the mainstream a few times. It's really just a
>matter of time. All that's required is another Indiana Jones movie,
>and they'll start appearing again.
I dunno. I have this idea that Matt Drudge will ultimately kill the
fedora dead for good (that is a fedora he wears, isn't it?). If we must
have hats, can't we have new ones? Berets and chapeaus would be OK.
> I think that the mandarin collar is much sharper than the old button
>down and tie, particularly when the shirt is the same color as the
>jacket.
I prefer the turtleneck and mock-turtleneck myself. But I suppose that's
not so far away.
>It seems much more likely that "casual clothes" will overtake the boardroom
>before any sort of stylish androgynous look.
That's already happened at Compaq, where I work. Suits are for higher-ups
to wear on special occasions. Still, I think a "casual" atmosphere is a
good place for new stuff to take hold.
> If fashion designers were really to catch on to this as an
>opportunity for niche marketing rather than making square pegs desire
>to be round pegs for the new season's fashions, I think everyone would
>be happier.
You'd have to get the guys at the home office to agree. But seeing as
more and more of the guys in the home office grew up on rock, that might
be easier than we think.
>> Many of the men who make use
>> of elective cosmetic surgery are trying to hold on to positions in firms
>> which require fast-paced selling and high-stakes negotions.
>> The thing I find most fascinating about all this is that most of these
>> men deal with other men. So, is there an element of
>> homosocial/homosexual teasing going on here? Or is it simple vanity?
Depends on what you find attractive. For me, short hair = not sexy.
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >Panurge wrote:
> >>
> >> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
> >> >I don't hope for a counterhegemony.
> >>
> >> But what if one of those moral principles is the avoidance of hegemony?
>
> >...how could we enforce the eradication of hegemony, except through
> >hegemony? ;)
>
> Well, here we are: Every society must have an Establishment of some
> sort. The point is to have the _right_ one.
Thus the see-saw, the tug-of-war, the zero-sum game. Or at best (in
America, at least) a trilemma; we move from the lesser of two evils to
the least of three evils. Big deal. Vanilla, vanilla with candy
sprinkles, or vanilla with chopped nuts. Hold me back.
And naturally, anyone offering chocolate, or strawberry, or (bog forbid)
pralines and cream, stands to be run over or absorbed harmlessly into
the system, which will then begin for a short time to offer "vanilla
with a hint of pralines."
Enough of this analogy; I think it's beginning to malfunction. The
point is that America's tolerance of subcultures and countercultures is
vastly greater than its tolerance of alternative establishments.
Subcultures and countercultures can be amusing and newsworthy for a
while, and then they vanish or render themselves ridiculous (with a
helping hand from ignorant media personnel -- "Gothic vampire witches:
next Sally Lake Geraldo.")
I don't think the relegation of subcultures to the fringes is a bad
thing, you know. I think it's probably what contributes to the
longevity of these cultures.
>
> >> ...I've always contained and continue to maintain that '70s androgyny
> ... was >> _killed_ deliberately and purposefully...
> >
> >
> >Heh heh... "It's 1980! Can't you afford a fucking haircut?" -- Lee Ving
>
> This is what I mean by what I've said elsewhere about punk doing the
> Ruling Oligarchy's work for it. If he'd said that to me, I (hope I)
> would've said, "Yeah, _daaad_. Now go stick it up your ass." Fuck 'im.
> >-(
You know, of course, that Ving did all this specifically to provoke.
Fear could not have earned its reputation for some of the most dangerous
and energetic slam rings in all of American punk if Ving hadn't been
able to shove his audience past the point of beer-chuckle and grab-ass
to the point of actual violence.
>
> >I'm not sure the androgynes of the '70's were thinking in terms of
> >social development; I think they were more likely thinking of how the
> >crop-top and lipstick would look with their silver hiphuggers. And you
> >know what? That's what they *should* have been thinking. And when they
> >abandoned all this, perhaps it was because the world refused to change
> >with them, and their mounting embarrassment caught up to their youthful
> >rebellion. Too bad.
>
> True. And let's face it: It only works when you're sufficiently young.
> (Now, _if_you_take_care_of_yourself_, you can probably do it past the age
> of 40. Sean Brennan's been doing London After Midnight for about a dozen
> years now and shows no signs of deterioration when he's in his splendor.
> A 40-year-old Sean doing LAM looks doable from this point.) And when the
> people who started it stop, the development gets mis-interpreted.
>
> OTOH, I guess I should clarify my angle here. When you say "androgyny",
> do you mean Ziggy Stardust-style camp-glam? I'm thinking of something
> much broader. Someone on everything.com once called the '70s the time
> when even short hair was long, and that to me strikes me as a sort of
> synecdoche regarding an attempt to incorporate elements that were
> previously thought "feminine" even into mainstream male fashion.
I take androgyny to mean a kind of continuum which ranges from slightly
longish or shortish hair to men and women able to "pass" for the
opposite sex. Somewhere in that continuum are/were Bowie, Alice Bag,
Placebo's Brian Molko, Phrank, and a host of others. Of course, these
are all pop stars and counterculture heroes. Those who were not part of
these scenes might be tempted to think that it ended here, but we know
it didn't.
What I'm trying to say is that androgyny doesn't begin and end with
cross-dressing, it isn't relegated to males, and it needn't correspond
with sexuality. Androgyny constitutes a whole range of behaviors, from
body language and use of voice, to the wearing (or eschewing) of
cosmetics. For some, it represents a smorgasbord: take two traits from
column A and one from column B. For others, it is a naked challenge to
sexual stereotyping.
If anything, I think glam damaged androgyny's chances, making it seem
ridiculous to the mainstream. Others might argue that by pushing the
envelope to extremes (or what were perceived as extremes in those sadly
innocent times), glam made acceptance of more mainstream and mild
versions of androgyny more likely. However, since we did not in fact
see this happen, I really question this line of argument.
I'm not sure how such a thing *should* be staged, but I welcome ideas.
>
> <Yea! I finally got to use "synecdoche" in a sentence! ...And remember,
> folks, synecdoche is *not* a city in New York State! Ba-dump, BISH!>
Congratulations. Now try metonymy. :)
>
> >The conservative three-piece look and its ilk have
> >survived because they look damn good. The silhouette is sharp and often
> >predatory, the contrasts are striking and commanding, and they announce
> >masculine purpose from across a crowded room. These things are hardly
> >bad things, unless you think that maleness is a bad thing.
>
> I think _unadulterated_ maleness is a bad thing. In fact, I tend to think
> unadulterated *femaleness* is a bad thing, too.
I don't think "unadulterated" is the word I'd use when describing
fashion. To me, unadulterated maleness means a male standing nude in
the center of the room. As soon as that male chooses between boxers,
briefs, or panties, he's adulterated. He has begun to form an image
outside his physical maleness; he has begun to play to an expectation,
whether he complies with that expectation or not.
And anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the masculine silhouette,
any more than I see anything wrong with feminine curves. What I object
to is when these become the only games in town.
>
> Or, from another angle: I think that such a relatively constricted view
> of either is a bad thing.
Ah, that's what I was thinking.
> In fact, I'm thinking of putting together a
> sort of "androgynous" successor to the modern business suit; it's just a
> matter of getting someone to make it, which is proving to be surprisingly
> hard.
What? You can't get anyone to attempt to market skirts for men? God
knows they went over soooo well in the 60's. For kicks, do a google
search for Dorcas clothing and look up men's skirts.
All kidding aside, I'm not sure androgynous can't work now, but I don't
think you're going to have much luck convincing the middle-managers and
corporate lackeys to don anything that doesn't scream "I have a dick!"
>
> About the '40s thing: My dad showed me one of his high-school annuals
> recently. They let some of the guys wear zoot suits instead of
> "traditional" suits for the class photos, and I was surprised at the way
> they reminded me (from the shoulders up, anyway) of the "leisure suits" of
> the '70s. OTOH, with all due respect, the fact that we're even talking
> this way shows just how far the neo-con campaign has gotten. I mean, that
> was *55 years ago* on average. Tell you what: Imagine it's 1973, and
> you're hearing someone discuss how we, in the real world, ought to go back
> to (or at least be seminally influenced by) the fashions of around 1918.
> That guy would've been dismissed out of hand. What's different about
> now?
Well, speaking only for myself, I've never been a fan of tie-dye or
unwashed hair or patched blue jeans. I don't like to be around people
who think that failure to bathe is a political statement.
And besides, dogged refusal to acknowledge that anything about the
"crypto-fascist" past might have merit (even the fashions, which were
quite stunning at times), isn't exactly a recommendation for the 70's.
To have ones ideas dismissed out of hand is not exactly what I would
call full employment of a democratic principle.
Anyway, I think the dogmas of the 70's didn't so much get pulled under
or mowed down by the neo-cons. I think people just grew tired of a
group of revolutionaries who couldn't find their revolution. And then,
of course, there was economic prosperity. It's hard to start a
revolution amongst people whose bellies are full.
>
> Of course, I suppose there's an upside to this, where (for example) the
> music *we* cared about 25 years ago can still speak to people today.
True. And that old music isn't even considered counter-revolutionary.
Imagine that.
<snip>
> >>
> >> "Third"? When was the second?
>
> >The '80's men's-cosmetics thing.
>
> I thought it might be.
>
> >Died a poof's death in the age of Reagan.
>
> Don't forget the hair bands. If all those acts had just made better
> music, it might've caught on more. Unfortunately, the backlash from it
> actually put us behind on balance--way behind.
Okay. I still think it was the tragicomedy of a Barbie doll waving his
padded codpiece at the audience that killed the hair bands, but I'm not
going to push it.
<snip>
>
> >> Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
>
> >Why non-meritocratic?
>
> I just wanted to respond to the assertion that affirmative action is bad
> because it's non-meritocratic. No hiring structure is completely
> meritocratic. Remember how W. got into Yale.
That's not good enough for me. I want to work on the foundation, not
spraypaint the windows. Instead of altering admission standards and
hiring practices, and especially insteand of lowering the bar to
accomodate those who have been disadvantaged, let's work on curing the
disadvantage itself. Send a clear message that the public schools will
no longer be the playground of career politicians and social
scientists. Teach inner city and rural kids. Then let them fight to
achieve the same high standards we should be applying universally.
Saying "other systems are flawed" is not a good reason to support a
flawed system, to my mind.
>
> >I think punk was carving out a space of personal resistance, just as
> >gothic was, just as rave was.
>
> I might've resented it less if I'd seen it that way. But I hear '77 punk
> after '77 punk talking about BLOWING AWAY ALL THAT BLOATED CRAP and I just
> can't see it as mere resistance.
I see your point. If I hadn't been so fed up with disco, I might not
have gravitated to punk as I did.
>
> >I'm not sure I buy into the "music is universal" argument.
>
> No. But many rabid fans seem to think of their music that way, none the less.
Sure. It sometimes seems that everyone under 30 is convinced that
everyone else in the world will benefit from hearing the latest favorite
tune. Arrgh.
Neal
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I love the '40's look. If I had my way, men would still be
> > wearing hats.
>
> If it worked with the shape of ones head, certainly. They've almost
> made it back into the mainstream a few times. It's really just a
> matter of time. All that's required is another Indiana Jones movie,
> and they'll start appearing again.
Yes, I loved Indy's hat. And a handful of people even started wearing
these. The problem is that they amounted to movie souvenirs; they
weren't genuine hats worn for genuine reasons. They had no more
integrity than a set of mouse ears.
I want a serious hat, for serious heads. [apologies to Philip Larkin]
>
> > Men would not, however, wear neckties -- stupid Croatian
> > magical armor which became a collar closure and then an obligatory
> > addition to the boardroom monkeysuit.
>
> I think that the mandarin collar is much sharper than the old button
> down and tie, particularly when the shirt is the same color as the
> jacket.
Amen. I love mandarin collars. Hell, I almost wish the Nehru jacket
hadn't gone the way of bell-bottoms. Come to think of it, the fact that
bell-bottoms came back and the Nehru jacket didn't is rather upsetting.
Of course, I also liked the ruffle-fronted shirts of the '60's and early
'70's, so don't judge by me.
I want mandarin collars, priest collars, homburgs and bowlers and
derbies, porkpies, toppers, split-tail coats, spats... I want spats. I
want all this and more. And I want it now.
There. That ought to do it.
>
> > But I digress. The conservative three-piece look and its ilk have
> > survived because they look damn good. The silhouette is sharp and often
> > predatory, the contrasts are striking and commanding, and they announce
> > masculine purpose from across a crowded room. These things are hardly
> > bad things, unless you think that maleness is a bad thing.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately the cut tends to be subject to the seasonal
> whims of fashion, and by constantly changing the fashionable cut,
> designers limit the potential for personal expression, and optimizing
> your appearance. Recently the trend was toward short lapels and softer
> shoulders which look good on tall thin men. Not being especially thin,
> I really didn't care for the trend. I'd like to see a multiple looks
> supported simultaneously.
My problem is that I'm tall (6'4") and thin (190#), but my shoulders are
fairly broad, so even though I like an angular shoulder, I tend to look
like Lurch. On top of this, I have long arms, so most off-the-rack
jackets don't come down far enough on my arm, contributing even more to
the Lurch effect.
>
> I also miss the shawl collar. IMHO it looked much more sleek and
> contemporary than the old notched collar.
Hey, remember the suit jackets worn in the film "Aliens?" I love those
faux-lapels. I'm surprised they never made a real-world debut.
<snip>
>
> > > >I've seen a great many women on the street I thought were beautiful, some of
> > > >them almost heart-stoppingly so. But they aren't in the glossies.
>
> The glossies tend to be fixated on a look, where heart stopping
> beauty has many looks. Some people consider a certain type as the
> pinnacle of beauty, but I recognize that there are all sorts which can
> be equally or more beautiful.
I agree.
>
> If fashion designers were really to catch on to this as an
> opportunity for niche marketing rather than making square pegs desire
> to be round pegs for the new season's fashions, I think everyone would
> be happier.
True. I keep hoping this will happen, just as I'm sure some smart
cookie in the fashion industry has already thought of it. I wonder what
logistical details prevent it from happening? It seems like every time
the designers and advertisers want to go for a (wo)man-on-the-street
effect, they toss fashion models into grubby clothes and tell them to
act casual and fun-loving, which usually means "guffaw and cover your
mouth with your hands a lot."
>
> > > But they _are_ on the street, which is what (I thought) we were talking
> > > about. Should've known better, now that I think about it.
> > >
> > > >This has nothing to do with making fashion models out of female
> > > >secretaries and administrators. It has everything to do with foisting
> > > >an unrealistic and arbitrary image of beauty on women,...
>
> What's really mind boggling, is when that image of "beauty" is ugly.
> Lately I've been seeing glossies of women with really heavy sloppy eye
> makeup that looks as though they've been crying and it ran, then was
> dabbed at to straighten it up a little. Yuck! There are ways to do
> heavy eye makeup if one is so inclined, but that's not one of them.
I despised that whole harsh-world chic. I kept expecting Kate Moss to
turn her sad, hurt face to the camera to reveal a puffy, blackened eye,
and then to say, "Please don't hurt me again." The heroin kids in the
CK-1 ads just looked smelly. And there were always the color-saturated
Guess ads with the smudge-eyed girl who seemed to be trying to mime as
many cliche sexual acts as she could. "Um, can you get your legs any
wider apart? I can't see the seam on the BACK of your jeans yet."
<snip>
>
> > Now, on the other hand, I have very little patience for the complaints
> > of a woman who sits in front of a television nine hours a day and then
> > bitches to me about being put down by the fashion industry and the evil
> > men who drive it. There is no law in heaven or earth which says that
> > mankind must find everyone attractive. Some people simply aren't as
> > attractive as others, at least to most people. And when the prevailing
> > "it" look is diametrically opposed to the look we have, we're pretty
> > much screwed, man or woman.
>
> The genetic lottery can be particularly cruel, and there's little we
> can do to offset it's effects. Some things that people can't do much
> about are simply going to be unappealing regardless of how broadminded
> we might like to think we are, and it's one of the saddest things to
> finally come to terms with.
I agree. And if we insist upon being told that we are THE most
beautiful thing on earth, then we insist upon being lied to by our
partners. Better by far to be satisfied that the person with us cares
enough to stick around. And we can try to find other avenues to form a
bond, if a bond is what we're after. Does she play chess? Is he into
modern dance? Do you share particular sexual fantasies, know the same
people, attend the same church... The list goes on, and it certainly
doesn't begin and end at physical attraction, however important that may
be in real life.
>
> > > >...be advised that men are now falling for the same kind of bullshit.
> > >
> > > True--and in a way I find personally very distasteful. With men, it seems
> > > to involve that Real Man concept--some men seem afraid to be different in
> > > any way for fear they'll lose their friends/chance for nookie/etc.
> >
> > It actually has more to do with earnings. Many of the men who make use
> > of elective cosmetic surgery are trying to hold on to positions in firms
> > which require fast-paced selling and high-stakes negotions. The rest, I
> > think, are trying to pretend they aren't turning into Willie Loman.
> >
> > The thing I find most fascinating about all this is that most of these
> > men deal with other men. So, is there an element of
> > homosocial/homosexual teasing going on here? Or is it simple vanity?
>
> Some of both I suspect, and trying to seem more dominant through
> taking on the appearance of stereotypical dominant images. Handsome
> men are generally given more credit than their unattractive, but no
> less qualified counterparts. It's the good hair to which Scott Adams
> refers in Dilbert.
Yes, the domination bit is a homosocial behavior. And I think you're
right about traditionally handsome men; they tend to be deferred to more
often than dumpy guys or fleshy-looking guys. There are exceptions, of
course.
<snip>
>
> > I don't think the fashion industry is into taking social risks, just
> > fashion risks.
>
> If they really took fashion risks, they wouldn't be bandwagoning to
> a particular style every season. The bizarre runway outfits don't make
> it to the department stores, but rather each designers take on the
> outfit for this season does. How do they come to agreement on things
> like the profusion of fuschia and orange that characterized this
> spring's offerings?
Spies in the house of style, you think? After all, no one wants to be
the last one to realize that taffeta is out. ;)
<snip>
> > >
> > > That's true _to_an_extent_. But you have to deal *quickly* with the
> > > economic and social situations that have resulted from their being held
> > > back. Surely other forms of affirmative action exist than racial quotas?
> >
> > Absolutely. How about heavy punitive penalties for bigoted hiring
> > practices?
>
> Unfortunately the way such cases are assessed has little to do with
> the actual circumstances that created a suspicious looking pool of
> employees. If there is a shortage of persons with a combination of the
> appropriate credentials and racial characteristics, the employer will
> end up filling those positions with the people who have the right
> credentials, rather than someone who is merely the desired minority
> race. If this employer is later accused of bigoted hiring practices,
> the composition of their present staff is taken as the totality of
> evidence, rather than an examination of the resumes they received.
True enough. Except in extreme cases, proof of discrimination is hard
to come by. And this is one of those cases where the burden of proof is
on the accused. All the accuser has to do is prove correlation;
causation is assumed.
>
> > > Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
> >
> > Why non-meritocratic? If I understand your use of the term, I'm not
> > comfortable with the notion that some people will be necessarily
> > excluded by meritocratic hiring practices.
>
> Some racial and ethnic groups don't put as high a percentage of
> their people through the university systems as others, and this leads
> to proportionally non representative pools of degreed persons within
> the workforce. For many professional positions a college degree is the
> first hurdle in the hiring process, so people who haven't met that
> hurdle will be excluded. Some PC types will tell you that this sort of
> hiring practice is discriminatory, because it prevents the people of
> those groups from accessing those jobs at an equal rate. It is a
> position that I disagree with, and I think that attempts to quickly
> make up for past injustices are doomed to unfairness.
I agree. Want more ethnic diversity in the workforce? Get more
uniformity of standards into the schools, including the inner city and
rural schools.
> When I was in
> college, I remember an uproar caused by certain universities favoring
> non Asian racial groups in admissions, because admitting students on
> the basis of merit alone would have created student bodies that were
> entirely of Asian extraction. This would have been entirely
> unrepresentative of the racial composition of the state, but in my
> opinion more fair and correct than what was done by those
> universities.
What is elided by these arguments is, of course, that a decision to
admit more non-X applicants is also a decision to exclude more X
applicants. Patently wrong, completely indefensible, and utterly
politically correct.
Neal
st Albatross
David Gerard wrote:
>
> : Gerard is wrong about the boots. The boots are peripheral. You could
> :still have a goth subculture if everyone decided it was spiffy to wear
> :sandals.
>
> I don't mean why nice boots in particular. I mean what makes them *work*.
Makes me feel powerful - like I can dirve girls wild.
Dunno if that's in any way specific to goth, though ;) After all this
time, I think I'd feel like a big ninny without my boots - I imagine
I'll still be wearing them long after goth is a distant memeory.
> This is a Usenet thing, not a goth thing.
Killfile them all!
> :Tomorrow it might be a bunch of people singing happy songs and talking
> :about how letting love in will change the world. Oh, my good golly,
> :you're right after all. ;)
>
> But Nick Cave isn't goth!
*chuckle*
Hardrock Llewynyth
<nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>All kidding aside, I'm not sure androgynous can't work now, but I don't
>think you're going to have much luck convincing the middle-managers and
>corporate lackeys to don anything that doesn't scream "I have a dick!"
Well, Amazon had one or two who would occasionally come to work in a
kilt; which is technically traditional masculine attire; but
culturally still has some feminine connotations.
>Well, speaking only for myself, I've never been a fan of tie-dye or
>unwashed hair or patched blue jeans. I don't like to be around people
>who think that failure to bathe is a political statement.
Ig. Reminds me of too many people i used to know.
Like tie-dye tho.
Hardrock
"Then I think,'Wow. They have Nick Cave dolls now? I want one.'"
--Bongwater "Nick Cave Dolls".
Jeff Blanks
>Panurge wrote:
>> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Panurge wrote:
>> >> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>> >> >I don't hope for a counterhegemony.
>> >>
>> >> But what if one of those moral principles is the avoidance of hegemony?
>>
>> >...how could we enforce the eradication of hegemony, except through
>> >hegemony? ;)
>>
>> Well, here we are: Every society must have an Establishment of some
>> sort. The point is to have the _right_ one.
>
>
>Thus the see-saw, the tug-of-war, the zero-sum game. Or at best (in
>America, at least) a trilemma; we move from the lesser of two evils to
>the least of three evils. Big deal. Vanilla, vanilla with candy
>sprinkles, or vanilla with chopped nuts. Hold me back.
This supposes that an Establishment is necessarily evil. Economist (and
BTW, so much for Gothic) Lester Thurow likes to differentiate between a
Ruling Oligarchy (which he says is what we have now) and an
Establishment. An Establishment, to Thurow, isn't concerned with personal
gain and/or imposing a cultural vision on the society. That's what I mean
by "the right kind of Establishment"--either it refuses to address the
flavor of the ice cream, or it expressly admits all flavors (which is much
the same thing, ISTM).
>Fear could not have earned its reputation for some of the most dangerous
>and energetic slam rings in all of American punk if Ving hadn't been
>able to shove his audience past the point of beer-chuckle and grab-ass
>to the point of actual violence.
Which does me no good at all. Sorry.
>I take androgyny to mean a kind of continuum which ranges from slightly
>longish or shortish hair to men and women able to "pass" for the
>opposite sex.
Which is what I should've said. It's just that there were many more of
the people I described in the '70s than there were outright glammers.
>Somewhere in that continuum are/were Bowie, Alice Bag,
>Placebo's Brian Molko, Phranc, and a host of others. Of course, these
>are all pop stars and counterculture heroes. Those who were not part of
>these scenes might be tempted to think that it ended here, but we know
>it didn't.
>If anything, I think glam damaged androgyny's chances, making it seem
>ridiculous to the mainstream. Others might argue that by pushing the
>envelope to extremes (or what were perceived as extremes in those sadly
>innocent times), glam made acceptance of more mainstream and mild
>versions of androgyny more likely. However, since we did not in fact
>see this happen, I really question this line of argument.
I'm afraid you're right. In fact, I thought it looked fairly ridiculous
myself--even the performers seemed to think so. OTOH, when it's not taken
as ridiculous from the beginning, it can be quite nice.
>I'm not sure how such a thing *should* be staged, but I welcome ideas.
Bit by bit
>> <Yea! I finally got to use "synecdoche" in a sentence! ...And remember,
>> folks, synecdoche is *not* a city in New York State! Ba-dump, BISH!>
>Congratulations. Now try metonymy. :)
OK... Metonymy is not a city in Wisconsin! ;-)
>To me, unadulterated maleness means a male standing nude in
>the center of the room. As soon as that male chooses between boxers,
>briefs, or panties, he's adulterated. He has begun to form an image
>outside his physical maleness; he has begun to play to an expectation,
>whether he complies with that expectation or not.
Of course, that expectation is what most people think of as "maleness."
In fact, it's what I meant myself.
>And anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the masculine silhouette,
>any more than I see anything wrong with feminine curves. What I object
>to is when these become the only games in town.
>> In fact, I'm thinking of putting together a
>> sort of "androgynous" successor to the modern business suit; it's just a
>> matter of getting someone to make it, which is proving to be surprisingly
>> hard.
>What? You can't get anyone to attempt to market skirts for men? God
>knows they went over soooo well in the 60's. For kicks, do a google
>search for Dorcas clothing and look up men's skirts.
>
>All kidding aside, I'm not sure androgynous can't work now, but I don't
>think you're going to have much luck convincing the middle-managers and
>corporate lackeys to don anything that doesn't scream "I have a dick!"
Oh, I'm not thinking of skirts. OTOH, nothing says "I have a dick" as
much as tights, especially with a codpiece. What's ironic is that people
think of tights as a girl thing. Tights, the convention seems to go,
bespeak a sort of psychological rather than physical androgyny. OK, here
goes:
Mock-turtleneck shirt (maybe with loose scarf)
Waist-length double-breasted jacket w/plunging neckline, the hem at the
buttons (or cufflinks, maybe, or other fasteners) following the line of
the lapel--sorta like a waistcoat with sleeves and pockets inside
Footed leggings
Slip-on suede ankle boots
>> About the '40s thing: My dad showed me one of his high-school annuals
>> recently. They let some of the guys wear zoot suits instead of
>> "traditional" suits for the class photos, and I was surprised at the way
>> they reminded me (from the shoulders up, anyway) of the "leisure suits" of
>> the '70s. OTOH, with all due respect, the fact that we're even talking
>> this way shows just how far the neo-con campaign has gotten. I mean, that
>> was *55 years ago* on average. Tell you what: Imagine it's 1973, and
>> you're hearing someone discuss how we, in the real world, ought to go back
>> to (or at least be seminally influenced by) the fashions of around 1918.
>> That guy would've been dismissed out of hand. What's different about
>> now?
>
>
>Well, speaking only for myself, I've never been a fan of tie-dye or
>unwashed hair or patched blue jeans. I don't like to be around people
>who think that failure to bathe is a political statement.
Not that I meant it that way, but if you go back and actually look at '73,
you won't actually find much of that sort of, to be blunt, caricature. I
remember looking back at my sister's '74 annual (which, of course, covers
some of '73) and really liking the look back then (but then I never
stopped liking it). I miss it somewhat, but I don't know if I'd advocate
going back to it in the year 2001; after all, I certainly didn't expect
things to stay the same back then.
>And besides, dogged refusal to acknowledge that anything about the
>"crypto-fascist" past might have merit (even the fashions, which were
>quite stunning at times), isn't exactly a recommendation for the 70's.
>To have ones ideas dismissed out of hand is not exactly what I would
>call full employment of a democratic principle.
Well, first off, I guess I made a mistake by dragging the '70s into it. I
chose '73 because that's about the _latest_ time you _wouldn't_ have been
dismissed out of hand. Look--let's choose some other stretch of 55
years... 1775 to 1830. 1580 to 1635. 1835 to 1890. I think the same
conditions would largely apply under each of these. Granted, those
weren't exactly democratic conditions, but I don't know if that's
relevant.
OK, so the past has value, and it's something we _might_ be able to learn
from and possibly even use (lots of cool neo-Gothic architecture and
post-hippie Tolkien-inspired pseudo-medievalism bears this out for me).
But what we've got with neo-con culture is an attempt to make a certain
"present" moment _un-happen_, which is a greater cultural offense, IMSNHO,
and even less democratic.
Still, this may simply be a matter of clashing aesthetics; I'm seeing very
little of what I like out in the world right now.
>Anyway, I think the dogmas of the 70's didn't so much get pulled under
>or mowed down by the neo-cons. I think people just grew tired of a
>group of revolutionaries who couldn't find their revolution.
Alas, I have to agree, largely. Honestly, I think it was some of both,
along with the re-orientation on the cultural Left toward
defensively-oriented "subversion" and "resistance".
>> Of course, I suppose there's an upside to this, where (for example) the
>> music *we* cared about 25 years ago can still speak to people today.
>
>True. And that old music isn't even considered counter-revolutionary.
>Imagine that.
Of course not. After all, it's *these* times that are
counter-revolutionary, remember? ;-P
>I still think it was the tragicomedy of a Barbie doll waving his
>padded codpiece at the audience that killed the hair bands, but I'm not
>going to push it.
<chuckle>
>> >> Surely other forms of non-meritocratic hiring methods exist?
>>
>> >Why non-meritocratic?
>>
>> No hiring structure is completely meritocratic.
>That's not good enough for me.
I'm not asking you to think it is. I'm just trying to refute that
particular argument.
>I want to work on the foundation, not
>spraypaint the windows. Instead of altering admission standards and
>hiring practices, and especially insteand of lowering the bar to
>accomodate those who have been disadvantaged, let's work on curing the
>disadvantage itself. Send a clear message that the public schools will
>no longer be the playground of career politicians and social
>scientists. Teach inner city and rural kids. Then let them fight to
>achieve the same high standards we should be applying universally.
As long as they have the tools to do the fighting. I hope, BTW, that the
standards will be relatively absolute, not just a matter of "best and
brightest"??
There's a great quote from Canadian writer John Ralston Saul's
_The_Doubter's_Companion_ that a poster on ALT.MUSIC.YES uses as his .sig
file:
"COMPETITION: An event in which there are more losers than winners.
Otherwise it's not a competition. A society based on competition will
therefore be primarily a society of losers."
You can argue with it, but I see a certain strain of thought in the world
today which seems to assume this, and I think it's a danger that absolute
meritocracy (if that's what you're driving toward) presents.
>> I hear '77 punk after '77 punk talking about BLOWING AWAY ALL THAT BLOATED
>> CRAP and I just can't see it as mere resistance.
>I see your point. If I hadn't been so fed up with disco, I might not
>have gravitated to punk as I did.
Well, "all that bloated crap" usually applies to progressive rock and '70s
arena rock. AFAI could tell, punk was about rock specifically; disco
didn't seem to enter into it much. More to the point, I _like_ All That
Bloated Crap (well, the prog-rock part) _very_much_, and as such there's
essentially no home for me in punk, which has, IIRC, led more than one
person to ask me why someone as apparently credible and conscientious
could have such uncool (uncouth?) tastes.
Anyway, the punk factor made it hard for me to deal with the Goth scene;
eventually I just decided to jump in, my pathetic decrepitude on top of my
irredeemable uncoolness not withstanding, and use my ideas for what I'd
like the Goth scene to be as a basis from which to formulate a nefarious
plot to get my long-delayed revenge on post-punk alt.culture for making me
irrelevant. Better late than never... ;-P
Jeff Blanks
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> BTW, by "synthesis" I don't mean merely a third group identity to which
>> all of us would have to conform. I guess I should've made that clearer.
>
> If the synthesis you speak of requires the co-opting of ideas that
>were previously considered taboo, because they were of the enemy,
>synthesis will not occur. Such synthesis would be considered a
>betrayal by those who operate from dogma rather than principle, and as
>they are the majority in any given movement they will trample the
>would be pioneers of synthesis.
I think what I mean (!) by "synthesis" is the formulation of a third idea
that would resolve the contradictions in the first two.
>> I've always had an interest in the Goth
>> scene, but I've generally found the music to be
>> unsatisfying--Ramones-level music trying to convince people it's
>> Beethoven.
>
> Since you said generally, what music would you say is the exception?
<think> _The_Mirror_Pool_, maybe?
> You also must remember that not all classical music is Beethoven either.
Nonetheless, there's a reason that the classical tradition (and not some
other) produced him.
>> (But then, I always figured that was due to its complicity in
>> The Great Po-Mo Jest.) I say, let's have Beethoven already. (But that
>> would be "prog", and we *can't have that*--it's *not rock'n'roll*!!) :-P
>
> I disagree, Beethoven was very visceral (sufficiently to be
>criticized for it in his time), where prog is often intellectual at
>the expense of feeling. Beethoven was "rock'n'roll!" I'm not against
>complex music, but complexity for its own sake tends to leave me
>cold.
Maybe you just happen to be left cold by some complex music and figure it
must be "complexity for its own sake." I really don't find much of that
in prog-rock. Either that or I can just appreciate it for what it is.
But for me, the best music covers both (only "both"?) bases.
Kris
>> The most amusing observation I've made concerning the fashion
>> industry, is that regardless of what the designer tells you is in this
>> season, he or she is wearing a black turtleneck and black pants
>> typically with black dress shoes on.
If it makes you feel better, I'm now a Fashion major (figured I'd get the
paperwork to back up the experience), and I usually wear blue. :>
~Kris.
-------------------------------------
"So I'm left wondering if all angels feel like me. Do we all have addictions?"
~anon.
-------------------------------------
Panurge
>Goth is not about changing the world precisely because it
>does have to do with a gothic aesthetic. And again, this has to do with
>acknowledging the nature of the psychic states that are ammenable to
>gothic: dionysian, dissolute psychic states that abound, still, in the
>goth subculture - although they are increasingly on the decline.
Still, I think it's generally recognized that the scene is incomplete
without artifacts that address and express those things.
>Goth is whatever
>goths say goth is: well then, there is no foundation to it at all.
>Tomorrow it might be a bunch of people singing happy songs and talking
>about how letting love in will change the world. Oh, my good golly,
>you're right after all. ;)
Well, how about this: Artifacts are qualified as goth/ic based on very
general criteria; there's nothing specific that must or must not be
there. If there's a preponderance of elements that support a particular
set of feelings or perspectives and a dearth of those that don't, then
it's goth/ic.
>The gothic pessimism follows the the hippy optimism, just as
>Byron followed Wordsworth (who became increasingly pessimistic and
>eventually a true conservative) and Rousseau...
OTOH, there are remnants of the hippy optimism holding their own. There
don't seem to have been any remnants of early-Romantic optimism that I can
think of right off.
>The trad-goth is closer to a punk.
>I think the highly romantic goths came later. Though, I guess you could
>look a few years and see the skirts and wispy swoops and such as
>traditional from our current perspective.
Note that the term "traditional jazz" denotes a family of styles that came
along 25 to 30 years or so after the jazz tradition first
developed--bebop, cool jazz, hard bop. There may be something like that
at work here.
>> All I know is [that John Everett] quotes the Bible a lot.
>
>I think he wants to show the strength of that language compared to the
>moral language of the current liberal morality - which is pretty much
>the dogmatically held morality of most of the people on this newsgroup.
Then the way to respond to that challenge is to examine that "liberal
morality" and formulate an equally "strong" moral language that'll show
why it's justified.
st Albatross
Panurge wrote:
> Still, I think it's generally recognized that the scene is incomplete
> without artifacts that address and express those things.
<snip>
> Well, how about this: Artifacts are qualified as goth/ic based on very
> general criteria; there's nothing specific that must or must not be
> there. If there's a preponderance of elements that support a particular
> set of feelings or perspectives and a dearth of those that don't, then
> it's goth/ic.
First, I'd say that we are talking art rather than artifacts. I'm not
sure what you mean by artifacts - but it seems to me that the symbology
of any physical object is too changeable to base much on; unless it is
held really still by an unquestionable historical perspective, and off
the top of my head I can think of no such artifact (maybe something in
the holocause museum). My big black boots can be worn by the guy working
on the docks; for him, it's to protect his toes. OTOH, if you find that
same guy getting into the Swans...
> >The gothic pessimism follows the the hippy optimism, just as
> >Byron followed Wordsworth (who became increasingly pessimistic and
> >eventually a true conservative) and Rousseau...
>
> OTOH, there are remnants of the hippy optimism holding their own. There
> don't seem to have been any remnants of early-Romantic optimism that I can
> think of right off.
If taking over English Departments all over the land counts as 'holding
their own' then I sure think you're right. Although I think that the
optimism has been replaced by resentment, a deep cynicism, a paradoxical
self-importance and a sense of reality irrepairably crippled by thirty
years of encasement within those very English departments.
As for the early Romantic's optimism holding: William Hazlitt berated
Coleridge and others for _betraying the cause_ right up to his death
bed. (Hazlitt is second generation Romantic.) Shelley remained true to
his love can save the world political inclinations all his life. But,
then, Shelley never wrote a true gothic, whereas nearly everything the
pessimistic Byron wrote contains gothic elements.
<snip>
> >> All I know is [that John Everett] quotes the Bible a lot.
> >
> >I think he wants to show the strength of that language compared to the
> >moral language of the current liberal morality - which is pretty much
> >the dogmatically held morality of most of the people on this newsgroup.
>
> Then the way to respond to that challenge is to examine that "liberal
> morality" and formulate an equally "strong" moral language that'll show
> why it's justified.
>
Writing in the service of a cause is usually bad. That's because duty
to the cause overrides perspective, cognition and a sensibility that
lends itself to aesthetic depth. In a nutshell: good art tells truths
that consciously political art is neccesarily blind to. Anyway, there is
plenty of great language that can be used by lefties already - plenty of
it in the Bible, in fact.
st Albatross
IHCOYC XPICTOC
:>I think that the American right is on the downside right now,
: !! (Not a moment too soon. Maybe my youth will live to see The Future
: after all!)
The Clinton impeachment, I think time will tell, was the turning point.
The Republicans were blind to the low comedy of the situation they had put
themselves into.
:>It remains for the next Lenny Bruce to appear.
: Considering that the Left is still viewed as being just as "shrill and
: insistent" as the Right, it might be a while. Reading your second
: paragraph, I figured you were winding up for an assault on Those Awful
: Politically Correct People. (Master stroke by the neo-cons, BTW: Get the
: very idea of dogmatism associated with your opponent's platform.)
Of course, they couldn't do it without their help. One of the greatest
recent setbacks for social justice in this country came when the various
mooks and Troubled Teens (TM) realized that racist slogans and epithets
would cause a great stink among Authorities. If they were just -laughed
at- for being retrograde asswipes, the way it was in my day, they would
have to fall back on Satanism they way they used to in the -early- 1980's.
But now "nigger" or "fag" work better than "666 Satan Rules!" so that's
what the graffiti says.
:>Where is Jello when you need him?
: Ehhh... Jello would not like me. Therefore, I fell no need to like
: Jello. Besides, he may be right, but that doesn't make him a good artist.
I thought for a while that he might become the next Lenny Bruce, though.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Amen. I love mandarin collars. Hell, I almost wish the Nehru jacket
: hadn't gone the way of bell-bottoms. Come to think of it, the fact that
: bell-bottoms came back and the Nehru jacket didn't is rather upsetting.
I recently found a couple of very nice Nehru jackets at Value City, of all
places. I wear 'em to work semi-regularly.
: I want mandarin collars, priest collars, homburgs and bowlers and
: derbies, porkpies, toppers, split-tail coats, spats... I want spats. I
: want all this and more. And I want it now.
I want Geneva bands, Vandyke collars, jabots, frock coats with frog
buttons, brocaded waistcoats, breeches and hose, and tricorn and bicorn
hats, stovepipe hats, and padre hats.
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>> Well, how about this: Artifacts are qualified as goth/ic based on very
>> general criteria; there's nothing specific that must or must not be
>> there. If there's a preponderance of elements that support a particular
>> set of feelings or perspectives and a dearth of those that don't, then
>> it's goth/ic.
> First, I'd say that we are talking art rather than artifacts. I'm not
>sure what you mean by artifacts -
Any produced object, whether tangible (a tool, a work of art, whatever) or
intangible (a piece of music, a social theory, whatever). But I see what
you mean. OTOH, talking about "feelings or perspectives" does, I admit,
tend to imply art itself.
>but it seems to me that the symbology
>of any physical object is too changeable to base much on; unless it is
>held really still by an unquestionable historical perspective, and off
>the top of my head I can think of no such artifact (maybe something in
>the holocaust museum). My big black boots can be worn by the guy working
>on the docks; for him, it's to protect his toes. OTOH, if you find that
>same guy getting into the Swans...
I'll still think of some guy at the docks, if you'll pardon me. Which, I
guess, is part of the problem. Of course, the boots are the sort of thing
I was thinking about, rather than Art.
>> OTOH, there are remnants of the hippy optimism holding their own.
>
> If taking over English Departments all over the land counts as 'holding
>their own' then I sure think you're right.
Well, I was thinking more in terms of culture--there seems to be a certain
hippie vibe to Phish, for example, and a few "hippie" bands keeping the
freak flag flying. Nothing else major, though.
> Writing in the service of a cause is usually bad. That's because duty
>to the cause overrides perspective, cognition and a sensibility that
>lends itself to aesthetic depth. In a nutshell: good art tells truths
>that consciously political art is neccesarily blind to. Anyway, there is
>plenty of great language that can be used by lefties already - plenty of
>it in the Bible, in fact.
True. OTOH, I was thinking about writing outside storytelling--speeches,
essays, whatever. The propagation of causes must necessarily involve
writing, and to the extent that such writing can be more or less
effective, that's what I'm talking about WRT liberalism and its inability
to get an effective message across.
Panurge
>Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>: I want mandarin collars, priest collars, homburgs and bowlers and
>: derbies, porkpies, toppers, split-tail coats, spats...
>I want Geneva bands, Vandyke collars, jabots, frock coats with frog
>buttons, brocaded waistcoats, breeches and hose, and tricorn and bicorn
>hats, stovepipe hats, and padre hats.
I want tights, short tunics with loose sleeves, mock turtlenecks,
skinsuits, waist-length jackets with plunging necklines (or
close-to-the-neck collars, for that matter--I don't know the technical
term), scarves, codpieces, suede slip-on ankle boots, and dude-bikinis. I
want _long_, feathered (or straight) hair. I want depilatories.
Albatross
> st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> > Writing in the service of a cause is usually bad. That's because duty
> >to the cause overrides perspective, cognition and a sensibility that
> >lends itself to aesthetic depth. In a nutshell: good art tells truths
> >that consciously political art is neccesarily blind to. Anyway, there is
> >plenty of great language that can be used by lefties already - plenty of
> >it in the Bible, in fact.
>
> True. OTOH, I was thinking about writing outside storytelling--speeches,
> essays, whatever. The propagation of causes must necessarily involve
> writing, and to the extent that such writing can be more or less
> effective, that's what I'm talking about WRT liberalism and its inability
> to get an effective message across.
The program of the left has been exactly that: 'speeches, essays,
whatever'. Our intellectual climate is choked with it. In fact, the
program, pogrom, whatever, has been highly effective. They have
succeeded in trumping language as an instrument of searching out and
communicating truth, I mean facts, - including subjective, individual
truth,- with language that 'socially engineers'. I don't only mean
p.c.; p.c. is the tip of the iceberg. The effectiveness of this
program is witnessed on this very newsgroup, where a limited number of
'educated' posters show any real ability to speak with an individual
voice outside the constructed language. The fact that many still
consider themselves politically radical free-thinkers is a hearty fine
joke, but it doesn't look like many people are listening for the
punchline. It may not be so much that liberals can't effectively get
their message across as that their message is right at bottom in its
metaphsycial assumptions[1], simply untrue.
st Albatross
[1} the ultimate unity of mankind; the attainability and even
desirablity of a reality without conflict; the meaning and nature of
the planet; the attempted refusal of dualisms: good and evil, good and
bad, light and dark, even truth and error etc; the nature of gender;
the true context of the self - and on and on...
Panurge
>jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote...
>> st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>> >Writing in the service of a cause is usually bad. That's because duty
>> >to the cause overrides perspective, cognition and a sensibility that
>> >lends itself to aesthetic depth. In a nutshell: good art tells truths
>> >that consciously political art is neccesarily blind to. Anyway, there is
>> >plenty of great language that can be used by lefties already - plenty of
>> >it in the Bible, in fact.
>>
>> True. OTOH, I was thinking about writing outside storytelling--speeches,
>> essays, whatever. The propagation of causes must necessarily involve
>> writing, and to the extent that such writing can be more or less
>> effective, that's what I'm talking about WRT liberalism and its inability
>> to get an effective message across.
>The program of the left has been exactly that: 'speeches, essays,
>whatever'.
What about the Right's program? Heck, _they_ get to *tell stories* and
get away with it. They get to flood the media channels with poster boys
and catch-phrases and resonating images and get away with it. I mean, of
course, the Left should join in with their own. But they seem to think
that (for example) since the Right has poster boys and rousing
catchphrases these things are _ipso_facto_ a right-wing thing. D'oh--!
Thing is, "speeches, essays, whatever" are a necessary component of a
political movement, no? Isn't it important that they be good ones? (Not
that I'm disputing what you say above, of course.) "Real" liberalism, as
I see it in the USA, is largely enervated, on the defensive, and choked
with a deep-seated pessimism born of a certain generational mythology, and
that, to me, is why its manifestations today have taken the form they do.
But that's to say that
*there's a problem with liberalism*, rather than that
*liberalism is a problem*.
Honestly, I don't know that we really disagree on very much.
>Our intellectual climate is choked with it. In fact, the
>program, pogrom, whatever, has been highly effective. They have
>succeeded in trumping language as an instrument of searching out and
>communicating truth, I mean facts, - including subjective, individual
>truth,- with language that 'socially engineers'.
OTOH, I think it's fairly apparent that in the public sphere, the Right
has pretty much run away with the shaping of communication, whether that
be linguistic or visual. But is this social engineering really a new
thing? And is it really just a left-wing thing? I don't think so.
>The effectiveness of this
>program is witnessed on this very newsgroup, where a limited number of
>'educated' posters show any real ability to speak with an individual
>voice outside the constructed language.
I wouldn't lay too much of this at the feet of liberalism, though I can
see how it has a part. ISTM that a lot of it comes from a populace that
no longer understands why it's desirable, much less important, to be
articulate. Someone once said we've become a society that's unwilling to
tell our friends when they've done work that sucks, because we don't want
to hurt their feelings. But the solution to this, ISTM, is not to break
out the verbal bullwhip all over again, an option that tempts an awful lot
of people, but to refine our articulation to the point that we can be both
honest and tactful. (I've read that the classical cellist Mstislav
Rostropovich has this gift.)
>The fact that many still
>consider themselves politically radical free-thinkers is a hearty fine
>joke, but it doesn't look like many people are listening for the
>punchline.
I notice that plenty of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians are
afflicted with the same germ. I know better--I know how unoriginal a
thinker I am. :-P
>It may not be so much that liberals can't effectively get
>their message across as that their message is right at bottom in its
>metaphsycial assumptions[1], simply untrue.
I don't know if I understand liberalism as a set of assumptions as much as
I understand it as a set of aspirations (and those are in very short
supply outside the Right these days, I think). It may be that these ideas
function best as a counterweight to traditional assumptions whose value
derives mainly from their being traditional. And besides, assumptions
only tell us *what is*, not *what's right*. But let me try to address the
ideas you've put forth:
>[1] the ultimate unity of mankind;
That depends on how we're supposed to be the same. I have no problem with
appreciating differences, and I've always identified this with liberalism.
>the attainability and even
>desirablity of a reality without conflict;
That might depend on what level of conflict. I think most people can
agree on the desirability of peace, even if most people can usually find
something they value more (usually freedom, but maybe security and/or
prosperity, too).
>the meaning and nature of the planet;
I wonder if this came about about partly as a matter of rhetoric.
>the attempted refusal of dualisms: good and evil, good and
>bad, light and dark, even truth and error etc;
Not everything fits into a dualistic formula. OTOH, yeah, some things
do. I think a lot of the problem has to do with different people's ideas
of what constitutes a good or (especially) an evil thing. If I find
something OK that you find evil, and you find it evil because you look at
everything dualistically, I might start doubting dualism, even if I've
previously been a dualist.
>the nature of gender;
I'd say "largely constructed, but with a biological element". OTOH, that
still leaves open the question of how we should deal with that biological
element.
>the true context of the self - and on and on...
More to the point, I think liberals tend *not to understand the need for
effective rhetoric*. The right puts out "speeches, essays, whatever",
too, and these appear to be better received than the left's--something
that hasn't always been true. Something is wrong, I think, with the
left's language, and it has to do, I admit, with what you've been pointing
out about art.
st Albatross
Panurge wrote:
> What about the Right's program?
The Right usually burns books, don't they? ;)
> Heck, _they_ get to *tell stories* and
> get away with it.
I think a good story is about as close to the truth as we're likely to
get. Our understanding or ourselves, the world, everything, is based on
stories - the only question is: are they true stories?
<snip>
> "Real" liberalism, as
> I see it in the USA, is largely enervated, on the defensive, and choked
> with a deep-seated pessimism born of a certain generational mythology, and
> that, to me, is why its manifestations today have taken the form they do.
> But that's to say that
> *there's a problem with liberalism*, rather than that
> *liberalism is a problem*.
> Honestly, I don't know that we really disagree on very much.
Well, I've still never voted for a Republican cantidate at any level of
governement. My wife calls me 'neo-conservative.' I tell her she can
only say that becasue she never saw me living with conservatives. But
yeah - we aren't going to disagree too angrily, because I always keep
the escape hatches unlocked. *clears throat*
> >Our intellectual climate is choked with it. In fact, the
> >program, pogrom, whatever, has been highly effective. They have
> >succeeded in trumping language as an instrument of searching out and
> >communicating truth, I mean facts, - including subjective, individual
> >truth,- with language that 'socially engineers'.
>
> OTOH, I think it's fairly apparent that in the public sphere, the Right
> has pretty much run away with the shaping of communication, whether that
> be linguistic or visual. But is this social engineering really a new
> thing? And is it really just a left-wing thing? I don't think so.
I can't really see this. Perhaps you are thinking of the Right in terms
of business interests; in which case I don't know that you can ally them
too closely with a conservative impulse, since their final allegiance
will be to whatever sells. Most conservatives genuinely feels alientated
from public discourse, and certainly from what passes for common
culture. And yeah - well, there has always been bad art meant to
inculcate its audience with catchwords - but the theories of language
that allow for the current pernicious state of discourse among
'intellectuals' are new as of early this century - picking up steam as
the decades rolled forward: see Matthew King's sig.
>
> >The effectiveness of this
> >program is witnessed on this very newsgroup, where a limited number of
> >'educated' posters show any real ability to speak with an individual
> >voice outside the constructed language.
>
> I wouldn't lay too much of this at the feet of liberalism, though I can
> see how it has a part.
I'm referring almost exclusively to the influence of the universities.
Our one hope is to keep the university irrelevant. Christ - give me
Hollywood over UCLA, any day.
> Someone once said we've become a society that's unwilling to
> tell our friends when they've done work that sucks, because we don't want
> to hurt their feelings. But the solution to this, ISTM, is not to break
> out the verbal bullwhip all over again, an option that tempts an awful lot
> of people, but to refine our articulation to the point that we can be both
> honest and tactful. (I've read that the classical cellist Mstislav
> Rostropovich has this gift.)
The truth will always sting, though. A spoonful of sugar might help the
medicine go down; this might also mark the beginning of a nasty sugar
addiction.
> I notice that plenty of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians are
> afflicted with the same germ. I know better--I know how unoriginal a
> thinker I am. :-P
I doubt if I've had an original thought in my life. Someone has always
thought it before, and said it better.
> I don't know if I understand liberalism as a set of assumptions as much as
> I understand it as a set of aspirations
Yes. But they have devised assumptions that validate the aspirations.
> (and those are in very short
> supply outside the Right these days, I think). It may be that these ideas
> function best as a counterweight to traditional assumptions whose value
> derives mainly from their being traditional.
I think this is a very common misunderstanding. All right-wingers are
not reactionary nut cases, any more than all lefties are resentful,
deluded know-it-alls.
> And besides, assumptions
> only tell us *what is*, not *what's right*. But let me try to address the
> ideas you've put forth:
I'd love to. Especially ...
>
> >the attainability and even
> >desirablity of a reality without conflict;
>
> That might depend on what level of conflict. I think most people can
> agree on the desirability of peace, even if most people can usually find
> something they value more (usually freedom, but maybe security and/or
> prosperity, too).
... this one. But Olivia has informed that its past my bed time. Maybe
I'll get a slow minute at work tomorrow.
Hardrock Llewynyth
<big...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>> Someone once said we've become a society that's unwilling to
>> tell our friends when they've done work that sucks, because we don't want
>> to hurt their feelings. But the solution to this, ISTM, is not to break
>> out the verbal bullwhip all over again, an option that tempts an awful lot
>> of people, but to refine our articulation to the point that we can be both
>> honest and tactful. (I've read that the classical cellist Mstislav
>> Rostropovich has this gift.)
>
> The truth will always sting, though. A spoonful of sugar might help the
>medicine go down; this might also mark the beginning of a nasty sugar
>addiction.
I've found that, despite the whinging of the maternalists (usually the
left-liberals), the blunt approach is generally the kindest approach
to criticism. Not mean or nasty, but clear and frank, with no sugar
coating. If something is garbage, say it's garbage, and more
importantly, *why* it's garbage.
This is always the best way to offer a critique. If someone is truly
interested in honest criticism, then they will have no problem hearing
and applying the critique. If someone isn't, but simply wants an ego
stroke, then they will realize this very quickly; or at least not
bother to ask you what you think about their work again.
When i was in school studying fine arts, most of the time i got the
useless candy-coating. When something was crap, a failure, i could
almost always tell in a vague way, but wasn't always able to tell why.
Most of my classmates and aquaintances were useless. When they could
actually provide criticism (rare, mostly i just got the usual "ooo,
that's neat" crap), it was usually so sugar-coated i couldn't use it.
Instructors were better, but not always. Instead of failures, they
called them "experiments", and "suggest[ed] some alternatives to try".
Some would point out various flaws, but often hiding it in effusive
praise of other elements.
Only one guy, the father of one of my classmates, and an excellent
photographer himself, would truly dissect a photo. He said flat out
"that's garbage", then proceeded to enumerate every single flaw in the
work, and often made suggestions for avoiding or improving; without
all the candy-coating. A very useful approach; and he was my first
choice any time i wanted an opinion on my work.
Of course, he was just as viscious with his own work.
Hardrock
"My ass is a Lemur free zone." --magdalene
Panurge
>I've found that, despite the whinging of the maternalists (usually the
>left-liberals),
TB! :-P
>the blunt approach is generally the kindest approach to criticism.
Maybe for you... <shrug> Some people are different.
>Not mean or nasty, but clear and frank, with no sugar
>coating. If something is garbage, say it's garbage, and more
>importantly, *why* it's garbage.
Well, sure. I'm not talking about anything as facile as "candy-coating."
A truly virtuoso critic, ISTM, would point out every flaw and make
suggestions for improving or avoiding them without resorting to such a
blunt instrument as the word "garbage," which is a kind of "coating" on
its own (and not exactly sugar, either). I think this is what Dmitri
Shostakovich (through the pen of Solomon Volkov) meant when he was
discussing Mstislav Rostropovich, a world-class musician whom no one would
accuse of having anything but high standards. (OTOH, in
Volkov/Shostakovich's example, Rostropovich resorts to exactly the sort of
"effusive praise" you decry. Some people's hard-ass streak is
particularly narrow--nothing wrong with that, IMNSHO.)
The problem is that what you might consider a flaw the creator might, in
all good conscience and with all due diligence, consider a particularly
fine feature--I know I've had that problem with my own work. Sometimes
it really does come down to a simple difference of opinion--the trick is
to know when that's the case. If you're not convinced, ask me to tell you
about when Peter--OK, "Pyotr"--Tchaikovsky brought his first piano
concerto to its dedicatee, Nikolai Rubinstein.
The real problem is that many people are too insecure to be convinced of
the basic good will of anyone who would, say, call a work of theirs
"garbage". This is understandable, since in a diverse culture, "garbage"
will often mean no more than "me no like". If someone points out flaws,
I'll probably appreciate it; if he says "garbage", I'll likely think,
"Well, fuck you."
>When i was in school studying fine arts, most of the time i got the
>useless candy-coating. When something was crap, a failure, i could
>almost always tell in a vague way, but wasn't always able to tell why.
>Most of my classmates and aquaintances were useless. When they could
>actually provide criticism (rare, mostly i just got the usual "ooo,
>that's neat" crap), it was usually so sugar-coated i couldn't use it.
Did you ask, "What do you think of this?" or "I know something's basically
wrong with this, but I'm not sure what; will you help me figure it out?"
>Only one guy, the father of one of my classmates, and an excellent
>photographer himself, would truly dissect a photo. He said flat out
>"that's garbage", then proceeded to enumerate every single flaw in the
>work, and often made suggestions for avoiding or improving; without
>all the candy-coating....
>Of course, he was just as vicious with his own work.
I hope so! (But wait a minute--I thought you said "not mean and nasty."
Where does he get off being "vicious"?)
Matthew King
: Certain posts of his lead me to be no longer convinced of John's good
: faith
"Good faith" being, however, the last remaining value in the twilight of
modernism (i.e., Sartrean existentialism)--good/bad faith is the wrong
kind of category where he's concerned, I think, which is why you wouldn't
suppose for a moment that he'd jump into this thread to *defend* himself.
: Another important point: There are plenty of Moderns and even
: Pre-Moderns in this day and age. <snip> It seems to be conventional
: wisdom that to act in intellectual good faith is necessarily to be a
: Post-Modern. I'm not so sure.
"It may (from time to time) be unfashionable to say so, and it may
surprise a few of you out there, but the Sisters have little time for
post-modernism. We know that post-modernism is not so clever and it's not
so funny. The Sisters are unashamedly modernist."
<http://www.the-sisters-of-mercy.com/gen/rrr2.htm>
: What lies beyond the post-modern condition STM to involve necessarily some
: recovery of earnestness
"Post-modernism celebrates a lack of belief.
The Sisters believe." <ibid.>
: and "progress"
"Post-modernism finds itself in a vicious circle of cynicism and
disappointment; it has no hope to break the circle; it doesn't admit to
knowing what's beyond the circle. If that's a "reasonable" acceptance of
the fact that so many citizens are ignorant of the past and have no
immediate prospect of a better future, then the Sisters reserve the right
to be unreasonable." <ibid.>
: It's been suggested that there isn't such a thing as "postmodern_ism_"
: as much as a "postmodern condition"
The Postmodern Condition is a book by Jean-Francois Lyotard. Lyotard is
the guy usually credited with inventing, or popularizing, or whatever, the
term "postmodern". Lyotard says that what characterizes the postmodern
condition is the failure of faith in "grand narratives". You hear a lot of
talk about "grand narratives" in graduate seminars these days. Grad
students are, by now, largely embarrassed by "postmodernism" (or such is
my impression, anyway), but everyone still knows that "grand narratives"
are right out.
Anyway. For Lyotard, Hegel is the epitome of modernism: Hegel says that
world history is the unfolding of Spirit to greater and greater perfection
(or so they, most of them, say Hegel says). Postmodernism, hence, is
post-Hegelianism.
(In North American philosophy, Kant is more usually seen as the epitome of
modernism. To be modern is to believe that individuals possess a
quasi-divine right of autonomy, that we are capable of being, and
rightfully are, self-legislating. Postmodernism, hence, is post-
Kantianism--i.e., post-individualism (which is why postmodernists are
typically leftists, and why they are often accused by liberals of being
conservatives). For this version of postmodernism, one version of
Foucault is the arch-postmodernist.)
The more general quasi-academic sense of "postmodernism", which you might
pin on Baudrillard, implicitly seems to hold Plato as the epitome of
modernism: behind the shifting world of illusion and appearance, there is
something firm and eternal, the source of Truth (TM), which can be
discovered through the activity of reason. The trouble with this, of
course, is that Plato is an ancient, and the thrust of "modern" philosophy
since at least Descartes has been to dispense with a grand distinction
between appearance and reality (and thus, as Bruno Latour put it, We Never
Have Been Modern)--but where the "moderns" find truth in appearance, the
"postmoderns" affirm, with Plato, that it's only illusion.
Eldritch seems largely to be taking "postmodernism" in the latter sense,
combined with the sense it receives in pop art criticism, where it seems
to amount to not much more than Dadaism.
: Maybe those are questions the Goth scene can answer, in its own way(s).
"Post-modernism doesn't offer you the kind of fun which satisfies. The
Sisters just might." <ibid.>
Matthew
-Matthew-King---"I-tried-to-tell-her-about-Marx-and-Engels------------
-Toronto---------God-and-angels-I-don't-really-know-what-for----------
-Canada----------but-she-looked-good-in-ribbons"-The-Sisters-of-Mercy-
Matthew King
: Liberals, ISTM, don't seem to have
: a very well-formed picture of the conservative narrative in this country.
: If I say so myself, I think I do. Alt-culture? Punks? Why, just More
: Hippies! :-P I mean, they really don't make a distinction, which might
: shock all the skinheads with "Kill The Hippies" T-shirts and the Sex
: Pistols fans who hate That Bloated, Pretentious Seventies Rock. Kind of
: odd, because certain parts of alt-culture seem rather accepting of
: Republicans.
Tetsab and I, as a result of harrowing trials and misfortunes, found
ourselves at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland last week. One of
the first things you see there is an exhibit comprising four or five TV
monitors showing clips of politicians and televangelists going on about
how this or that music, from Elvis and the Beatles on down, is degenerate
and corrupting the youth and so on. The thing that struck me about it was
that a lot of the well-fed white-bread folks who apparently make up the
great majority of attendees at the R'n'R H of F probably would've voted
for a lot of the people in the clips.
Another thing about the R'n'R H of F, btw: we learned that goth does not
exist in the official history of rock 'n' roll, and it doesn't need to,
because *everyone* in the history of rock 'n' roll is goth. The next thing
you see after the devil's music clips is a big display of concert outfits
worn by various rock stars. Not very many at all would be out of place at
the local goth night; many, almost most, are gother than the gothest thing
you're likely to see at the average club night.
And Michael Jackson is the King of Goth.
: I think what's getting me in some trouble is that I'm not taking the time
: or trouble to figure out whether I'm speaking of The Goth Thing or not.
What's getting us *all* in trouble is that we all tend to identify The
Goth Thing with My Thing--unless we're Eldritch, in which case The Goth
Thing is Not My Thing, whatever it is.
: More concretely: We tend to assume that esthetics is a result of ethics,
: if the two are related at all. Might esthetics be able to *point us
: toward* ethics as well, even if we don't often see them doing so in
: practice?
Nietzsche thought so (inasmuch as he can be said with certainty to have
thought anything in particular). Fascists have typically thought so.
I tend to think that ethics and aesthetics are linked, not from one to
another, but both together in their relation to truth, or what Heidegger
at one point called Being. The aesthetically valuable, like the ethically
valuable, is that which shepherds being, lets being be: brings us to
truth, to identity, to communion; away from sin, strife, disjunction.
(Albatross should now be saying that this makes me a Very Bad Goth, but
the truth of our current situation *is* sin, strife, and disjunction; our
art ought to bring us to the truth of that.)
The one thing I think everyone could learn from Heidegger is that the
essential value in art is not beauty but truth; beauty is a some-time
manifestation of truth in art. But ugliness can also be a manifestation of
truth in art. Sometimes we want to say that ugliness can also be
beautiful--when we are moved by the truth in ugliness.
(Nietzsche says we have art to save us from the truth; "truth is *ugly*".
This just goes to show how poorly he understands art, but hardly anyone
does any better, as far as I can see.)
: Maybe we're just seeing for what it really is--no more, no less. That
: doesn't mean we stop the search for a new moral system, or think any less
: of Goth.
What the heck would "a new moral system" look like, anyway? Might it make
it right to murder, rape, steal, lie for your own benefit, torture
innocents? Might it free us from the putative obligation not to treat
others as we would not like to be treated ourselves? Because it seems to
me that that, in a nutshell, is what morality *is*. The details, when it
comes right down to it, don't vary much. What moral philosophers have
argued about through the ages is not what is right and what is wrong, but
what *makes* something right or wrong; human beings have always been
largely in agreement about what is right and wrong.
Of course, there has been a good deal of disagreement about what our God
or gods wish for us to do with our genitals. This, in my view, has very
little to do with "moral systems". Not *nothing*, but very little. It's a
matter of details.
There is also a great deal of disagreement about what is good and bad,
what is worthwhile and not worthwhile--these are questions which I'd want
to call ethical, in distinction from questions of morals. Ethical
questions are those having to do with one's ethos (individually or
collectively)--that is, with one's character.
Whether it is good or bad for Toronto to host the Olympics is an ethical
question, having to do with the character of the city, and whether it's
appropriate to the character of the city for it to host the Olympics (and
to answer that question you have to get into questions about what the
character of the city is and what we who make it up, given our own smaller
characters, would like it to be). The question whether it's right or wrong
to host the Olympics, on the other hand, just doesn't seem like a good
question at all. How could it be right or wrong? If it were *wrong* for
Toronto to host the Olympics, then Toronto *must not* host the Olympics;
it is *obliged* not to hold the Olympics. That doesn't seem to make sense.
So it's an ethical question, but not a moral one.
Now, I imagine what you might have in mind when you say that goth might
help us imagine a new moral system (if not lead directly to one) is that
it might inform what I would rather call our ethics. That being the case,
surely it would. There is nothing remotely goth, no matter how you define
the term, about the Olympics, I don't think, so insofar as you're a goth
in Toronto, you likely think it's bad if the Olympics come here. And,
assuming there's at least something goth about Convergence, you hope
Convergence comes here.
I don't know how far you could go with this--how many of your ethical
choices could be informed, somehow or other, by "gothicity". I think we'd
all agree, anyway, that "gothicity" is not something you'd want to be
anyone's most basic ethical measure. Hopefully there's something deeper--
some relation to being, to truth--which might draw you to "goth" as a
contingent effect, and which will serve to inform your ethical choices.
Panurge
Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>I'm not sure how such a thing [as making "androgyny" more acceptable]
*should* >be staged, but I welcome ideas.
Radicals distrust incrementalism, ISTM, partly because they tend to
conflate "incremental" with "slow", and partly because they think that
small changes are more likely to be reversed. I think that the experience
of the past few decades bears out the opposite. Too much radical change
too fast leaves many people disoriented, and as such they don't feel at
home with the new dispensation. This makes the whole dispensation easier
to reverse. And that doesn't even address the ability to execute change
well, which also goes out the window in times of swift, large-scale
change. Incremental change gives everyone an opportunity to get
comfortable with what change comes along, and as such it'll "take"
better. If WE WANT THE WORLD AND WE WANT IT NOW!!!, we may get it, but we
won't have it for long.
>Anyway, I think the dogmas of the 70's didn't so much get pulled under
>or mowed down by the neo-cons. I think people just grew tired of a
>group of revolutionaries who couldn't find their revolution.
I meant to ask you about this to begin with--I think it's an interesting
expression. What this appears to mean is that the revolutionaries
couldn't articulate coherently and concisely what they wanted the
transformed world to be like. Is that what you mean?
>And then,
>of course, there was economic prosperity. It's hard to start a
>revolution amongst people whose bellies are full.
I guess inflation doesn't cut it, eh? ;-P
Neal Stanifer
>
> Seems I never finished this. D'oh--!
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure how such a thing [as making "androgyny" more acceptable]
> *should* >be staged, but I welcome ideas.
>
> Radicals distrust incrementalism, ISTM, partly because they tend to
> conflate "incremental" with "slow", and partly because they think that
> small changes are more likely to be reversed. I think that the experience
> of the past few decades bears out the opposite. Too much radical change
> too fast leaves many people disoriented, and as such they don't feel at
> home with the new dispensation. This makes the whole dispensation easier
> to reverse. And that doesn't even address the ability to execute change
> well, which also goes out the window in times of swift, large-scale
> change. Incremental change gives everyone an opportunity to get
> comfortable with what change comes along, and as such it'll "take"
> better. If WE WANT THE WORLD AND WE WANT IT NOW!!!, we may get it, but we
> won't have it for long.
I think you raise a very valid point. The incremental approach, as you
put it, may very well take better and last longer for its being
incremental. The mainstream culture in the U.S., which is to say the
culture of mass media, tends to absorb small perturbations in the system
through advertising, sit-coms, and magazine covers, among other
vehicles. Gradual change becomes absorbed into the tissues of the
society, marketed back to society, and thus becomes conscionable. If we
can buy it at Walmart and JC Penney, it can't possibly hurt us.
Some would say that this is a bad thing, that true change must be
transgressive at its inception, and that it must remain transgressive
throughout its duration. They would, in other words, challenge your
preference for gradual change by asserting that change must be forced on
moral grounds until it sticks. Their basis for this assertion, ISTM, is
that anything which can be absorbed by the mainstream is not worth
having.
Naturally, I disagree. If this system works to absorb perturbations,
and if those perturbations become a part of the system, we just need to
work on feeding it more perturbations. I guess I see it as akin to the
difference between deliberate landscaping (using the system) and
detonating a hillside (defying the system).
Dick Hebdige complained in 1979 about the mainstream culture's tendency
to incorporate (and thus render harmless) subcultures such as Punk. He
noted that the more media paid attention to Punk, the weaker Punk grew,
the less it was able to affect the mainstream, to shock, to provoke.
And he was, of course, correct, as far as Punk was concerned. He
mentioned that by the time Punk was on its deathbed, it had been
packaged and marketed as the rebel culture du jour, to the extent that a
person could purchase from mainstream stores the pins, jackets, boots,
and all the other accoutrements of Punk -- a sort of Punk Rebel
masquerade kit.
I'm not so concerned about this kind of thing, however, when it comes to
androgyny. Then again, I also don't think Punk ever had as much to
offer as Hebdige imagines it did. As far as androgyny is concerned, it
could very well be abbetted by the same processes which destroyed Punk
(or at least rendered it ridiculous). By marketing an androgynous
*look*, mass media provides a cover for androgynous *being*, which is
really at the core of androgyny anyway -- the freedom to exhibit
behaviors which feel natural, irrespective of gender, and to break from
the kind of Miss-Manners self-consciousness about gender behaviors
which, IMO, produces more confusion than clarity in young people, male
and female.
>
> >Anyway, I think the dogmas of the 70's didn't so much get pulled under
> >or mowed down by the neo-cons. I think people just grew tired of a
> >group of revolutionaries who couldn't find their revolution.
>
> I meant to ask you about this to begin with--I think it's an interesting
> expression. What this appears to mean is that the revolutionaries
> couldn't articulate coherently and concisely what they wanted the
> transformed world to be like. Is that what you mean?
I think that's part of it. There were a few who were fighting a
political revolution that just wouldn't grip. Most others, however,
were worshipping at the altars of poorly-grounded abstractions. It's
all well and good to "stand for something," but you must enable people
to understand how that "something" plays out in the real world, and I
don't think that happened very often, or at least it didn't happen in a
way that the mainstream found palatable. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure
there were any number of people who sincerely wanted something new. I
just don't think most of them devoted enough systematic thought to what
shape that new thing would take in the world. This is America, after
all; we tend to resist change. And vague, amorphous change is the worst
kind of change, if only because no one knows how it will affect such
real-world things as mortgage payments, marriages, classrooms, and
churches.
>
> >And then,
> >of course, there was economic prosperity. It's hard to start a
> >revolution amongst people whose bellies are full.
>
> I guess inflation doesn't cut it, eh? ;-P
No, I don't think it does. Now keep in mind that revolutions aren't
begun by the struggling proles; they're begun by people with a political
ideology who want to see that ideology replace whatever one currently
holds sway. Be that as it may, every revolution needs support from some
quarter, and few American countercultural movements have ever enjoyed a
fraction of the support they required to become a real threat to the
system. I think this is why Americans are generally capable of looking
on countercultures as fairly amusing oddities, especially in hindsight.
We can joke about Hippies and Yippies and Punks; I'll wager the Russians
don't joke much about Bolsheviks.
Neal
Panurge
>Some would say that...anything which can be absorbed by the mainstream
>is not worth having.
Well, you're gonna have a mainstream anyway--might as well have a good one.
>If this system works to absorb perturbations,
>and if those perturbations become a part of the system, we just need to
>work on feeding it more perturbations.
Right. Why we would want to present these things as "harmful" or
"dangerous" largely beats me. I guess some people like being on the
outside; maybe it reassures them that they're not just living by default.
Maybe it's an appeal to a mythic sense of personal development--"baptism
by fire" and all that.
OTOH, I've wondered if I'd be willing to give up the artistic achievements
of the late '60s and early '70s if things would've been better now. That
depends on how much better they would've been in the previous 25 years, of
course, as well as how good things could get.
Would I give up, say, _Tales_From_Topographic_Oceans_ if it meant no
conservative backlash and/or no "postmodern" backlash? I don't know--I
think I'd rather take the bad with the good (noting, of course, that
_TFTO_ is very few people's idea of good these days).
Would I wait an extra 15 or 20 years for it? Probably.
>By marketing an androgynous
>*look*, mass media provides a cover for androgynous *being*, which is
>really at the core of androgyny anyway[...].
And on the flipside, taking away that look is a way of removing that
cover. That's what today's hipsters, in their ridiculous efforts to be
open-minded to closed-mindedness, don't seem to understand.
I think a lot of what's happened over the past couple of decades might
have to do with an idea that, AFAIK, has never been explicitly expressed,
but that most people seem to know subconsciously--that "hipsters" and
"freaks" are no longer the same people.
>I'm sure there were any number of people who sincerely wanted something new. I
>just don't think most of them devoted enough systematic thought to what
>shape that new thing would take in the world.
Bingo. That's what I meant to say, but I just didn't think it through
enough. Fancy that. ;-P
BTW, here's my vague sense of the progression of the time:
'64-'73--These are the years of radicalism, from the Berkeley protests to
the Vietnam cease-fire. These years peak between '67 and '70, natch.
'69-'75--The hippie movement comes home to Middle America. Some measure
of incremental change actually gets worked out.
'69-'77--Radical disenchantment festers, first due to the inability of
Utopia to materialize by 1970, then by The Man's Fascist Oppression ("Come
and see the violence inherent in the system!"), then by the baby-boomers'
"sell-out". I suspect that deep down, what most people feel toward the
boomers is *resentment* for not carrying off The Revolution properly--as
if that had been the only chance.
'73-'82--Neo-cons, noting the waning of radicalism, begin to See A Trend
and instigate some incremental change of their own. George Lucas decides
to make a plain old mass-entertainment space-opera and make a lot of
money.
'73-'77--Rock critics decide that Rock Has Gone Too Far.
'76-'85--Radical disenchantment finds a voice in punk, expressing itself
as disdain for '60s radicalism in general, jump-starting a pattern
(already established by conservatives) whose latest expression was the
cover story in _Time_ last week: "Do Kids Have Too Much Power?" IOW,
this is where the new national pastime, Dumping On The Boomers, is
invented.
'85-present--A part of alt.culture decides that ThemDamnHippies weren't so
bad after all in themselves--it's just ThemDamn '70s Rockers that were the
problem.
Neal Stanifer
> >If this system works to absorb perturbations,
> >and if those perturbations become a part of the system, we just need to
> >work on feeding it more perturbations.
>
> Right. Why we would want to present these things as "harmful" or
> "dangerous" largely beats me.
Precisely because, taken in toto, they *are* harmful and dangerous, at
least to the dominant culture. Imagine if Punk had actually been
swallowed by even a significant minority of American youth, in one gulp,
rather than as a coagulated collection of leftover fashion
"statements."
Imagine if Goth (and all that people insiders associate with it) were to
suddenly become accepted as a legitimate way to live, rather than as an
amusing convergence of wannabe vampires and trench-coated losers.
By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
harmless and marketable, turning it into a sales opportunity or a
ratings booster rather than a challenge to common perceptions and
behaviors.
I've tried to figure out a response to this, and all I can come up with
is an escalating series of challenges, deeper and stronger
perturbations. But I have to admit that I have my own limits, and there
exists a line somewhere when I stop viewing a subculture as healthfully
transgressive and begin viewing it as morally perverse.
> I guess some people like being on the
> outside; maybe it reassures them that they're not just living by default.
> Maybe it's an appeal to a mythic sense of personal development--"baptism
> by fire" and all that.
I think you're right on both counts, and I would add that America is
home to a great many subculture junkies, folks who are constantly
prowling for the undiscovered thing; once it becomes discovered, they
abandon it and take up the hunt afresh.
Ever have a friend who liked an obscure band right up to the point when
it got radio airplay, and then he began to put it down? Same principle,
I think.
These people are not a credit to a subculture, at any rate. In their
roles as "rebels without a clue," they are more a liability and source
of internal conflict than they are a source of strength or an asset.
<snip>
>
> >By marketing an androgynous
> >*look*, mass media provides a cover for androgynous *being*, which is
> >really at the core of androgyny anyway[...].
>
> And on the flipside, taking away that look is a way of removing that
> cover. That's what today's hipsters, in their ridiculous efforts to be
> open-minded to closed-mindedness, don't seem to understand.
I think I know what you're talking about here, but I'm not certain.
Could you provide an example or two?
>
> I think a lot of what's happened over the past couple of decades might
> have to do with an idea that, AFAIK, has never been explicitly expressed,
> but that most people seem to know subconsciously--that "hipsters" and
> "freaks" are no longer the same people.
Not for some time, in fact. "Shock is chic" began to take hold about
the time Punk was puking up its candy-colored guts in an L.A. alleyway.
Counterculture became a merchandising angle, and now we may even go as
far as to say "freak is chic." How else could one explain Calvin
Klein's transgressive and desperate "heroin chic" and pedophilic images
being used to sell overpriced briefs?
Funk also contributed to this, and especially as it has been
regurgitated in the 90's. When Parliament did it, it was shocking.
When Jamiroquai does it, it's trite. But it *can* be used to sell
Verizon Wireless accounts to Dotcompoops who desperately desire
acceptance among the Beautiful People. Peace, man.
>
> >I'm sure there were any number of people who sincerely wanted something new. I
> >just don't think most of them devoted enough systematic thought to what
> >shape that new thing would take in the world.
>
> Bingo. That's what I meant to say, but I just didn't think it through
> enough. Fancy that. ;-P
I get this way, too. My ideals begin to spiral out of control and out
of proportion, and soon I've lost touch with things like sidewalks,
sliced bread, tractor-trailer rigs, and all the other minutiae that
really make up our lives. I try to bring myself back down to earth
every once in a while. I don't think the idealists of the 60's did
this, or at the very least, too few of them did it, and too
infrequently.
Mao wrote that the only way to build a proper system of governance is to
walk the streets of the province, counting chickens. While I'm not
entirely convinced he took his own advice, I don't really think that's
the point. The advice itself is good. We should know what the
realities are before we risk sailing off into fantasy. Or to put it
another way, you can't change the world if you've never really looked at
it.
>
> BTW, here's my vague sense of the progression of the time:
>
> '64-'73--These are the years of radicalism, from the Berkeley protests to
> the Vietnam cease-fire. These years peak between '67 and '70, natch.
They had something to protest.
> '69-'75--The hippie movement comes home to Middle America. Some measure
> of incremental change actually gets worked out.
By this point, many in the movements were there for the atmosphere. In
other words, the veneer had begun to supplant the content.
> '69-'77--Radical disenchantment festers, first due to the inability of
> Utopia to materialize by 1970, then by The Man's Fascist Oppression ("Come
> and see the violence inherent in the system!"), then by the baby-boomers'
> "sell-out". I suspect that deep down, what most people feel toward the
> boomers is *resentment* for not carrying off The Revolution properly--as
> if that had been the only chance.
By this time, the content was gone, leaving only the veneer. The
Boomers are most often slandered for betraying the veneer, the
abstractions that hung around the real revolutionary work like a fatty
albatross. What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? The
fact that those who preached it didn't always believe it. And then when
they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working world, they became
the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
> '73-'82--Neo-cons, noting the waning of radicalism, begin to See A Trend
> and instigate some incremental change of their own. George Lucas decides
> to make a plain old mass-entertainment space-opera and make a lot of
> money.
I'm not sure about your definition of Neo-cons. Could you give me some
examples of folks you consider Neo-conservative rather than just plain
ol' Conservative?
> '73-'77--Rock critics decide that Rock Has Gone Too Far.
Yeah, they said that back in the '50's, too. And the 60's. Funny, huh?
> '76-'85--Radical disenchantment finds a voice in punk, expressing itself
> as disdain for '60s radicalism in general, jump-starting a pattern
> (already established by conservatives) whose latest expression was the
> cover story in _Time_ last week: "Do Kids Have Too Much Power?" IOW,
> this is where the new national pastime, Dumping On The Boomers, is
> invented.
I think the issue of kids having too much power is not quite the same as
the shock effect produced by Punk or Funk or Goth or any of that stuff.
I think the issue of kids having too much power has more to do with
anti-child abuse laws and parents who never grew up. Then again, I
never read Time magazine, so I don't know what claims the article made.
> '85-present--A part of alt.culture decides that ThemDamnHippies weren't so
> bad after all in themselves--it's just ThemDamn '70s Rockers that were the
> problem.
Hmm... Then again, you may be imagining this, eh? I think Hippies
still take far more fire (and some of it quite well-directed) than 70's
rockers do. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the younger generations in
America may well be beyond the point of understanding 70's rock in any
form at all. They'll be reminded of the Hippies on occasion, but
phenomena such as Glam will only ever reveal themselves to these kids as
regurgitated marketing efforts. Sparkly silver spandex, anyone?
Neal
Old Navy is living proof that no fashion, however ill-conceived, can be
expected to keep to its coffin.
st Albatross
Neal Stanifer wrote:
> Precisely because, taken in toto, they *are* harmful and dangerous, at
> least to the dominant culture. Imagine if Punk had actually been
> swallowed by even a significant minority of American youth, in one gulp,
> rather than as a coagulated collection of leftover fashion
> "statements."
>
> Imagine if Goth (and all that people insiders associate with it) were to
> suddenly become accepted as a legitimate way to live, rather than as an
> amusing convergence of wannabe vampires and trench-coated losers.
>
> By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
> mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
> harmless and marketable, turning it into a sales opportunity or a
> ratings booster rather than a challenge to common perceptions and
> behaviors.
>
> I've tried to figure out a response to this, and all I can come up with
> is an escalating series of challenges, deeper and stronger
> perturbations. But I have to admit that I have my own limits, and there
> exists a line somewhere when I stop viewing a subculture as healthfully
> transgressive and begin viewing it as morally perverse.
This all brought this
http://www.theonion.com/onion3703/marilyn_mason.html
to mind.
BTW, TOOL is very likely the greatest band of all time. Just got back
from TOOL. I haven't been that pumped after a concert since I was 32.
Hardrock Llewynyth
<nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>I've tried to figure out a response to this, and all I can come up with
>is an escalating series of challenges, deeper and stronger
>perturbations. But I have to admit that I have my own limits, and there
>exists a line somewhere when I stop viewing a subculture as healthfully
>transgressive and begin viewing it as morally perverse.
There are organizations who have sought to take corporate subversion
to extremes; to try and avoid the co-opting by the mainstream. To
push harder and farther to get the message across. A good example is
http://www.rtmark.com/
Unfortunately, corporate America is much too sophisticated to remain
subverted for long; and has made a science of co-opting subversion for
it's own use.
There is an consulting company that specializes in teaching
corporations how to counter and co-opt "culture jamming" and
advertising subversion for their own use. It's very thorough; and i
am really annoyed that i lost my bookmark to their website. If anyone
can find this site, i would be extremely grateful.
Hardrock
--
"My ass is a Lemur free zone." --magdalene on alt.gothic
Panurge
>By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
>mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
>harmless and marketable,...
How would that be?
>I've tried to figure out a response to this, and all I can come up with
>is an escalating series of challenges, deeper and stronger
>perturbations. But I have to admit that I have my own limits, and there
>exists a line somewhere when I stop viewing a subculture as healthfully
>transgressive and begin viewing it as morally perverse.
It might not be a matter of approaching things in terms of "deeper and
stronger". There are plenty of places where "transgressions" that aren't
perverse are still meaningful; call it the Spandex-in-the-office effect.
IOW, it's a matter of expanding the field of transgressive activity as
much as expanding the depth of transgression.
>Ever have a friend who liked an obscure band right up to the point when
>it got radio airplay, and then he began to put it down?
I'm familiar with the phenomenon, but that seems to be specifically an
alt-culture thing--and I haven't tended to move in alt-culture circles, so
I've never personally come across it. I _have_ known bands to start
genuinely sucking (well, relatively speaking) due to the changes in style
they made to get airplay; Emerson, Lake, & Palmer's _Love_Beach_ (much of
which is mind-bendingly horrid) is considered the textbook example in my
little world.
>> >By marketing an androgynous
>> >*look*, mass media provides a cover for androgynous *being*,[...].
>Panurge wrote:
>
>> And on the flipside, taking away that look is a way of removing that
>> cover. That's what today's hipsters, in their ridiculous efforts to be
>> open-minded to closed-mindedness, don't seem to understand.
>
>I think I know what you're talking about here, but I'm not certain.
>Could you provide an example or two?
Well, it mostly has to do with the stuff you might call the "veneer".
What _Hermenaut_ magazine calls "fake authenticity" tends to have a
vaguely conservative cast to it, and "authenticity" has been one of the
driving forces of the '90s. "Authenticity" is taken to mean "lack of
pretense", and "lack of pretense" is taken to mean "austerity", so there
you go. A regime of austerity is _ipso_facto_ going to have less
potential for variation in it than a regime of flamboyance. I notice that
"hip" fashion these days is pretty conservative, and has been for a while
(if you think Morrissey looked "modern" in 1985, you're missing the
point). What have we come to when "rock star" means baggy khakis, a
bowling shirt, and a crewcut (albeit "transgressive" versions of same)?
IMSNHO, there's a difference between Radicals and Conservatives Behaving
Badly.
>> I think a lot of what's happened over the past couple of decades might
>> have to do with an idea...that "hipsters" and
>> "freaks" are no longer the same people.
>
>Not for some time, in fact. "Shock is chic" began to take hold about
>the time Punk was puking up its candy-colored guts in an L.A. alleyway.
>Counterculture became a merchandising angle, and now we may even go as
>far as to say "freak is chic."
But isn't that to say that the freaks _are_ the hipsters?
>> '69-'75--The hippie movement comes home to Middle America. Some measure
>> of incremental change actually gets worked out.
>
>By this point, many in the movements were there for the atmosphere. In
>other words, the veneer had begun to supplant the content.
But doesn't the atmosphere itself have a content (not to get too
Baudrillardian about it)?
>What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? The
>fact that those who preached it didn't always believe it. And then when
>they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working world, they became
>the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
I suppose that's a good way to put it. But I wouldn't have responded to
this the way the punks seemed to. Once again, part of the problem is that
we expected one generation to carry us all the way. What we should do is
respect what they did accomplish, and then take things to the next level.
Constantly looking to sweep things aside is a formula for stagnation.
>I'm not sure about your definition of Neo-cons. Could you give me some
>examples of folks you consider Neo-conservative rather than just plain
>ol' Conservative?
It may be cultural as much as political.
Paleo-conservative: Jesse Helms, Anita Bryant
Neo-conservative: Newt Gingrich, Randy Travis, Wynton Marsalis
>> '73-'77--Rock critics decide that Rock Has Gone Too Far.
>
>Yeah, they said that back in the '50's, too. And the 60's. Funny, huh?
Well, they didn't have rock critics in the '50s. And I thought rock
reviewers were OK with the '60s.
>I think the issue of kids having too much power is not quite the same as
>the shock effect produced by Punk or Funk or Goth or any of that stuff.
>I think the issue of kids having too much power has more to do with
>anti-child abuse laws and parents who never grew up. Then again, I
>never read Time magazine, so I don't know what claims the article made.
It's online, actually, and from what little I've seen, there really isn't
that much dumping on the Boomers. It's essentially about spoiled rich
kids, as if those were somehow a new phenomenon. A thread on the article
at plastic.com essentially turned into a dump-on-the-Boomers session, with
some dissenting voices.
>> '85-present--A part of alt.culture decides that ThemDamnHippies weren't so
>> bad after all in themselves--it's just ThemDamn '70s Rockers that were the
>> problem.
>
>Hmm... Then again, you may be imagining this, eh?
I don't think so. That was the time when I started seeing long hair and
hippie-influenced fashions on people in the world of alt-culture; before
then, you generally only wore long hair (on males, of course) if you were
a metalhead or an old hippie. And if punk was a rebellion against '70s
rock, then '70s rock has to be on your radar if you're going to have a
full understanding of punk.
>...I'm willing to bet that the younger generations in America
>may well be beyond the point of understanding 70's rock in any form at all.
Oh, I don't know about that. Most of the music played on classic rock
radio is '70s music, after all--and not all those stations' listeners are
in their 40s, or even their 30s. The first five Led Zeppelin albums (at
least the tunes that get on the radio, which pretty much includes the
whole of _Zep_IV_), the first Boston and Van Halen albums, and
_The_Dark_Side_Of_The_Moon_, along with a few dozen other '70s rock tunes,
are pretty much permanent parts of the cultural landscape--well, as
permanent as you can expect to get; alas, I don't expect that anyone in
the year 2100 will care about any of them (unless science figures out how
to extend our own lifespans until then) except as a historical matter, the
way we know about, say, Jenny Lind, the Swedish Nightingale. Of course,
we have recordings of Zep and the others, so things might be a bit
different now.
Most importantly for me, though: To the extent that you're right, that
means lots of people can be introduced to this stuff with a clean slate,
because they never got the message that all right-thinking post-punk rock
listeners were supposed to hate it on principle. I've tried it myself,
with some success.
>They'll be reminded of the Hippies on occasion, but
>phenomena such as Glam will only ever reveal themselves to these kids as
>regurgitated marketing efforts. Sparkly silver spandex, anyone?
I'll take black! ;-)
Hardrock Llewynyth
of Our Lord, Thu, 09 Aug 2001 02:19:20 -0400:
>Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
>>By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
>>mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
>>harmless and marketable,...
>
>How would that be?
"Want to piss off your parents? Want to frighten your peers? Want to
show your authorirty figures just how rebellious you are? Then just
pick up the latest Hot Topic Insta-Goth kit. You can look all spooky
and creepy and make everyone think you're a bisexual satanist slut!
(Because everyone knows that is what all those goths are, after all.)
Throw in a few body piercings for that 'pain obsessed freak' look.
Only $49.95 at a Hot Topic near you. Guaranteed to make your parents,
teachers, and classmates fear and despise you; proving how much
superior you are to those close-minded idiots. Buy now and we'll
throw in a copy of 'The Beginner's Guide to Bad Goth Poetry';
guaranteed to make your parents send you to a shrink."
Neal Stanifer
>
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>
> >By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
> >mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
> >harmless and marketable,...
>
> How would that be?
The real threat posed by a new subculture or counterculture is that it
has not yet been pigeonholed and stereotyped; there are no handy cliches
with which to respond to new movements. This is dangerous because it
makes the culture unpredictable. By sensationalizing, ridiculing, and
then marketing the culture, the mainstream effectively tames it.
Punks, for example, were first interpreted as a scourge, then as a bunch
of vandalizing clowns, and finally as a source of fashion "statements"
which could be marketed to bored suburban white kids.
Goth has been variously seen as composed of suicidal satanists, then
pretentious queens and failed poets, and finally as (e.g.) a great
"look" to dress up a Blockbuster Video TV commercial. "Aloooooo-HA!"
I don't think there's a clear precession to all this. For instance,
Goth is still viewed both as ridiculous AND as highly dangerous,
especially since Columbine and the unethical and inept handling of that
event by the media (proving yet again that some of the people least able
to interpret events are writing our news copy). So you can have both at
the same time in many cases. The important aspect is the marketing.
When the subculture becomes a marketing tool, it's all over but the
sobbing.
>
> >I've tried to figure out a response to this, and all I can come up with
> >is an escalating series of challenges, deeper and stronger
> >perturbations. But I have to admit that I have my own limits, and there
> >exists a line somewhere when I stop viewing a subculture as healthfully
> >transgressive and begin viewing it as morally perverse.
>
> It might not be a matter of approaching things in terms of "deeper and
> stronger". There are plenty of places where "transgressions" that aren't
> perverse are still meaningful; call it the Spandex-in-the-office effect.
Sure, why not? In fact, why not print up a story in Cosmo advising
women to wear leather panties and body-modifying corsets under their
navy blue skirtsuits? After all, "No one will ever guess the secret
source of your freedom and playfulness."
My point is, it's still marketing. It's a "look," and those come in and
go out. Take, for example, a fashion accessory for women which has
begun to show up on magazine covers: a wide collar with a padlock at the
throat. I'll lay you odds half the women (and even more of the men) who
see this attractive accessory have no clue what subculture it originates
with. And if they find out, it's too late; the fetish has been tamed.
> IOW, it's a matter of expanding the field of transgressive activity as
> much as expanding the depth of transgression.
My turn to ask how this would work? Do you mean to boycott Casual
Fridays at the local Dean Witter, or do you have something else in mind?
<snip>
> >
> >> And on the flipside, taking away that look is a way of removing that
> >> cover. That's what today's hipsters, in their ridiculous efforts to be
> >> open-minded to closed-mindedness, don't seem to understand.
> >
> >I think I know what you're talking about here, but I'm not certain.
> >Could you provide an example or two?
>
> Well, it mostly has to do with the stuff you might call the "veneer".
> What _Hermenaut_ magazine calls "fake authenticity" tends to have a
> vaguely conservative cast to it, and "authenticity" has been one of the
> driving forces of the '90s. "Authenticity" is taken to mean "lack of
> pretense", and "lack of pretense" is taken to mean "austerity", so there
> you go. A regime of austerity is _ipso_facto_ going to have less
> potential for variation in it than a regime of flamboyance. I notice that
> "hip" fashion these days is pretty conservative, and has been for a while
> (if you think Morrissey looked "modern" in 1985, you're missing the
> point). What have we come to when "rock star" means baggy khakis, a
> bowling shirt, and a crewcut (albeit "transgressive" versions of same)?
> IMSNHO, there's a difference between Radicals and Conservatives Behaving
> Badly.
Absolutely. More often than not, Radicals are Liberals Behaving Badly,
but their bad behavior catches on. And Conservatives Behaving Badly are
the norm against which Radicals are often measured, so in one sense at
least, many Radicals are already incorporated before they've begun.
>
> >> I think a lot of what's happened over the past couple of decades might
> >> have to do with an idea...that "hipsters" and
> >> "freaks" are no longer the same people.
> >
> >Not for some time, in fact. "Shock is chic" began to take hold about
> >the time Punk was puking up its candy-colored guts in an L.A. alleyway.
> >Counterculture became a merchandising angle, and now we may even go as
> >far as to say "freak is chic."
>
> But isn't that to say that the freaks _are_ the hipsters?
I think it's the difference between wearing "it" and living "it,"
whatever "it" is. And "it" changes with each subculture/marketing
strategy.
>
> >> '69-'75--The hippie movement comes home to Middle America. Some measure
> >> of incremental change actually gets worked out.
> >
> >By this point, many in the movements were there for the atmosphere. In
> >other words, the veneer had begun to supplant the content.
>
> But doesn't the atmosphere itself have a content (not to get too
> Baudrillardian about it)?
Perhaps, but I think there is a difference between throwing a party
attended by people who care about you, and throwing a party attended by
people who have heard you throw great parties. If the purpose of your
party is to prove that parties are fun, you will invariably end up
preaching to the choir. If, on the other hand, you are trying to alter
people's conscious perception of the world in which they live, it might
benefit you to help others to understand the "theme" of your party.
Does that make sense?
>
> >What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? The
> >fact that those who preached it didn't always believe it. And then when
> >they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working world, they became
> >the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
>
> I suppose that's a good way to put it. But I wouldn't have responded to
> this the way the punks seemed to. Once again, part of the problem is that
> we expected one generation to carry us all the way.
All the way to what? See, I think this is one of the problems: there
was rarely a clear destination with the Hippies, other than the same
destination most youth groups seem to share -- overthrow of Mommy and
Daddy and those mean men in the CIA suits. The few Hippies who were
openly Socialist or Communist could scare up enough support to change
the country, and I think part of that was due to the same general apathy
found in most cultures that have outgrown any reasonable borders.
> What we should do is
> respect what they did accomplish, and then take things to the next level.
Ick, I hate that phrase. Sorry, but don't you have to kill the Level
Boss before you can move to the Next Level? The Hippies never killed
the Level Boss; he killed them. And anyway, who says any of the current
countercultures or subcultures are even playing the same game the
Hippies were?
I think you may be assuming a commonality of purpose between and among
subcultures that just isn't there.
> Constantly looking to sweep things aside is a formula for stagnation.
True. Then again, so is sticking with (and building upon) an idea which
has proven its propensity to fail, and to spark nationwide backlash.
The thing I find somewhat amusing about one or two of the nostalgic
Boomers I've worked and lived with, is the tendency to want to reawaken
old ghosts and take up tattered standards. There is, I think, a sense
among them that "this time, we can make it work," or simply "if we'd
only taken it one step further." Too little, too late, IMO.
<snip>
>
> >> '73-'77--Rock critics decide that Rock Has Gone Too Far.
> >
> >Yeah, they said that back in the '50's, too. And the 60's. Funny, huh?
>
> Well, they didn't have rock critics in the '50s. And I thought rock
> reviewers were OK with the '60s.
I'm not so picky about who I call "rock critics." If they criticized
(or more properly, critiqued) rock, they were rock critics, AFAIAC.
You're right, however, in noting that the 60's were okay with rock
critics. Consider who runs Rolling Stone.
<snip>
>
> Most importantly for me, though: To the extent that you're right [about kids being cluless about 70's rock], that
> means lots of people can be introduced to this stuff with a clean slate,
> because they never got the message that all right-thinking post-punk rock
> listeners were supposed to hate it on principle. I've tried it myself,
> with some success.
One of the "nice" things about being born after the hype has died, is
that one can come to a particular music divorced from its obligatory
"scene," or to a particular fashion divorced of its music. This is one
of the unlooked-for benefits of mass-marketing culture and its fetishes,
and it is also one of the unlooked-for benefits of a capitalist system
whose various "idea men" don't have as many ideas as they need to "grow"
their businesses. Occasionally, something from the past becomes
refashioned for the present and pawned of as the way of the future. And
occasionally, some kid rummages through a garage and finds an old
cassette tape containing a song by an artist he's never heard of
before. You're right in saying that this provides little windows of
opportunity, but you have to be Johhny-on-the-Spot.
Of course, the dark side of this piecemeal vomiting-up of culture is
that it denudes the fetish of its context. When will New Wave
hairstyles come back? What will become of shiny metallic red leisure
suits? Whence the bi-level? (Actually, I know the answer to this last
one. Bi-level hairstyles are still alive and well in my home town, worn
by angry white men in their mid-thirties who drive Camaros and El
Caminos and refuse to believe that music continued to be produced after
the death of Randy Rhodes.)
Neal
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >By portraying a subculture or counterculture as harmful or dangerous,
>> >mass media is defusing the cultural bomb, rendering the subculture
>> >harmless and marketable,...
>>
>> How would that be?
>
>By sensationalizing, ridiculing, and
>then marketing the culture, the mainstream effectively tames it.
>
>Punks, for example, were first interpreted as a scourge, then as a bunch
>of vandalizing clowns, and finally as a source of fashion "statements"
>which could be marketed to bored suburban white kids.
This is interesting. Maybe part of what perturbs me about punk is that a
large part of me is still at the point where I was at 13 or so, still
interpreting it as a scourge. The emergence of punk affected me at a very
deep level, as did the--OK, I'll say it--counterrevolutionary turn that
began in the second half of the '70s and continues today.
People tend to say that there aren't really two major political parties
these days, in the USA, but one--the Corporate Centrist Party.
When I look at the USA cultural scene, I don't see, as most people seem
to, two "parties", the Neo-Square Party and the Alt.Culture Party, but
one--the Kill-The-Hippies Party. IMHO, that's basic to understanding
cultural life in the USA over the past twenty years or so.
>When the subculture becomes a marketing tool, it's all over but the
>sobbing.
I also wonder about this. Maybe we should simply accept that this will
happen and either
(a) look for ways to route around it,
(b) look for ways to make the most of it, or
(c) just keep doing what we would've done anyway.
>> There are plenty of places where "transgressions" that aren't
>> perverse are still meaningful; call it the Spandex-in-the-office effect.
>
>Sure, why not? In fact, why not print up a story in Cosmo advising
>women to wear leather panties and body-modifying corsets under their
>navy blue skirtsuits? After all, "No one will ever guess the secret
>source of your freedom and playfulness."
Apparently I didn't express myself that well here. Isn't it the story in
Cosmo that's the problem, rather than Spandex in the office (which I only
used as an example of the level of "transgression" I'm speaking of--of
course, I'd be overjoyed if it were a general trend, but I'll try to put
that aside right now)?
>Do you mean to boycott Casual
>Fridays at the local Dean Witter, or do you have something else in mind?
That would depend on the individual. If you want to use the example of
casual Friday, I'd use that as the sort of opportunity to slip in
something extra that you've referred to yourself.
>If the purpose of your
>party is to prove that parties are fun, you will invariably end up
>preaching to the choir. If, on the other hand, you are trying to alter
>people's conscious perception of the world in which they live, it might
>benefit you to help others to understand the "theme" of your party.
>Does that make sense?
Quite.
>> >What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? The
>> >fact that those who preached it didn't always believe it. And then when
>> >they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working world, they became
>> >the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
>>
>> I suppose that's a good way to put it. But I wouldn't have responded to
>> this the way the punks seemed to. Once again, part of the problem is that
>> we expected one generation to carry us all the way.
>
>All the way to what?
The *revolution of the _mind_*, maaaan! ;-)
>See, I think this is one of the problems: there
>was rarely a clear destination with the Hippies, other than the same
>destination most youth groups seem to share -- overthrow of Mommy and
>Daddy and those mean men in the CIA suits.
LOL!
>The few Hippies who were
>openly Socialist or Communist couldn't scare up enough support to change
>the country, and I think part of that was due to the same general apathy
>found in most cultures that have outgrown any reasonable borders.
Well, I'm not necessarily talking about political revolution.
John Lennon once complained around 1970 (so I've read) that what he and
his crowd wanted was REVOLUTION, and what they got was "a bunch of fag
kids with long hair." But Lennon wasn't thinking far enough ahead; he
never seems to have stopped to ask the question, "What kind of world might
'a bunch of fag kids with long hair' create in the long run?" That, to
me, is the right kind of "revolution."
Jurassic-rocker Robert Lamm of Chicago puts it this way at that band's Web
site:
"In my view, the promise of paradise and peace on earth, that was
something we all fervently believed was possible, and what occurred was
something more subtle. I believe that there was a revolution, and I
believe that it happened so gradually that we didn't realize what was
going on. Even if you take something as mundane as music, there's a whole
young generation of rap artists who are saying everything they want and
actually expressing themselves politically and socially, and people of all
cultures are hearing it, and that form of protest has flourished within
the system, and it's accepted, and for the most part it's okay, except to
extreme right wingers."
>> What we should do is
>> respect what they did accomplish, and then take things to the next level.
>
>Ick, I hate that phrase.
Sorry. It's one of the few catch-phrases I feel I can use meaningfully.
In an ideal version of the present context, Level 1 is Dad's world. Level
2 is where Lennon's BOFKW/LH create their world, without trying to
"overthrow" anybody. Level 3 is where other people with other ideas
follow their example.
Now what happened, ISTM, is that the whole process got thrown off track by
(a) no one except the conservatives being serious enough on any large,
long-term scale, and
(b) everybody--squares, hippies, punks, alt.hipsters--playing Cultural
King-Of-The-Hill. In fact, (b) may be the real problem to begin with.
>I think you may be assuming a commonality of purpose between and among
>subcultures that just isn't there.
They may be closer to each other than they tend to think they are, at
least on the back end--in the way in which they apprehend the world. ISTM
that after a while people ought to be able to get past merely overthrowing
Dad in favor of themselves, and conceiving of a society where everyone
gets and gives the same breathing space and the same respect--including
Dad, BTW.
>> Constantly looking to sweep things aside is a formula for stagnation.
>
>True. Then again, so is sticking with (and building upon) an idea which
>has proven its propensity to fail, and to spark nationwide backlash.
>The thing I find somewhat amusing about one or two of the nostalgic
>Boomers I've worked and lived with, is the tendency to want to reawaken
>old ghosts and take up tattered standards. There is, I think, a sense
>among them that "this time, we can make it work," or simply "if we'd
>only taken it one step further." Too little, too late, IMO.
Not for them, maybe. I refer you to the last lines of Tennyson's
"Ulysses". In short: Not necessarily "this time, we can make it work,"
but "time's a-wastin'--we've gotta get up off our behinds and make _some_
kind of mark for The Cause again before it really is too late."
Too little? Better than nothing.
Too late? Better than never.
Stranger things have happened. I mean, what else would you have them do?
Of course, I'm taking the position that it's the M.O. rather than the
ideas which have "proven their propensity to fail."
Given that, let me ask
re: the hippies' new consciousness
(at its best, that is)
the question Ronald Reagan pointedly left unasked
(the better to work subconsciously, perhaps?)
when he asked in 1980 on behalf of the old consciousness, "If not us,
who? If not now, when?" Namely:
* "If not this, what?" *
And after all, if all the "hung up ol' Mr. Normals" can remain dedicated
to a cause for all their lives, why can't we?
>One of the "nice" things about being born after the hype has died, is
>that one can come to a particular music divorced from its obligatory
>"scene," or to a particular fashion divorced of its music....
>Of course, the dark side of this piecemeal vomiting-up of culture is
>that it denudes the fetish of its context.
But then, contextual games (played in what seems to me to be a rather
cynically self-satisfied manner) seem to be what alt.culture is all
about. The main reason its outward language has tended to be that of the
mid-'60s and before seems to be that when it first surfaced on a large
scale, that was the context that best represented The Past. Now it's the
dominant strain in the culture--once again, as I've said before
_ad_nauseam_, largely (I suspect) because it fits so well with Reaganite
neo-conservatism that it's sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the
other begins.
When alt.culture "denudes the fetish of its context", it seems to do so
pointedly--or else the audience simply isn't educated enough to understand
the gesture. Or maybe they understand and simply don't think it odd the
way people would more likely have thought it odd in the past.
>When will New Wave
>hairstyles come back? What will become of shiny metallic red leisure
>suits? Whence the bi-level? (Actually, I know the answer to this last
>one. Bi-level hairstyles are still alive and well in my home town, worn
>by angry white men in their mid-thirties who drive Camaros and El
>Caminos and refuse to believe that music continued to be produced after
>the death of Randy Rhoads.)
Well, actually, I wear one (of a sort), too. ;-) This is, I suppose, to
be distinguished from that shining badge of compromise, the mullet. But
once again, here we go with the respectability of half of the loaf you
want against all of one you don't. (BTW, you forgot Motley Crue and
Yngwie Malmsteen, whose major careers post-date Randy's.) ;-)
There's a subset of that crowd whose fate I wonder about--the slightly
younger Beautiful Spandex Rock Dudes of the '80s. Maybe grunge made them
angry, too??
What's interesting is that that milieu is in just about the position
mid-'60s rock was in when it was appropriated as the outward esthetic
basis of "new wave". What might that mean for the next few years?
<ROBERT KLEIN>
Ooooo-OOOOOO-_ooo_-ooooo!
</ROBERT KLEIN>
Neal Stanifer
> >>
<snip>
>
> People tend to say that there aren't really two major political parties
> these days, in the USA, but one--the Corporate Centrist Party.
> When I look at the USA cultural scene, I don't see, as most people seem
> to, two "parties", the Neo-Square Party and the Alt.Culture Party, but
> one--the Kill-The-Hippies Party. IMHO, that's basic to understanding
> cultural life in the USA over the past twenty years or so.
I think this is a common opinion, and I think it's mistaken. There are
two parties in the US today: the Republican and the Democrat. Look
beyond 70's-era resentments and nostalgia and into the homes of average
voters and you will see a marked difference in ideology between the
two. The Europeans are fond of saying that America has no Liberal Left,
simply because we have no electorally viable Socialist Party; but that
doesn't hold water. America does in fact have a Liberal faction; it
just doesn't have any Socialists in office. And Hippies never could
decide whether or not they were Socialists, so they relegated themselves
to the dustbins of history.
>
> >When the subculture becomes a marketing tool, it's all over but the
> >sobbing.
>
> I also wonder about this. Maybe we should simply accept that this will
> happen and either
> (a) look for ways to route around it,
Like fighting Wal-Mart, this requires economic savvy. That is something
most countercultures not only lack, but are vehemently opposed to.
> (b) look for ways to make the most of it,
This is tantamount to throwing in the towel.
> or
> (c) just keep doing what we would've done anyway.
Perhaps the best choice, given the resources at hand and the options
available.
>
> >> There are plenty of places where "transgressions" that aren't
> >> perverse are still meaningful; call it the Spandex-in-the-office effect.
> >
> >Sure, why not? In fact, why not print up a story in Cosmo advising
> >women to wear leather panties and body-modifying corsets under their
> >navy blue skirtsuits? After all, "No one will ever guess the secret
> >source of your freedom and playfulness."
>
> Apparently I didn't express myself that well here. Isn't it the story in
> Cosmo that's the problem, rather than Spandex in the office (which I only
> used as an example of the level of "transgression" I'm speaking of--of
> course, I'd be overjoyed if it were a general trend, but I'll try to put
> that aside right now)?
The story in Cosmo IS the trend (qua "trend"). Any other form of
transgression merely marks one as socially retarded, or (worse yet) as
vaguely naughty.
>
> >Do you mean to boycott Casual
> >Fridays at the local Dean Witter, or do you have something else in mind?
>
> That would depend on the individual. If you want to use the example of
> casual Friday, I'd use that as the sort of opportunity to slip in
> something extra that you've referred to yourself.
But Casual Friday is still more dressy and more constricted than I'm
used to. I can get away with wearing some pretty outrageous stuff
because I'm a college instructor. Dean Witter's number-crunching drones
can't do this, even if some of them would like to. Khakis and a polo,
no tie. That's "casual"? Please. And yet, that's considered racy and
a bit transgressive. Why? Because corporate America *owns*
transgression, and has done ever since the citizens of America whored
their sense of sin to the highest bidder. Shame on them for giving up
their shame so cheaply.
<snip>
> >> >What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding? The
> >> >fact that those who preached it didn't always believe it. And then when
> >> >they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working world, they became
> >> >the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
> >>
> >> I suppose that's a good way to put it. But I wouldn't have responded to
> >> this the way the punks seemed to. Once again, part of the problem is that
> >> we expected one generation to carry us all the way.
> >
> >All the way to what?
>
> The *revolution of the _mind_*, maaaan! ;-)
"Look about thee! I will show you the life of the mind!"
<snip>
>
> >The few Hippies who were
> >openly Socialist or Communist couldn't scare up enough support to change
> >the country, and I think part of that was due to the same general apathy
> >found in most cultures that have outgrown any reasonable borders.
>
> Well, I'm not necessarily talking about political revolution.
Revolution, it seems to me, is by its nature political, even if it
doesn't involve the Marxist clank and hiss of steam machinery, or the
hoisting of heavy hammers in the hands of sexy half-nude worker-drones
(who shall inherit the earth, btw) :).
>
> John Lennon once complained around 1970 (so I've read) that what he and
> his crowd wanted was REVOLUTION, and what they got was "a bunch of fag
> kids with long hair." But Lennon wasn't thinking far enough ahead; he
> never seems to have stopped to ask the question, "What kind of world might
> 'a bunch of fag kids with long hair' create in the long run?" That, to
> me, is the right kind of "revolution."
So long as those "fag kids with long hair" were any better than their
parents. That has yet to be proven, and yet it is the unicorn dream of
most Boomers who insist upon clinging to the rotting past. John Lennon
may have been a bitter old fuck, but that doesn't necessarily mean he
was wrong.
>
> Jurassic-rocker Robert Lamm of Chicago puts it this way at that band's Web
> site:
>
> "In my view, the promise of paradise and peace on earth, that was
> something we all fervently believed was possible, and what occurred was
> something more subtle. I believe that there was a revolution, and I
> believe that it happened so gradually that we didn't realize what was
> going on. Even if you take something as mundane as music, there's a whole
> young generation of rap artists who are saying everything they want and
> actually expressing themselves politically and socially, and people of all
> cultures are hearing it, and that form of protest has flourished within
> the system, and it's accepted, and for the most part it's okay, except to
> extreme right wingers."
That's a very interesting sentiment, and quite well expressed. The only
problem is that he's completely wrong. Rap owes nothing to jurassic
rockers; it fought its own battle independent of the Hippies or anyone
else. And the reason it's still alive today and dominating the utterly
useless venue of MTV is not that it's transgressive (which is is, in way
the psychedelic bands of the 60's and the hair bands of the 70's never
dreamed of being), but that it's naughty enough to make suburban white
boys with low-slung pants and misaligned ball caps drop their
Blockbuster Video paychecks to buy the latest CDs. You want
transgression? Look to rap music for that. You won't find it anywhere
as strongly put forth.
I'm glad Mr. Lamm sees his generation as effecting such a fundamental
change, but in the words of the rappers: "Bitch better reco'nize!"
<snip>
>
> In an ideal version of the present context, Level 1 is Dad's world. Level
> 2 is where Lennon's BOFKW/LH create their world, without trying to
> "overthrow" anybody. Level 3 is where other people with other ideas
> follow their example.
And Level 4 is where the followers get tired of following Lennon and
decide to become Dad.
>
> Now what happened, ISTM, is that the whole process got thrown off track by
> (a) no one except the conservatives being serious enough on any large,
> long-term scale, and
> (b) everybody--squares, hippies, punks, alt.hipsters--playing Cultural
> King-Of-The-Hill. In fact, (b) may be the real problem to begin with.
(a) Yes, people who vote do expect some kind of real follow-through on
occasion; (b) Cultural King-of-the-Hill was, IMO, a game played more by
the popular press (including Rolling Stone) than the cultures
themselves.
>
> >I think you may be assuming a commonality of purpose between and among
> >subcultures that just isn't there.
>
> They may be closer to each other than they tend to think they are, at
> least on the back end--in the way in which they apprehend the world. ISTM
> that after a while people ought to be able to get past merely overthrowing
> Dad in favor of themselves, and conceiving of a society where everyone
> gets and gives the same breathing space and the same respect--including
> Dad, BTW.
But that doesn't wash with a lot of countercultures. Few can see past
overthrowing the Man, whoever he might be, and even if they can, they
don't have a clear game plan for setting things to rights.
Besides, as you yourself have pointed out, that breathing space is hotly
contested, especially *between and among* countercultures.
And this is just fine with the popular media: it makes for great copy.
And this is just fine with the mean men in the CIA suits: they're
lauging until they piss their pants.
Give the countercultures just enough rope, and they *will* hang
themselves.
>
> >> Constantly looking to sweep things aside is a formula for stagnation.
> >
> >True. Then again, so is sticking with (and building upon) an idea which
> >has proven its propensity to fail, and to spark nationwide backlash.
> >The thing I find somewhat amusing about one or two of the nostalgic
> >Boomers I've worked and lived with, is the tendency to want to reawaken
> >old ghosts and take up tattered standards. There is, I think, a sense
> >among them that "this time, we can make it work," or simply "if we'd
> >only taken it one step further." Too little, too late, IMO.
>
> Not for them, maybe. I refer you to the last lines of Tennyson's
> "Ulysses". In short: Not necessarily "this time, we can make it work,"
> but "time's a-wastin'--we've gotta get up off our behinds and make _some_
> kind of mark for The Cause again before it really is too late."
In the words of Roy Batty (a true revolutionary): "That's the spirit!"
Get those Hippies out from behind their Apples and out of those suits,
make them grow their hair again, and force them (somehow) to answer the
question: What was it all about?
Was it about racial equality? Not for many; "coloreds" cramped their
style.
Was it about sexual equality? Not for most; chicks were easy, but
hardly equal.
Was it about class equality? Who knows? Everyone seemed to be from the
same class.
Perhaps it was about youth? But that's hardly a revolution, then, is
it? It's more like a statement of the obvious.
Anyway, when you figure it out, let me know.
>
> Too little? Better than nothing.
> Too late? Better than never.
But if it amounts to nothing (or worse than nothing, an embarassing loss
of whatever bourgeouis status they've managed to acquire), then it's
even worse than too little, too late.
>
> Stranger things have happened. I mean, what else would you have them do?
Continue being middle managers for Payless and leave the fruitless
revolutions to the ones who still possess the blind devotion of the
young. Oh, and stop trying to disguise aging with facial creams and
comb-overs; it doesn't really work.
>
> Of course, I'm taking the position that it's the M.O. rather than the
> ideas which have "proven their propensity to fail."
But that's just it; there were no solid ideas! The modus operandi were
the closest things they had to something real, and those fell hard and
never recovered.
> Given that, let me ask
> re: the hippies' new consciousness
> (at its best, that is)
> the question Ronald Reagan pointedly left unasked
> (the better to work subconsciously, perhaps?)
> when he asked in 1980 on behalf of the old consciousness, "If not us,
> who? If not now, when?" Namely:
>
> * "If not this, what?" *
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you mean to ask what the
alternatives to a Reagan America might be, I think you're seeing one of
them. If that doesn't appeal to you, think about why. When you come up
with the answers, the solutions are a philosophical and political
stone's throw away.
Now, as to the question of whether or not you can tear the Hippies away
from their e-mail, their Powerbooks, and their New Age self-help
movements long enough to effect those solutions, I can't say. I'd guess
the answer would be "no," but I've been surprised before.
>
> And after all, if all the "hung up ol' Mr. Normals" can remain dedicated
> to a cause for all their lives, why can't we?
Um, because their cause won and yours lost? No offense.
>
> >One of the "nice" things about being born after the hype has died, is
> >that one can come to a particular music divorced from its obligatory
> >"scene," or to a particular fashion divorced of its music....
> >Of course, the dark side of this piecemeal vomiting-up of culture is
> >that it denudes the fetish of its context.
>
> But then, contextual games (played in what seems to me to be a rather
> cynically self-satisfied manner) seem to be what alt.culture is all
> about. The main reason its outward language has tended to be that of the
> mid-'60s and before seems to be that when it first surfaced on a large
> scale, that was the context that best represented The Past. Now it's the
> dominant strain in the culture--once again, as I've said before
> _ad_nauseam_, largely (I suspect) because it fits so well with Reaganite
> neo-conservatism that it's sometimes hard to tell where one ends and the
> other begins.
Cynical or not, everything has a context, and divorcing a thing from its
context effectively neuters it (or spays it, if you will). Reagan,
Clinton, Goldwater, McGovern... None of this really makes as much
difference as you might think. The driving force is commerce and its
doppleganger, mass media.
The Culture Factory is alive and well and feeding on dead Hippies (and
Mods and Teds and Punks and Goths and so on).
>
> When alt.culture "denudes the fetish of its context", it seems to do so
> pointedly--or else the audience simply isn't educated enough to understand
> the gesture. Or maybe they understand and simply don't think it odd the
> way people would more likely have thought it odd in the past.
You say "it" as if the culture itself were synonymous with the media's
representation of that culture. Hippies, remember, had the advantage of
being represented in a sympathetic mass medium with a collosal
readership, though they still took their drubbings from most other
mainstream organs of popular opinion. Other non-mainstream cultures
haven't enjoyed even that benefit, at least until after they were stale
news and their political force had been pissed away into the gutters of
London, New York, and Los Angeles. And anyone who believes for a moment
that Dateline or Wal-Mart are on the side of alt.culture just hasn't
been paying attention.
When the fetish is denuded of its context, it's kind of like taking the
lion off of King Richard's standard and selling it on a tee-shirt with
some slogan such as "Courage Heart Super Socko Sports Ale." Not exactly
what it originally stood for, eh?
<snip>
Neal
Matthew King
: What I decry is the dogmatization of the impulse, the placing
: of certain views off the table and outside the range of discussion.
<snip>
: And yet a shibboleth is precisely a set of enforced codes without which
: discussion is not permitted. If you don't speak the lingo, you don't
: get to sit at the big table. The spirit of the codes (when they are
: known and understood at all) need not be felt in the heart, so long as
: the proper magic words are spoken.
<snip>
: We not only *can* commit to protecting their right to speak, we *must*
: do so. Not to do so would be the height of hypocrisy and the most
: deadly blow we could deal to American culture. When we once begin to
: say that some people do not enjoy the right to speak on what is
: essentially a political issue, we're well and truly fucked. However
: repugnant the idea, we cannot afford to grant anyone -- *anyone* -- the
: authority to say whether or not it may be expressed.
Did some say "dogmatization of the impulse"? Did someone say "shibboleth"?
Until you get over your knee-jerk liberal dogmatism to the extent that
you're willing to entertain the possibility that the right to free speech
is not beyond question, you have no business lecturing anyone about
dogmatism. Until you stop puffing about the right to free speech in
rhetoric worthy of Nelson Muntz [1], you have no business lecturing anyone
about shibboleths.
: I'm a bit confused when you say that certain parts of alt-culture seem
: accepting of Republicans. Are you ascribing a volition to a subculture
: *as* a subculture, or do you mean the core members of the subculture?
What is alt-culture, anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with
Lollapalooza. In other words, mainstream white male youth culture.
[1] "So burn that flag if you must! But before you do, you'd better burn
a few other things! You'd better burn your shirt and your pants! Be sure
to burn your TV and car! Oh yeah, and don't forget to burn your house!
Because none of those things would exist without six red stripes, seven
red stripes, and a helluva lot of stars!!"
Matthew King
: IME most people are unwilling to think through the dogma they have
: embraced, because it's too much mental effort for them.
For some people (particularly fundamentalist Christians), it takes a great
effort to *avoid* thinking through the dogma they've *inherited*. The
temptations of Satan are everywhere--and unless you're Christ Himself,
virtue resides in avoiding them, not resisting them.
As for the mass of secularized materialists: if you want them to make the
effort, first you've got to persuade them it's worth their time. Unless
you've got a convincing god-and-heaven story to sell, why should they buy
it? As far as they're concerned, they're not lazy--you're stupid.
: I've met way too many people who voted a party line one way or the
: other because their parents voted a party line.
We won't vote Conservative
Because we never have
Everyone lies, everyone lies
Where is the man you respect ?
--Morrissey, "Glamorous Glue"
Matthew
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Until you get over your knee-jerk liberal dogmatism to the extent that
> you're willing to entertain the possibility that the right to free speech
> is not beyond question, you have no business lecturing anyone about
> dogmatism. Until you stop puffing about the right to free speech in
> rhetoric worthy of Nelson Muntz [1], you have no business lecturing anyone
> about shibboleths.
I wouldn't say that the right to free speech is beyond question.
What does seem to me to be hard to argue with is the notion that all
governments are so clueless that they cannot be trusted to make the subtle
distinctions and nuanced responses that any government attempting to
suppress speech would have to make.
The difficulty consists partly in the fact that any attempt by government to
suppress speech would first take the form of law. All laws are necessarily
imperfect, covering things they shouldn't and failing to cover things they
should. Refining law by adding more detailed provisions actually only
multiplies the problem. A certain amount of arbitrary rulemaking for the
sake of having rules is tolerable in traffic courts, harder to endure when
people's thoughts and expressions are before the dock.
A just and fair censor would be more like a human moderator, deciding that
certain threads have continued too long, without necessarily expelling
anyone or even setting a precedent so that discussions of the same topic in
a saner tone may well be permitted in the future. A hypothetical wise
autocrat, educated to tolerance and good taste, could do this better than
any code of rules can.
But even a government of men of taste and intelligence could not do it
reliably. Democratic governments can be summarised as, "We found a witch.
May we burn her?" But this time, the Sovereign People always get their way.
They -surely- cannot be trusted with this responsibility.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Humils, forfaitz, repres e penedens
Entristezits, marritz de revenir
so, qu'ay perdat de mon temps per falhir.
--- Guiraut Riquier
Siobhan
King) wrote:
>We won't vote Conservative
>Because we never have
>Everyone lies, everyone lies
>Where is the man you respect ?
>--Morrissey, "Glamorous Glue"
I originally parsed that as "We won't vote for Convergence."
Fucking thing is taking over my brain.
Siobhan
....Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.virulent.org} sio...@virulent.org
"I thought you said you don't hold a grudge?"
"I don't. I have no surviving enemies." ~Crusades
Charles the Gruamach
(Siobhan) mumbled:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:25:49 +0000 (UTC), mak...@yorku.ca (Matthew
>King) wrote:
>
>>We won't vote Conservative
>>Because we never have
>>Everyone lies, everyone lies
>>Where is the man you respect ?
>>--Morrissey, "Glamorous Glue"
>
> I originally parsed that as "We won't vote for Convergence."
>
> Fucking thing is taking over my brain.
Same here.
I feel like it's the focus of my rational thought now,
and I'm not even going. (on purpose, even if I could
have afforded it)
Charles
Perkiness is just the delusions of the mind that has
yet to realize how crappy the world really is.
Neal Stanifer
Matt, I don't recall saying that the right to free speech was beyond
question. What I do recall are a number of references I've made in this
and other threads to the right of free political speech, something
guaranteed not by divine or natural law, but by man's law in the form of
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I recognize limits, and
I've said so elsewhere, but not in political matters. I consider the
First Amendment a guarantor of the right to express political
differences without fear of imprisonment for such crimes as treason or
sedition. Obviously, to look at U.S. history, it doesn't always work
that way. These days, it seems more often employed to safeguard large
corporations, musicians, and performance artists than to protect
political radicals.
And no, I don't consider all forms of expression equivalent or
equivalently political. To me, for instance, burning a flag is the
rhetorical equivalent of a catcall, and it could never be compared
favorably with something like King's "I have a dream" speech. I won't
bore you with further comparisons; I think you get the idea. I'm
willing to protect what I consider inferior speech, however, in order to
prevent government from deciding what may and may not be said, and in
what way.
And as far as shibboleths are concerned, I would think someone working
in academia, and especially someone working in the Philosophy
Department, would be quite familiar with those little pass-partouts of
the Ivory Tower. So I can't imagine you're denying their existence.
Instead, it seems you're accusing me of employing them hypocritically.
I don't see that in my writing, but if you do, then let me know where,
and I'll be more on my guard in the future.
>
> : I'm a bit confused when you say that certain parts of alt-culture seem
> : accepting of Republicans. Are you ascribing a volition to a subculture
> : *as* a subculture, or do you mean the core members of the subculture?
>
> What is alt-culture, anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with
> Lollapalooza. In other words, mainstream white male youth culture.
I've asked much the same question. I understood the term to mean
cultures which were not mainstream, a sort of umbrella term. To me,
this would not only encompass various subcultures and countercultures
associated with music, but a bewildering number of religious and ethnic
cultures as well. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that way,
however. So I remain somewhat puzzled.
Neal
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>>
>> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Panurge wrote:
><snip>
>> People tend to say that there aren't really two major political parties
>> these days, in the USA, but one--the Corporate Centrist Party.
>I think this is a common opinion, and I think it's mistaken. There are
>two parties in the US today: the Republican and the Democrat.
I understand this; I'm just using that idea to illustrate my cultural
perspective. If there's anything "everyone" agrees on, it's that
ThemDamnHippies were *wrong about _everything_*--and that other
generations have nothing seriously wrong with them. That makes me
suspicious. It smells like denial.
>And Hippies never could decide whether or not they were Socialists, so they
>relegated themselves to the dustbins of history.
I don't necessarily consider myself a Socialist either (except in a rather
nebulous sense--cooperative ventures in a non-Statist economy). But I'm
not sure that's so important. What writer Tom Frank (from _The_Baffler_)
argues in his book _The_Conquest_Of_Cool_ seems to be that what there was
was a coalition between the Hippies on the cultural end and the Radicals
on the political end, and that that coalition just lasted a few years.
When the coalition broke apart, the Hippies became the Rockers.
>> Maybe we should simply accept that [co-optation] will happen and either
>> (a) look for ways to route around it,
>
>Like fighting Wal-Mart, this requires economic savvy. That is something
>most countercultures not only lack, but are vehemently opposed to.
Well, we'll just have to fix that then, no? :-)
>> (b) look for ways to make the most of it,
>
>This is tantamount to throwing in the towel.
I'm not so sure. Maybe I should've said "capitalize on it" (if
"capitalize" isn't too loaded a word)? I mean, where _else_ would you
"feed perturbations to the system"?
<snip>
>> >> There are plenty of places where "transgressions" that aren't
>> >> perverse are still meaningful; call it the Spandex-in-the-office effect.
>> >
>> >Sure, why not? In fact, why not print up a story in Cosmo advising
>> >women to wear leather panties and body-modifying corsets under their
>> >navy blue skirtsuits? After all, "No one will ever guess the secret
>> >source of your freedom and playfulness."
>>
>> Apparently I didn't express myself that well here. Isn't it the story in
>> Cosmo that's the problem, rather than Spandex in the office (which I only
>> used as an example of the level of "transgression" I'm speaking of--of
>> course, I'd be overjoyed if it were a general trend, but I'll try to put
>> that aside right now)?
I'm going to backtrack here and answer my own question: Not necessarily.
It depends on other outside factors.
>The story in Cosmo IS the trend (qua "trend"). Any other form of
>transgression merely marks one as socially retarded, or (worse yet) as
>vaguely naughty.
A price worth paying, IMO. Let's make sure _we_ write the story in
_Cosmo_, then--or at least our share of them. But isn't a small
transgression going to look "vaguely naughty" at first, anyway?
You know, I wonder if we're talking about the same things here. I'm not
that well educated, really. Do you mean by "transgression" something
that's not apparent to a layman?
>> >Do you mean to boycott Casual
>> >Fridays at the local Dean Witter, or do you have something else in mind?
>>
>> That would depend on the individual.
>
>But Casual Friday is still more dressy and more constricted than I'm
>used to. I can get away with wearing some pretty outrageous stuff
>because I'm a college instructor. Dean Witter's number-crunching drones
>can't do this, even if some of them would like to. Khakis and a polo,
>no tie. That's "casual"? Please. And yet, that's considered racy and
>a bit transgressive. Why? Because corporate America *owns*
>transgression, and has done ever since the citizens of America whored
>their sense of sin to the highest bidder. Shame on them for giving up
>their shame so cheaply.
And not just Boomers, thank you very much. Succeeding generations, in
fact, seem downright _proud_ of it--makes them look Hard-Headed And
Realistic. Look at me in my crewcut and plaid shirt and Dockers! I'm
_so_mature_!
>> >> >And then when they stopped preaching it and got jobs in the working
>> >> >world, they became the Buzzkill Generation, I suppose.
Speak for yourself. "Unicorn dream"? "Rotting past"?? "They won and you
lost"??
>Revolution, it seems to me, is by its nature political,
It'll have political implications, but I'm not sure it has to be brought
off as an overtly political gesture. "Revolution" always struck me as a
metaphor, anyway.
(Of course, I do need to ask you about what appears to be the conventional
academic use of the word "political". That word tends to put off many
non-academics because they figure it must mean "having directly to do with
the institution of the State", though it's clearly not always meant that
way. What I figure academics mean is "having to do with power
relationships between people and how these determine how a society is
shaped and what it values--how free we are, who gets to give orders to
whom about what, etc.")
>> John Lennon once complained around 1970 (so I've read) that what he and
>> his crowd wanted was REVOLUTION, and what they got was "a bunch of fag
>> kids with long hair." But Lennon wasn't thinking far enough ahead; he
>> never seems to have stopped to ask the question, "What kind of world might
>> 'a bunch of fag kids with long hair' create in the long run?" That, to
>> me, is the right kind of "revolution."
>
>So long as those "fag kids with long hair" were any better than their
>parents. That has yet to be proven,
Not that it couldn't yet be made so. But wouldn't it be OK if they were
just as good? Better to have both than only one.
>and yet it is the unicorn dream of
>most Boomers who insist upon clinging to the rotting past.
What about that past is "rotting" in a way that Ronald Reagan's or George
W. Bush's isn't??
I mean, that's a highly loaded metaphor you're using there. Are you sure
you're not just confusing its level of viability with its personal appeal
to you?
>Rap owes nothing to jurassic rockers;
>it fought its own battle independent of the Hippies or anyone else.
Rap (or punk, or Goth, for that matter) probably wouldn't've had a chance
to develop as they did if the upheavals of the late Sixties hadn't
occurred. The great fallacy of the Gen-X perspective is the idea that the
upheavals of that era came to nothing. They didn't. They came to a
lot--we just refuse to acknowledge it for fear of either being shown up or
being considered unhip.
>And the reason it's still alive today and dominating the utterly
>useless venue of MTV is not that it's transgressive (which is is, in way
>the psychedelic bands of the 60's and the hair bands of the 70's never
>dreamed of being), but that it's naughty enough to make suburban white
>boys with low-slung pants and misaligned ball caps drop their
>Blockbuster Video paychecks to buy the latest CDs. You want
>transgression? Look to rap music for that. You won't find it anywhere
>as strongly put forth.
>
>I'm glad Mr. Lamm sees his generation as effecting such a fundamental
>change, but in the words of the rappers: "Bitch better reco'nize!"
I'm sure he does. ;-) As for transgression, I think we've tended to
lose sight of the idea that it was supposed to serve some other goal, not
to be an end in itself.
>> In an ideal version of the present context, Level 1 is Dad's world. Level
>> 2 is where Lennon's BOFKW/LH create their world, without trying to
>> "overthrow" anybody. Level 3 is where other people with other ideas
>> follow their example.
>
>And Level 4 is where the followers get tired of following Lennon and
>decide to become Dad.
Or Johnny Rotten? Or Led Zeppelin? Or Brian Eno? And besides, what kind
of Dad will we have when he's gone through the Lennon phase?
>Give the countercultures just enough rope, and they *will* hang
>themselves.
A point I've made on occasion (before you were here, though).
>> >The thing I find somewhat amusing about one or two of the nostalgic
>> >Boomers I've worked and lived with, is the tendency to want to reawaken
>> >old ghosts and take up tattered standards. There is, I think, a sense
>> >among them that "this time, we can make it work," or simply "if we'd
>> >only taken it one step further." Too little, too late, IMO.
>>
>> Not for them, maybe. I refer you to the last lines of Tennyson's
>> "Ulysses". In short: Not necessarily "this time, we can make it work,"
>> but "time's a-wastin'--we've gotta get up off our behinds and make _some_
>> kind of mark for The Cause again before it really is too late."
>
>In the words of Roy Batty (a true revolutionary): "That's the spirit!"
>Get those Hippies out from behind their Apples and out of those suits,
>make them grow their hair again, and force them (somehow) to answer the
>question: What was it all about?
>
>Was it about racial equality? Not for many; "coloreds" cramped their
>style.
You mean like Jimi Hendrix/Sly Stone/Buddy Miles/Arthur Lee/the Chambers
Brothers?
>Was it about sexual equality? Not for most; chicks were easy, but
>hardly equal.
True.
>Was it about class equality? Who knows? Everyone seemed to be from the
>same class.
Could be.
>Anyway, when you figure it out, let me know.
Three beginning principles:
1. PEACE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING
2. FOLLOW YOUR BLISS
3. MAKE GENTLE THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD
This isn't a political revolution _per_se_; it's a _moral_ one. What the
hippies didn't understand is that these things are HARD--and sometimes
they have to be balanced against each other. But saying that it's "too
late" for these things is like saying it's too late for morality, or too
late for Sunday dinner when it's Monday morning and you haven't eaten
since Saturday night. If you want to call it bogus on account of the
practitioners' hypocrisy, you might as well level that charge at every
social perspective ever devised. To the extent that people aren't
perfect, they're hypocrites.
>> Too little? Better than nothing.
>> Too late? Better than never.
>
>But if it amounts to nothing (or worse than nothing, an embarassing loss
>of whatever bourgeois status they've managed to acquire), then it's
>even worse than too little, too late.
I'm not necessarily speaking in all-or-nothing terms. And if nothing can
be done, why are we even having this discussion?
Isn't it the most fervent wish of the men in the CIA suits that we'd think
nothing could be done??
>> Stranger things have happened. I mean, what else would you have them do?
>
>Continue being middle managers for Payless and leave the fruitless
>revolutions to the ones who still possess the blind devotion of the
>young. Oh, and stop trying to disguise aging with facial creams and
>comb-overs; it doesn't really work.
What--just give up? Would you really expect anybody to accept that
answer? You know, previous generations had a civic life; they weren't
under this conception that YOUR LIFE ENDS as soon as you have your first
child or your first "real" job. Why should Boomers or Gen-X be any
different?
Or do you mean they should make the most of their situation?
>...there were no solid ideas! The modus operandi were
>the closest things they had to something real, and those fell hard and
>never recovered.
See above. "Peace, love, and understanding" seem, in their own way, about
as solid to me as "peace, land, and bread."
>> Given that, let me ask
>> re: the hippies' new consciousness...
>> the question Ronald Reagan pointedly left unasked...
>> when he asked in 1980 on behalf of the old consciousness, "If not us,
>> who? If not now, when?" Namely:
>>
>> * "If not this, what?" *
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you mean to ask what the
>alternatives to a Reagan America might be, I think you're seeing one of
>them.
Where? Alt.culture? The Net? This newsgroup? I don't get what you're
saying here.
_Reagan_ was asking what the alternatives to Reactionary Utopia might be.
(He knew he was in the USA, where Margaret Thatcher's "There Is No
Alternative" just wouldn't work.) I'm asking what the alternative
approach against that (to use a word from DePaul prof Bill Martin)
"counterpossibility" might be--or maybe the alternative _to_ revolution.
What's _your_ goal? If the hippies are wrong, and revolution is wrong,
what's right?
>If that doesn't appeal to you, think about why. When you come up
>with the answers, the solutions are a philosophical and political
>stone's throw away.
I can't answer this because I can't grok the earlier portion.
>> ...if all the "hung up ol' Mr. Normals" can remain dedicated
>> to a cause for all their lives, why can't we?
>
>Um, because their cause won and yours lost? No offense.
"Won"? "Lost"? What are these things? Isn't the struggle by definition
ongoing? Maybe they won *precisely because they didn't give up*?
Probably the most damaging thing Lennon said was when he declared the
revolution over and his side the losing side. He should've simply
recognized it as a thing to which you dedicate your whole life. Or else
he should've said, "OK, REVOLUTION won't work. What _can_ we do?"
Unfortunately, too many people took calling off the Revolution as calling
off any political action at all. Fortunately, some didn't. Still, I
don't think people have much of an idea anymore of just how much real
progress was made back then (which suits the Right just fine, of course).
IIRC, it wasn't until '75 or so that the idea that "countervailing forces"
might come into serious play even arose in Boomers' minds.
>Reagan,
>Clinton, Goldwater, McGovern... None of this really makes as much
>difference as you might think. The driving force is commerce and its
>doppelganger, mass media.
Generally speaking, I agree, though I might not embrace that idea with as
much enthusiasm as you.
>The Culture Factory is alive and well and feeding on dead Hippies (and
>Mods and Teds and Punks and Goths and so on).
Worrying too much about that can cripple us by making us too reactive.
But ISTM what the Culture Factory is doing these days is mostly
indoctrinating Neo-Con Utopia (which admits everything up to '65 or so, so
'80s-'90s indie-rock and late-'70s new-wave make it in, y'see) at a more
feverish rate than ever, so I can't see Digested Rawk as having much force
on Madison Avenue anymore. I mean, I look at commercials featuring
supposedly Cool People and it looks like effin' boot camp, there's so
little hair. The traditional office is presented as THE COOLEST PLACE IN
THE WORLD. Some commercial I saw at my folks' place today actually used
"Whistle While You Work" as its jingle.
OTOH, how could they put that across if they didn't have access to people
who bear out my contention about the Kill-The-Hippies Party? I'll bet The
Powertel Guy listened to a lot of "indie-rock" in college.
>> When alt.culture "denudes the fetish of its context", it seems to do so
>> pointedly--or else the audience simply isn't educated enough to understand
>> the gesture. Or maybe they understand and simply don't think it odd the
>> way people would more likely have thought it odd in the past.
>
>You say "it" as if the culture itself were synonymous with the media's
>representation of that culture.
Well, maybe we're talking about different things. I'm not talking about,
say, putting King Richard's standard on a beer bottle (to use your
example); I'm talking about, say, using a Vox Continental organ (and
playing music that evokes or even imitates precisely the music originally
made on it) in 1981. The meaning such a context would create overwhelms
(intentionally, as I see it) any value the purely musical gesture might
have; the music is merely a vessel for the communication of the external
meaning--it doesn't actually have to be, you know, _good_ or anything.
:-P
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Rap (or punk, or Goth, for that matter) probably wouldn't've had a chance
> to develop as they did if the upheavals of the late Sixties hadn't
> occurred. The great fallacy of the Gen-X perspective is the idea that the
> upheavals of that era came to nothing. They didn't. They came to a
> lot--we just refuse to acknowledge it for fear of either being shown up or
> being considered unhip.
For that matter, contemporary Republicanism would not have developed but for
the Vietnam War protests and Watergate.
Conservatives thirty years ago stood for the authority of our side against
anarchy and the counter-hierarchy of Godless Communism (TM). Since Reagan
(since Goldwater), conservatives take a stand against Government. Of
course, the great and obvious inconsistency in the movement is that the
Republican coalition has to yoke together its paleo-conservative,
authoritarian grass roots, consisting mostly of religious fanatics, with the
beneficiaries of anti-government rhetoric, mostly business people who
wouldn't let their daughters marry one of those snake-worshippers. It
survives in part because its opponents also see themselves as foes of an
Establishment, and therefore end up bolstering its appeal even as they
attempt to decry it. Still, the prestige of government has been falling
since the Seventies, and seems unlikely to rise again this side of the
coming military coup.
There would be no conservatism in its -contemporary- manifestation w/o the
great disruption of conventional social authority, the mistrust of the
"establishment," that was given a new boost in the Sixties and early
Seventies. True enough, the abuses of authority manifest in the Johnson and
Nixon administrations were enough to sour anyone on a government guilty of
them.
On the other hand, given current social opinions, one wonders if the
American government is capable of mobilising the people on a World War II
model. It seems unlikely that people would endure food and gasoline
rationing because of their shared patriotism and trust in the wisdom of
their leaders today. You think the soccer moms who made NIMBYism will sit
still for this? They'd rather let the Nazi's win, so long as they keep
their minivans. The State is withering away without a revolution -per se-,
and perhaps we are worse off without it.
> 1. PEACE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING
> 2. FOLLOW YOUR BLISS
> 3. MAKE GENTLE THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD
> This isn't a political revolution _per_se_; it's a _moral_ one. What the
> hippies didn't understand is that these things are HARD--and sometimes
> they have to be balanced against each other.
They're hard because they're fundamentally against human nature; which is
why life itself is -evil-, and to turn your back on life is the only good.
They involve the wilful denial of the human tendency towards territorialism,
possessiveness, and hierarchy-climbing.
Hardrock Llewynyth
the year of Our Lord, Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:22:16 -0400:
>On the other hand, given current social opinions, one wonders if the
>American government is capable of mobilising the people on a World War II
>model. It seems unlikely that people would endure food and gasoline
>rationing because of their shared patriotism and trust in the wisdom of
>their leaders today. You think the soccer moms who made NIMBYism will sit
>still for this? They'd rather let the Nazi's win, so long as they keep
>their minivans. The State is withering away without a revolution -per se-,
>and perhaps we are worse off without it.
I don't think that we are worse off without a State. In nearly all
ways, i think we would be better off; and in a few it would make no
difference.
The problem isn't the State withering away (i don't see this as
happening anyway); the problem is what it is being replaced with.
In any case, our State is not withering away to any notable extent.
Each new "reform" or program increases the bureaucracy; every new law
gives the State more power over the lives of it's citizens. Rather
than decreasing, it is merely mutating. Changing it's form, but still
growing.
When was the last time a government agency or program was simply
abolished. And i mean done away with completely, not absorbed into
another agency or altered and re-labled.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> >On the other hand, given current social opinions, one wonders if the
> >American government is capable of mobilising the people on a World War II
> >model. It seems unlikely that people would endure food and gasoline
> >rationing because of their shared patriotism and trust in the wisdom of
> >their leaders today.
. . .
> The problem isn't the State withering away (i don't see this as
> happening anyway); the problem is what it is being replaced with.
Here, we agree. I used to be a dyed in the wool Chicago School economanic
libertarian when I was an undergraduate. At least in the present social
context, it does not work.
At a root level, the problem with economanic libertarianism is that it is a
classical circular argument. Government's purpose is to uphold property and
enforce contracts. The problem is, the concepts of "property" and
"contract" have meaning only in law, which presupposes a law-giver.
Therefore, property and contracts are -created- by government in the first
place.
One practical problem is that the government creates too many kinds of
property you can't have. The SEC stands ready to stop you if you try to
form a public corporation without already having the manpower to hire a
small battery of lawyers and form-fillers to generate a mass of paperwork.
Its nominal purpose is to safeguard the public from fraudulent operators.
The chosen means is to require elaborate forms full of disclaimers that
nobody reads until the lawsuits start flying anyway. This is a valuable
right to create property, and it is beyond your reach.
Corporations themselves are a form of property created by government;
imagine the chaos that would ensue if all the stockholders in Delaware were
converted into partners by a change in the law. It theoretically could be
done. The right to form corporations is hardly one of the natural rights of
man. You get along without ever being able to avail yourself of it in a
meaningful sense, despite the theoretical equality of the law.
Government creates all sorts of monopoly franchises, from FCC licenses to
copyrights, that certain people with clout can avail themselves. All are
beyond your reach.
The real problem with libertarianism in a practical sense is that "property"
is so vague that it compasses all of these government-created private
privileges that are handed out very unequally. A "free market" would
require the elimination of all of these several privileges. It is utterly
beyond anyone's reach absent a revolution.
> In any case, our State is not withering away to any notable extent.
> Each new "reform" or program increases the bureaucracy; every new law
> gives the State more power over the lives of it's citizens. Rather
> than decreasing, it is merely mutating. Changing it's form, but still
> growing.
Of course: but the regulatory power of the State only touches people on the
lower rungs, people whose clout is limited to their meaningless and
manipulated votes, and their worthless theoretical equality before the law.
Their lordships know that the legal system works -for- them, not against
them. They know that being equal before the law is the position
they -don't- want to be in.
Again, I ask you: do you think that the current government in Washington
is -able- to fight World War II? Could it impose food and gas rationing for
the war effort, and get the overwhelming majority of citizens to comply with
them out of their sense of duty to the nation?
I don't think it could, not today, not in the world of talk radio and
investigative journalism. Yet we know there once was a government that did.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
<snips>
> Again, I ask you: do you think that the current government in Washington
> is -able- to fight World War II? Could it impose food and gas rationing for
> the war effort, and get the overwhelming majority of citizens to comply with
> them out of their sense of duty to the nation?
>
> I don't think it could, not today, not in the world of talk radio and
> investigative journalism. Yet we know there once was a government that did.
With all due respect, is this a troll aimed at me?
I'm not sure.
They sat stock still for the last decade as at least 5-millions Invaded,
with a peak of about 1.5 to 2.2 millions entering the country illegally in
1999/2000.
If the present roughly 9 millions of illegal aliens openly revolted, the
military couldn't do fuckall, and the American people would probably cut
their own numbers in half in a major civil war over whether or not to
suppress the revolt, with the organizers of the revolt exploiting both sides
each against the other, exactly as is being done in the ongoing propaganda
war and the extended low-intensity conflict in the cities and suburbs.
The average citizen, were even a legitimate Militia organized with due
process of law and under color of State Constitutional authority on the
mobilizing orders to sheriffs by the justices of the Peace, would go out of
their way to impede the sheriff's deputies and the legitimate unorganizes
Militia, so deeply have they been prepared and conditioned by the mainstream
media. The average citizen would under no circumstances fight to defend the
homeland from any enemy that had made it inside the borders. The Military is
incompetent to prosecute any form of war taking place within the US borders
or even to take a battle into Mexico or Canada, even with the blessings of
those respective governments which would of course not be orthcoming under
any circumstances whatsoever. The Military, to be brief, is competent to
deliver massive force through a very broad spectrum of response, so long as
it is delivered outside of North America.
But if my vanishing fellow citizens and permanent resident aliens and the
massively increasing numbers of illegal aliens here in Maryland -- right
outside the District line -- are a representative sampling, there's
absolutely no question in my mind that the average American would far rather
surrender to blatant Occupation rather than have their minivan repossessed
or have their payment schedules disturbed.
The people that the locals call "inbred yokels agitating in the hinterlands"
might fight, but they'd be fighting against a general populace of brain-dead
couch-potatos, conditioned to only fight the loyalists by totally controlled
media machine that would not for a moment stop pumping out feel-good
propaganda, without even any change in on-air staff no matter how many times
the station changed hands.
Win WWIII? not a problem as long as it's overseas and doesn't escalate into
Mutual Assured Destruction scenarios. Lose WWIII? anytime it occurs on
northamerican soil. I'll put it this way, Canada would probably fight, win
or lose, in NA or overseas. Mexico's so under-equipped and generally poor
that they could contribute personnel but that's about it. But the US is so
culurally fragmented and media-controlled that anything worth escalating to
the level of WWIII over, that's probably more likely to just further
balkanize the US until it was more busy fighting itself than fighting anyone
else.
and I strongly suspect that the rest of the world applauds this.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
Matthew King
: [1] Mark Wood notes in his post that many people choose the side that
: tolerates their own "vices". It's also been noted that many people take
: the side opposite from the one that particularly annoys them. I think a
: lot of people define themselves as being on the Right largely because the
: Left annoys them so much, and that's not so true with the Left.
I think it's probably true on both sides. I've known basically apolitical
people who find themselves on the left--although they don't really define
themselves as such--because they perceive neocons as spiteful and
unpleasant.
Certainly, I've found myself over the last year or two driven away from
identifying myself with the left in part due to the apparent willful
stupidity of many leftists. Many of them are spiteful and unpleasant, too.
Of course, that's largely a product of my being a member of a notoriously
leftist union at a notoriously leftist university. The hard-core union
types have committed the union's resources whole-heartedly to faddish
Black Block-type left-adventurism, which annoys me no end.
The funny thing is, our union won a hard-fought victory (trifling in
material terms, but very important in moral ones) after a 3-month strike
last winter. That led me to take a more active and positive interest in
what the union was up to--which then led me to realize that I really,
really don't like these people.
: If the Left can just learn that annoying people is counterproductive, I
: think they'll attract a lot of people.
Trouble is, if they're not annoying most people, they're not "radical"
anymore. I used to go to demonstrations and think, this might be taken
more seriously if there weren't so many gutterpunks kicking around. Then I
realized: if there weren't so many gutterpunks kicking around, what would
be the point?
Matthew King
: (Who would've thought that at the turn of the 21st century I
: might still have a little kid ask me why I wore my hair "like a girl"?)
Heh. Last summer a little girl came up to me and asked me if I was a girl.
I asked why she asked. She said, because I was wearing nailpolish. So I
said: "Yes. I am a girl." Then she said, "You're not a *girl*!" But she
kept looking at me funny. She really wasn't sure.
Matthew King
: Panurge wrote [about the left-right culture war]:
: > How about we set up a WWII-Eastern Front situation and try to get them to
: > decimate each other?? :-P
:
: They won't. They'll decimate us. We're the ones in the middle.
Who are *we*? I presume you're no longer talking about we goth/ics here. I
take it you mean something like "we sensible ones, watching from above the
fray."
It seems to me your "we" is the third major faction in the culture war:
the straightforward liberals, comprising (I'm guessing) the bulk of urban
middle-class American culture, who are equally contemptuous of the
quasi-academic left (manifested variously in affirmative action
initiatives, anti-globalization demos, etc.) and the Christian family-
values right. (Given that straightforward liberals like to think they
don't have any particular political *agenda*, though, they might easily
imagine that they're not a party to the culture war.)
I think you're right that there is a real distinction between the
Republicans and the Democrats, insofar as the Christian right can have a
home in the former but not the latter, while the quasi-academic left can
have a home in the latter but not the former. The straightforward
liberals, though, are no more naturally at home in either party, and
probably make up the bulk of both (which is why the Republicrat charge is
plausible).
: I am essentially an old-style liberal
Well, there you are. ;)
: but I find much in conservative thought which appeals to me.
Like what, and what do you mean by "conservative"?
: See if this makes sense to you as it does to me. Get rid of phony
: reasons to hold people back, and diversity will take care of itself.
: But establish quotas and selectively and correctively exclude white
: males, and we are only replacing one form of discrimination with
: another. The problem goes farther, of course, and involves vast amounts
: of money tied up in numerous bureaucracies.
Don't you think this view is probably held by a majority of Americans?
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:46:31 -0400,
> Tiny Human Ferret <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> :IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> :> Again, I ask you: do you think that the current government in Washington
> :> is -able- to fight World War II? Could it impose food and gas rationing for
> :> the war effort, and get the overwhelming majority of citizens to comply with
> :> them out of their sense of duty to the nation?
> :> I don't think it could, not today, not in the world of talk radio and
> :> investigative journalism. Yet we know there once was a government that did.
>
> :With all due respect, is this a troll aimed at me?
> :I'm not sure.
>
> looking for attention or an excuse to post a rant (which you will crosspost
> at random if you think you're losing).
Bite me, Oz Boy.
You only lay out this sort of blatant troll when you seem to think you're
losing, not that you were even in it.
Okay, so Australia and Canada would probably be able to kick significant ass
in WWIII, up until the Chinese manage to get ahold of significant shipping
and arm the Indonesians against Oz and ship them over, backed with the
really quite excellent non-naval PRC military machine. Then, not that anyone
except for you will care, I expect that palefaces in black will be the first
to be taken out and shot, people that have a UNIX cl00 first in line since
if Oz got overrun, you'd be quickly pressed into defending the homeland as a
communications expert, and the PRC couldn't have that, now could they. And
you think the US is going to be able to do shit to help you out? We'll have
problems of our own by the time you see that sort ot thing going on. Maybe
_you_ should be paranoid.
So it's all about _you_ now. How ya like that?
>
> :If the present roughly 9 millions of illegal aliens openly revolted, the
>
> If we elect JFK, the Pope will control America directly!
A lot of people say that's why he's shot. I have no opinion on the matter.
Now, back under your bridge.
>
> --
> http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
> "People who believe they learn from books alone are on a blind, futile path.
> It often ends in tenure." (st. albatross)
--
Panurge
>Panurge wrote:
>
>> Rap (or punk, or Goth, for that matter) probably wouldn't've had a chance
>> to develop as they did if the upheavals of the late Sixties hadn't
>> occurred. The great fallacy of the Gen-X perspective is the idea that the
>> upheavals of that era came to nothing. They didn't. They came to a
>> lot--we just refuse to acknowledge it for fear of either being shown up or
>> being considered unhip.
>
>For that matter, contemporary Republicanism would not have developed but for
>the Vietnam War protests and Watergate.
You mean as a backlash? It's odd that Watergate, the product of a
Republican administration, should do such a thing. It's interesting that
you don't credit the war itself, but I think that might also have
something to do with it. Odd that such people should express their
disgust by electing as President a man who _supported_ the war. (OTOH,
most people forget that Reagan was elected with a bare majority of the
popular vote; if Reagan had lost that year, it's almost certain he would
never have become President, due to his age. I'm just sorry John B.
Anderson didn't get the Republican nomination that year.)
>Conservatives thirty years ago stood for the authority of our side against
>anarchy and the counter-hierarchy of Godless Communism (TM). Since Reagan
>(since Goldwater), conservatives take a stand against Government.
With liberalism standing in for Godless Communism, since it does, after
all, look Godless from their perspective, to say nothing of appearing more
"socialist".
>Of course, the great and obvious inconsistency in the movement is that the
>Republican coalition has to yoke together its paleo-conservative,
>authoritarian grass roots, consisting mostly of religious fanatics, with the
>beneficiaries of anti-government rhetoric, mostly business people who
>wouldn't let their daughters marry one of those snake-worshippers.
OTOH, there's plenty of overlap between the businesspeople and the
paleos. Most businesspeople aren't go-getter, Myers-Briggs SP
entreprenurial types; they're Solid Citizen Myers-Briggs SJ types, and
that goes well with authoritarian, Bonapartist [1] paleo-conservatism.
>It survives in part because its opponents also see themselves as foes of an
>Establishment, and therefore end up bolstering its appeal even as they
>attempt to decry it.
Are you saying that anti-government sentiment on the Left ultimately
benefits the Right? Maybe that's because the Right has been able to
formulate a more upbeat message than the Left, who seem to see an upbeat
message coming from the Right and figure that whatever the Right's doing
must _ipso_facto_ be dishonorable, so they'd better turn up the
sky-is-falling rhetoric. So much the worse for the Left.
>On the other hand, given current social opinions, one wonders if the
>American government is capable of mobilising the people on a World War II
>model.
It depends on whether the danger can be presented as a clear and present
one. The USA had to be shocked into action by Pearl Harbor in 1941, so I
wouldn't be so quick to discount the prospect.
OTOH, what _other_ government of a major nation could mobilize its people
that way these days? I can only think of one:
_China_. 8-/
>It seems unlikely that people would endure food and gasoline
>rationing because of their shared patriotism and trust in the wisdom of
>their leaders today. You think the soccer moms who made NIMBYism will sit
>still for this? They'd rather let the Nazi's win, so long as they keep
>their minivans.
I don't think it's that bad. Nazis are discomfiting, y'know, and there
isn't much that soccer moms want more than to avoid being discomfited.
>> 1. PEACE, LOVE, AND UNDERSTANDING
>> 2. FOLLOW YOUR BLISS
>> 3. MAKE GENTLE THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD
>
>> This isn't a political revolution _per_se_; it's a _moral_ one. What the
>> hippies didn't understand is that these things are HARD....
>
>They're hard because they're fundamentally against human nature;
"Human nature is to go to the bathroom in your pants." --Scott Peck
>which is
>why life itself is -evil-, and to turn your back on life is the only good.
But that would involve turning your back on other people. That can't be
good. No. Life is good; it's some of the things for which people use it
that's evil. Calling life evil is like calling the house in which a
murder occurs evil.
>They involve the wilful denial of the human tendency towards territorialism,
>possessiveness, and hierarchy-climbing.
Nonetheless, as peace, love, and understanding must take place within a
context of "life", they're as much part of life as "territorialism,
possessiveness, and hierarchy-climbing." In fact, you could say that one
has lived a fulfilled life to the extent that one has experienced and
spread PL&U.
[1] I've often wondered what "Bonapartist" really meant, but I have some
idea now. It seems to be a sort of "soft" authoritarianism, where
(a) some dissent is allowed as a Regrettable Cost Of Doing Business, at
least if it's coming from Us (so defined),
(b) iron-handed dealings with ThemDamnFurriners,
(c) a system carefully engineered to make sure the _vox_populi_ is heard,
but is never too loud--see (a) above, and
(d) choosing _egalité_ over _liberté_ where the two clash.
If it's possible for there ever to be a Bonapartist republic, it just
might be the USA. Not that it's quite there now, but I seem to see some
of the signs.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
>>For that matter, contemporary Republicanism would not have developed but
for
>>the Vietnam War protests and Watergate.
> You mean as a backlash? It's odd that Watergate, the product of a
> Republican administration, should do such a thing. It's interesting that
> you don't credit the war itself, but I think that might also have
> something to do with it.
Not exactly a backlash. The narrative of contemporary Republicanism, at
least for public consumption, has one of its great themes the notion that
government itself is necessarily clumsy, inept, and likely corrupt, and
can't be trusted to do anything right. These themes were given a great
boost by our now fading memories of the Nixon and Johnson administrations;
and specifically by the Watergate revelations and the rhetoric of the
Vietnam War protesters. The very fact that their anti-communist war was
corrupt and deceptive has been turned in their favour. One has to admire
the skill involved here. Of course, Them Damn Hippies just played a
variation of one of the traditional tunes of America, and these Republicans
have picked up the tune.
> Odd that such people should express their
> disgust by electing as President a man who _supported_ the war. (OTOH,
> most people forget that Reagan was elected with a bare majority of the
> popular vote; if Reagan had lost that year, it's almost certain he would
> never have become President, due to his age.
I remember also that Reagan promised to end draft registration, and this was
one of the first campaign promises he broke.
>>It survives in part because its opponents also see themselves as foes of
an
>>Establishment, and therefore end up bolstering its appeal even as they
>>attempt to decry it.
> Are you saying that anti-government sentiment on the Left ultimately
> benefits the Right?
Bingo. It has coopted not only the libertarian talk of the Sixties, but
also the notion of public scrutiny and accountability that made Woodward and
Bernstein its heroes and movie stars. It has made them integral parts of
its message about "economic freedom" and bureaucratic inefficiency.
> Maybe that's because the Right has been able to
> formulate a more upbeat message than the Left, who seem to see an upbeat
> message coming from the Right and figure that whatever the Right's doing
> must _ipso_facto_ be dishonorable, so they'd better turn up the
> sky-is-falling rhetoric. So much the worse for the Left.
For a number of reasons, they don't seem to have been able to remake
themselves like the Right has.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
I was quite amazed as I mused and gazed with delighted curiosity at this
huge erection, cast in the form of an animal: a worthy tribute to human
genius, in which every member shared impeccably in the noble harmony of the
whole.
--- Hypnerotomachia Poliphili [Godwin translation]
Matthew King
: Most conservatives genuinely feels alientated
: from public discourse, and certainly from what passes for common
: culture.
Coincidentally, I caught a King of the Hill rerun the other day where
Luanne (?) gets into one of those born-again virgin things and Hank has a
fit because Peggy admits she slept with someone before they were married.
It's really striking, because pre-marital sex just is not an issue in
pop-culture anymore. The very phrase "pre-marital sex" sounds so quaint.
(It also got me thinking how, when I was in middle school and early
highschool, pre-marital sex was an issue--the sort of thing you'd have
class debates over. Sometime late in highschool, it stopped being an
issue. I suspect the same pattern may still hold in much of suburban North
America.)
: And yeah - well, there has always been bad art meant to
: inculcate its audience with catchwords - but the theories of language
: that allow for the current pernicious state of discourse among
: 'intellectuals' are new as of early this century - picking up steam as
: the decades rolled forward: see Matthew King's sig.
You were a few weeks too late there. :)
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Certainly, I've found myself over the last year or two driven away from
: identifying myself with the left in part due to the apparent willful
: stupidity of many leftists. Many of them are spiteful and unpleasant, too.
It's called the Activist Mind. All activists of any persuasion whatsoever
are spiteful and shrewish, and will scrutinise your discourse for
appropriate gestures of respect, or worse, slights to their sacred totems.
Left or Right, it makes no difference in their fundamental mindset. In
fact, it's easier for one of these to go from extreme Right to extreme
Left or vice versa than to become a well-adjusted member of society. If
you read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, sooner or later Whittaker
Chambers will come up again: his career is Exhibit "A."
One of the arts of government today is keeping these toads happy with
symbolic crumbs they will go to war over. Of course, in a better run
polity, a chair attached to a lever would be erected by the riverside to
dunk them in the water till they were cured. Starting with the Centre for
Science in the Public Interest. . . .
: Trouble is, if they're not annoying most people, they're not "radical"
: anymore.
Exactly. The perennial problem of contemporary political leadership is
that these followers, who bring a great deal of enthusiasm, will bolt in
an instant for someone who seems more radical and more alive to their
cause.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ Luce extincta, minus periculum. Adsumus: oblectemur! +
+ Ceterum censeo sedem Romanam esse delendam. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
John Brown
"Matthew King" <mak...@yorku.ca> wrote in message
news:9lca27$gj5$1...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca...
>
> Certainly, I've found myself over the last year or two driven away from
> identifying myself with the left in part due to the apparent willful
> stupidity of many leftists. Many of them are spiteful and unpleasant, too.
This has been my experience as well. It is difficult to engage in a dialogue
with lefties without them declaring that you must be a racist, or a sexist,
or a nazi, or misanthropic, or some other label that serves as a convienient
weapon.
John
Panurge
>The narrative of contemporary Republicanism, at
>least for public consumption, has one of its great themes the notion that
>government itself is necessarily clumsy, inept, and likely corrupt, and
>can't be trusted to do anything right.
And yet capable of being entrusted with gigatons of nuclear firepower and
the decision to end people's lives...!
>These themes were given a great
>boost by our now fading memories of the Nixon and Johnson administrations;
>and specifically by the Watergate revelations and the rhetoric of the
>Vietnam War protesters. The very fact that their anti-communist war was
>corrupt and deceptive has been turned in their favour.
OTOH, I actually remember seeing on some TV show a long time ago a
commercial for the '64 Goldwater campaign taking a position _against_ the
Vietnam War. It was essentially Raymond Massey sitting in some
upper-class parlor environment just orating at the viewer. It felt like
something from 1954, not 1964. Compare this to the "flower" spot for the
LBJ campaign and you can see why LBJ won so big that year.
Vietnam seems to be the inspiration for the old Republican line that the
Democrats are the "war party."
>One has to admire the skill involved here.
True.
>> [People on the Left] seem to see an upbeat
>> message coming from the Right and figure that whatever the Right's doing
>> must _ipso_facto_ be dishonorable, so they'd better turn up the
>> sky-is-falling rhetoric. So much the worse for the Left.
>
>For a number of reasons, they don't seem to have been able to remake
>themselves like the Right has.
For those out there who confuse it with terminal sardonicism, _this_,
ladies and gentlemen, is what's called IRONY.
Panurge
>Matthew King wrote:
>> What is alt-culture, anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with
>> Lollapalooza. In other words, mainstream white male youth culture.
Of course, Lollapalooza wasn't really "mainstream" (depending on how you
define that term) when it started. Or at least, it had the savvy to put
across a definition of "mainstream" that would put itself outside it--or,
more to the point, a definition of "mainstream" that would include
everything the organizers didn't like. (It goes without saying that
Lollapalooza never had a hair band or a metal band [1] on its bill, for
instance.)
And have you noticed that the word "lollapalooza" is so connected with
Lollapalooza that it's also somewhat forgotten that it wasn't a
particularly uncommon word beforehand? I wonder how many of today's
high-schoolers realize this.
>I've asked much the same question. I understood the term to mean
>cultures which were not mainstream, a sort of umbrella term. To me,
>this would not only encompass various subcultures and countercultures
>associated with music, but a bewildering number of religious and ethnic
>cultures as well. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that way,
>however. So I remain somewhat puzzled.
I've tended to see it as the end product of the line of cultural
development that began with punk and new wave in the late '70s (or, if you
want, with David Bowie and the Velvet Underground). It was in the
mid'-80s, not the early '90s, BTW, that "new wave" turned into
"alternative", a fact that seems to have been forgotten by millions of
people who should know better.
[1] Until, of course, Metallica re-tooled its sound to Fit Better With
The _Zeitgeist_, of course.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:15:47 -0400,
> :> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:46:31 -0400,
> :> Tiny Human Ferret <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> :> :IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> :> :> Again, I ask you: do you think that the current government in Washington
> :> :> is -able- to fight World War II? Could it impose food and gas rationing for
> :> :> the war effort, and get the overwhelming majority of citizens to comply with
> :> :> them out of their sense of duty to the nation?
> :> :> I don't think it could, not today, not in the world of talk radio and
> :> :> investigative journalism. Yet we know there once was a government that did.
>
> :> :With all due respect, is this a troll aimed at me?
> :> :I'm not sure.
>
> :> Of course it was. It's all about you. It's not just you and your paranoia
> :> looking for attention or an excuse to post a rant (which you will crosspost
> :> at random if you think you're losing).
>
> :Bite me, Oz Boy.
> :You only lay out this sort of blatant troll when you seem to think you're
> :losing, not that you were even in it.
>
Yes, I know the difference.
>
> And there's a difference between a 'troll' and a 'clue'.
I would guess that difference lies, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
>
> What I said about Everett applies to you too. Think before posting like a
> drooling net-kook. Formosa's Law probably applies to you a little more, but
> nevertheless you have sufficient connection to reality to put in the effort
> to post more lucidly. Apply it.
Hi there, reality check: I _am_ a drooling net.kook, always have been one,
and probably will always be one... simply because I am willing to express my
opinion.
Sometimes, I feel like making a relatively smooth segue to a major rant on
the topic of one of my pet peeves. Sometimes I don't feel like making that
relatively smooth segue.
IX asked something to the effect of "could the US win a battle on the order
of WWII" and I answered, mostly "fuck no, we can't even close a border with
<acid sarcasm> Mexico </inconsolably bitter>".
Next time I'll keep it this short and sweet, I suppose, there are plenty of
other newsgroups where I can gripe at length about the US government's most
dismal and reprehensible abnegation of duty to the citizens. Not that you
care much about what the US does or doesn't do, I assume.
Now excuse me, I am getting unaccountably sarcastic and bitter.
>
> --
> http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
> "People who believe they learn from books alone are on a blind, futile path.
> It often ends in tenure." (st. albatross)
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Hardrock Llewynyth
the year of Our Lord, Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:12:02 GMT:
>This has been my experience as well. It is difficult to engage in a dialogue
>with lefties without them declaring that you must be a racist, or a sexist,
>or a nazi, or misanthropic, or some other label that serves as a convienient
>weapon.
OTOH, right-wingers are never loathe to toss around their own favorite
epithets at those who don't agree with every little thing they say;
though they do tend to be more subtle about it.
Ladybee
> Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
> >Matthew King wrote:
>
> >> What is alt-culture, anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with
> >> Lollapalooza. In other words, mainstream white male youth culture.
>
> Of course, Lollapalooza wasn't really "mainstream" (depending on how you
> define that term) when it started.
Given that the first Lollapalooza bill featured Ice-T's Body Count,
Lush, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, I'd definitely say it was a
departure from 'mainstream white male youth culture'.
Lollapaloozas 2 and 3 were pretty Honkey-Boy-centric (despite IIRC the
presence of Ice Cube and the Lunachicks), given the prominence of
bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Alice in
Chains.
However, Lollapalooza 4 was definitely seeking a wider audience in
booking bands like tampon-flinging grrlpunks L7,
mothership-bootyshakers George Clinton and the P-Funk Allstars, and
surly-drunk-bastards Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
And then they started to suck. Or i stopped paying attention, one.
That's where my memory stops at least. :)
> Or at least, it had the savvy to put
> across a definition of "mainstream" that would put itself outside it--or,
> more to the point, a definition of "mainstream" that would include
> everything the organizers didn't like. (It goes without saying that
> Lollapalooza never had a hair band or a metal band [1] on its bill, for
> instance.)
Funny how now, I and any number of other people who happily embraced
early Lollapaloozas as a chance to finally see Siouxsie and Ministry
live are found at the Glam Slam Metal Jam tours screaming 'OMG, POISON
AND RATT AND CINDERELLA ON THE SAME STAGE! KICK ASS!'
> And have you noticed that the word "lollapalooza" is so connected with
> Lollapalooza that it's also somewhat forgotten that it wasn't a
> particularly uncommon word beforehand? I wonder how many of today's
> high-schoolers realize this.
I enjoy, too, how the suffix '-apalooza' has evolved to mean
'overblown behemoth music festival': Freaknik is a 'Hiphopapalooza',
the Horde is a 'Hippiepalooza', Lilth Fair is a 'Chickapalooza', we
all fear Convergence has become a 'Gothapalooza'...
> [1] Until, of course, Metallica re-tooled its sound to Fit Better With
> The _Zeitgeist_, of course.
Re-tooled? They were *always* tools. Especially Lars. Yup. Such a tool
he's got a "Craftsman" tattoo.
<ducks>
Rachel E. Pollock Scalp: http://www.tartblossom.com
Costumes Craftsperson Music: http://purp.org/bottlerocket
American Repertory Theatre Stage: http://www.amrep.org
Panurge
lad...@tartblossom.com (Ladybee) wrote:
>Lollapaloozas 2 and 3 were pretty Honkey-Boy-centric (despite IIRC the
>presence of Ice Cube and the Lunachicks), given the prominence of
>bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Alice in
>Chains.
Nonetheless, it seemed like a distinct audience from the one for Beautiful
Rock Dudes In Spandex that was considered "mainstream white male" at the
time.
>Funny how now, I and any number of other people who happily embraced
>early Lollapaloozas as a chance to finally see Siouxsie and Ministry
>live are found at the Glam Slam Metal Jam tours screaming 'OMG, POISON
>AND RATT AND CINDERELLA ON THE SAME STAGE! KICK ASS!'
Well, it seems the "revolution" of '92 wasn't quite as deep as people
thought it was--it's just that everyone's worried about losing social
standing now. Or maybe hair bands have simply been admitted into the pool
of raw material for sardonic simulacra.
The '80s were, it's said, about image instead of music, but we finally
fixed that. Now it's about _credibility_ instead of music. So at least
image now serves some ostensibly higher end. Of course, it'd be kinda
nice if that higher end were the music itself. The fact that it serves
credibility is actually a _force_majeure_ stifling any sort of real
expression. What have we come to when Rock Star Image serves EXACTLY the
same social purpose as the traditional business suit??
>I enjoy, too, how the suffix '-apalooza' has evolved to mean
>'overblown behemoth music festival': Freaknik is a 'Hiphopapalooza',
>the Horde is a 'Hippiepalooza', Lilith Fair is a 'Chickapalooza', we
>all fear Convergence has become a 'Gothapalooza'...
I guess every genre has its "-apalooza." Even the home of my musical
heart, the ever-put-upon progressive rock, has NEARfest, the North-East
Art Rock Festival, set to welcome a dizzying 1800 people to the Trenton
War Memorial next year.
>> [1] Until, of course, Metallica re-tooled its sound to Fit Better With
>> The _Zeitgeist_, of course.
>
>Re-tooled? They were *always* tools. Especially Lars. Yup. Such a tool
>he's got a "Craftsman" tattoo.
<chuckle>
Metallica (and thrash in general) is where metal meets post-punk
"authenticity" and uses it for its own ends. ("DEATH TO FALSE
METAL!!!!!!"--as if it couldn't be "true" *at all* if it wasn't _exactly_
metal.) Their message of standing up for yourself always struck me, in
consequence, as disingenuous at its core--in MetallicaWorld, glam is
inherently "false" and jeans and a T-shirt are inherently "true." And
this was supposed to SAVE us from "surface over substance"?? (_Of_course_
the same goes for grunge, and even a bit for punk for that matter. And
let's not forget the glam bands' own culpability--after all, they did
pretty much fold when thrash came along. Local hair band after local hair
band hyping their New "Street" Look in the local weekly--gah!)
Matthew King
: Matthew King wrote:
: > Until you get over your knee-jerk liberal dogmatism to the extent that
: > you're willing to entertain the possibility that the right to free speech
: > is not beyond question, you have no business lecturing anyone about
: > dogmatism. Until you stop puffing about the right to free speech in
: > rhetoric worthy of Nelson Muntz [1], you have no business lecturing anyone
: > about shibboleths.
:
: Matt, I don't recall saying that the right to free speech was beyond
: question.
It's your pledge-of-allegiance *tone*, and the fact that you seemed to be
scolding Panurge for not reciting it enthusiastically enough. (Not to
mention his duly chastened response.)
: And as far as shibboleths are concerned, I would think someone working
: in academia, and especially someone working in the Philosophy
: Department, would be quite familiar with those little pass-partouts of
: the Ivory Tower.
Especially in philosophy? I dunno what it's like in your neck of the
woods, but around here (i.e., the three universities I've been to in
southern Ontario), philosophy departments are best described as
fragmented. But from the perspective of the newer, politically motivated
hybrid disciplines (women's studies, environmental studies, etc.),
philosophy is (not unjustifiably) viewed with suspicion as a
representative of the old, reactionary, magisterial university. If you
were really "progressive" (or "critical", as they like to say these days),
you'd be using your powers for good ("social justice") in one of the other
disciplines.
A couple of years ago, I went to a conference at the school where I did my
BA. My favourite prof from when I was there, who had just come back from
recruiting at the American Philosophical Association meetings, told me
that the one thing I should do if I wanted to get hired was set myself
apart from everyone else, somehow, anyhow: "You need to do something wild,
like be an extreme antifeminist."
He wasn't joking. In philosophy, the value of paramount importance (beyond
Publish Or Perish) is keeping the conversation going, and keeping it
interesting. Shibboleths are bad for conversation.
John Everett
> My favourite prof from when I was there, who had just
> come back from recruiting at the American Philosophical
> Association meetings, told me that the one thing I should
> do if I wanted to get hired was set myself apart from
> everyone else, somehow, anyhow: "You need to do
If only I had the proper guidence advising me to get the ph.d out of the way
when I still had the chance...
> He wasn't joking. In philosophy, the value of paramount
> importance (beyond Publish Or Perish) is keeping the
> conversation going....
> Shibboleths are bad for conversation.
Amen!
Btw, Matthew, I'm coming to Canada next week. Know any places to get a good
soy latte and a spelt biscotti made with ghee and sweetened only with maple
syrup?
John
julia.
Ladybee wrote:
>
> jbl...@mindspring.com (Panurge) wrote:
> > Neal Stanifer <nsta...@igalaxy.net> wrote:
> > >Matthew King wrote:
> >
> > >> What is alt-culture, anyway? My best guess is it has something to do with
> > >> Lollapalooza. In other words, mainstream white male youth culture.
> >
> > Of course, Lollapalooza wasn't really "mainstream" (depending on how you
> > define that term) when it started.
>
> Given that the first Lollapalooza bill featured Ice-T's Body Count,
> Lush, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, I'd definitely say it was a
> departure from 'mainstream white male youth culture'.
lush was the next year. but the first one also had henry rollins, nine inch
nails (which before the cleveland show, they were just another good support
act - the cleveland show is the one where the audience-hometown crowd-went
crazy and it made the national news.), the art show, and a great political
vibe that seemed sincere.
> Lollapaloozas 2 and 3 were pretty Honkey-Boy-centric (despite IIRC the
> presence of Ice Cube and the Lunachicks), given the prominence of
> bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and Alice in
> Chains.
the second year also had ministry, the jesus and mary chain, along with lush.
i'd say it was a good follow-up to the first even though they did have that
seattle presence. the chili peppers rocked & the bands were all very
comfortable wandering around in the crowds when not playing. good
approachability.
didn't go to three.
> However, Lollapalooza 4 was definitely seeking a wider audience in
> booking bands like tampon-flinging grrlpunks L7,
> mothership-bootyshakers George Clinton and the P-Funk Allstars, and
> surly-drunk-bastards Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
don't forget the smashing pumpkins (not a good performance in rhode island)
and the breeders - their set rocked! but this year was the one that made me
say: Never Again.
>
> And then they started to suck. Or i stopped paying attention, one.
> That's where my memory stops at least. :)
>
> > Or at least, it had the savvy to put
> > across a definition of "mainstream" that would put itself outside it--or,
> > more to the point, a definition of "mainstream" that would include
> > everything the organizers didn't like.
iirc, there was a certain point where perry farrell turned over a portion of
lollapalooza to some corporate entity. and i think it might have been with
year three or four. he still had some sort of control, but it just became
this out of control commercial beast. (much like the mainstream youth of
today.)
julia.
Matthew King
: Btw, Matthew, I'm coming to Canada next week. Know any places to get a good
: soy latte and a spelt biscotti made with ghee and sweetened only with maple
: syrup?
Heh. Yeah, right. I know where you can get a great burger and onion rings.
So, I trust you're coming out to the Toronto listmeet next Saturday night,
then? I should warn you, though, these days it's being held at the (Evil
Modern, presumably) Wheat Sheaf Tavern.
John Everett
> Heh. Yeah, right. I know where you can get
> a great burger and onion rings.
You mean a ground organic turkey breast burger on a sprouted wheat[1] bun
with homemade guacamole made with just avocado, Vidalia onions, crushed
garlic, fresh squeezed lemon juice, sea salt, and a sprig of home grown
cilantro? Great! I make those at home all the time.
I also look forward to the onion rings battered in spelt flour and cooked in
olive oil.
> So, I trust you're coming out to the Toronto listmeet next
> Saturday night, then?
I'm actually going to be in Winsor. I also won't be in Canada on Saturday.
Can we move the listmeet time and place just this once?
John
[1] Sprouting exorcises the evil out of the wheat.
Panurge
> > [Lollapalooza] had the savvy to put across...a definition of "mainstream"
> > that would include everything the organizers didn't like.
"julia." <juli...@nospammoix.netcom.com> wrote:
>iirc, there was a certain point where perry farrell turned over a portion of
>lollapalooza to some corporate entity. and i think it might have been with
>year three or four. he still had some sort of control, but it just became
>this out of control commercial beast. (much like the mainstream youth of
>today.)
"Commercial"? Fer shur. "Out of control?" This must be the _squarest_
generation of high-schoolers I've seen yet. Crewcuts and scooters and
khakis, oh my! :-P
Thing is, ISTM that what happened was that it got "co-opted" as opposed to
being radically changed. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the
process has to be brought off well--which it's not often, cultural
radicals being wary of it and thence not very good at it. I mean,
hey--"coopted" looks a little like "corrupted" from a distance, no?
Matthew King
: You mean a ground organic turkey breast burger
No. No I don't.
: Great! I make those at home all the time.
Home? You, the eternal wanderer, paragon of modern homelessness, cook at
home?