Dionysis and War
Of the many personal messages I received in the last week on the Cost of Empire series, the most fascinating and troubling came from my friend Larry Gross. Larry is the most unique of Hollywood hybrids, the screenwriter/philosopher. He wrote classics like Walter Hill’s 48 Hours
Congratulations on this piece which is definitely important. I think there is one dimension further your analysis has to reach. One has to see how the totalizing vision of Wilson, Cold War, and the current neo-con Fantasia, are literally, to some extent,the bastard step children of certain impersonal consequences of technological change–the same change that has allowed for “universal” market solutions to economic problems. What I know you know better than most is that every dangerous expansion of military ambition in the 20th century by America has been accompanied by, if not created in part by, a massive unleashing of technological growth. We know the most recent and most important such moment was the birth of the Internet as an instrument of Defense department nuclear policy–War has been in addition to being the most wasteful and destructive thing about our planet’s 90 uninterruptedly horrific years, the medium by which wholesale developments of human capability have arisen. This excruciating paradox exactly parallels the growth of global capitalism, that which has “freed and liberated” so much human energy in this century, while destroying, wasting, and irrevocably corrupting so much at the same time.
The great counterculture visionary Norman O Brown (Life Against Death, Love’s Body) wrote a chastened essay during the Free Market’s last moment of apotheosis, the year 1990,after the conservative ideologue’s greatest moment, the collapse of the Eastern bloc: “Capitalism has proven itself more dynamic—i.e.Dionysian–than socialism. its essential nature is to be out of control: exuberant energy exploiting every opportunity to extract a surplus, that is what free enterprise means.”
It reminds me a little of a great essay William James wrote about the need to discover somehow “A Moral Equivalent for War”… your account of the ruinous effects of war on our system needs to be expanded to begin another of layer of analysis–what part of our souls, our bodies, our desires, have ineradicable needs for War–and I’m not just making some Jungian-Hobbesian rant about the darker side of our natures–though Dionysis, Norman O Brown’s hero and Nietzche’s does talk that talk sometimes–or in other words how has war–and American exceptionalism, and all the horrors it has and is instituting in our world right as we speak, been an improper expression of drives and needs in us, and not just us…that will always need to find expression?
It seems to me that this deeply troubling paradox is one that we need to wrestle with. Is our “exuberant energy exploiting every opportunity to extract a surplus” capable of being channeled in less destructive directions? This of course is probably the critical question for the planet as a whole. Whether through war or the exploitation of the environment we do not seem to be able to put a check on our Dionysian instincts.
Given that I have been recently engaged in a generational argument (I think a false one) with one of our correspondents, it might be churlish of me to point out that part of the joy of living in 1969 was the ability to channel Dionysis into music and art and other ecstatic realms of the spirit. But here again we faced the paradox, because in the back of our minds we knew that some of our high school classmates were risking their lives for no good reason in the Swamps of Vietnam. The writer Norman O. Brown, who Larry referenced tried to deal with this dialectic. I don’t know if his solution was right, but I throw it out to the community in hopes of creating a dialogue.
It is possible to be mad and to be unblest, but it is not possible to get the blessing without the madness; it is not possible to get the illuminations without the derangement. And so there comes a time–I believe we are in such a time, when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of mankind, the power which makes all things new.
OT-Obama in Israel. Sorry for being off topic, but Obama had an interview with the Jerusalem Post which is worth reading. The first three sentances are priceless:
“Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.
In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.
On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures. ”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331099249&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Dave
OT-Obama in Israel. Sorry for being off topic, but Obama had an interview with the Jerusalem Post which is worth reading. The first three sentances are priceless:
“Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.
In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.
On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures. ”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331099249&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Dave
The phenomenon you are describing seems to be another incarnation of the dynamic tensions between opposites that drives much of the world, from biology to economics. To be most productive, your system needs to dance along the ‘edge of chaos’, and will sometimes wander too far one way or the other.
One aspect of the dynamic under discussion is the fact that the growth and innovation take place in one location, while the death and destruction take place in another. The cultural explosion of the 60′s took place in Haight-Ashbury, not Hanoi.
The phenomenon you are describing seems to be another incarnation of the dynamic tensions between opposites that drives much of the world, from biology to economics. To be most productive, your system needs to dance along the ‘edge of chaos’, and will sometimes wander too far one way or the other.
One aspect of the dynamic under discussion is the fact that the growth and innovation take place in one location, while the death and destruction take place in another. The cultural explosion of the 60′s took place in Haight-Ashbury, not Hanoi.
I would say our ‘exuberant energy’ is already being exploited in non-destructive ways by many countries on the planet already. Although not perfectly executed, many OECD countries have managed to make war-making a minor part of their national identities and some of those have pledged to minimise their environmental impact too.
I don’t think Americans are as afraid of copying other nation’s ideas; their leaders are.
I would say our ‘exuberant energy’ is already being exploited in non-destructive ways by many countries on the planet already. Although not perfectly executed, many OECD countries have managed to make war-making a minor part of their national identities and some of those have pledged to minimise their environmental impact too.
I don’t think Americans are as afraid of copying other nation’s ideas; their leaders are.
I would agree that setting up a “generational” opposition is a dead-end.
However, the 60s Generation will have to face the fact of what Larry nails: the very unleashing of the 60s Dionysian spirit, itself was completely tied to the growth of the military industrial complex. Furthermore, the 60s Generation’s slide into “self-improvement” and a managerial arrogance best exemplified by the Clintons, has created an understandably cynical, mistrustful attitude towards massive “social movement” project.
I think it’s a healthy corrective that young people try to have a little humility, focus on local, small projects.
The totalizing, grand thrust of your “empire” critique is both noble and troubling in this sense.
As Larry emphasized, how we all “channel” our own energies and desire in its proper “expression” should first acknowledge the incredible destruction, and maybe listen to our neighbors, especially the most impoverished who are literally right outside our gates all around Los Angeles.
I would agree that setting up a “generational” opposition is a dead-end.
However, the 60s Generation will have to face the fact of what Larry nails: the very unleashing of the 60s Dionysian spirit, itself was completely tied to the growth of the military industrial complex. Furthermore, the 60s Generation’s slide into “self-improvement” and a managerial arrogance best exemplified by the Clintons, has created an understandably cynical, mistrustful attitude towards massive “social movement” project.
I think it’s a healthy corrective that young people try to have a little humility, focus on local, small projects.
The totalizing, grand thrust of your “empire” critique is both noble and troubling in this sense.
As Larry emphasized, how we all “channel” our own energies and desire in its proper “expression” should first acknowledge the incredible destruction, and maybe listen to our neighbors, especially the most impoverished who are literally right outside our gates all around Los Angeles.
well put Lewis… I tried to find a good quote from Joseph Campbells’s “A Hero with a Thousand Faces” where he talks about Dionysis, but it’s impossible to take only a fragment from this essential work on Mythology. I’ll leave you with his final paragraph instead:
“The modern hero, the modern individual who dares heed the call and seek the mansion of that presence with whom it is our whole destiny to be atoned, cannot, indeed must not, wait for his community to cast off its slough of pride, fear, rationalized avarice, and sanctified misunderstanding. “Live”, Nietzsche says, “as though the day were here.” It is not society that is to guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us who shares the supreme ordeal-carries the cross of the redeemer-not in the bright moments of his tribe’s great victories, but in the silence of his personal despair.”
well put Lewis… I tried to find a good quote from Joseph Campbells’s “A Hero with a Thousand Faces” where he talks about Dionysis, but it’s impossible to take only a fragment from this essential work on Mythology. I’ll leave you with his final paragraph instead:
“The modern hero, the modern individual who dares heed the call and seek the mansion of that presence with whom it is our whole destiny to be atoned, cannot, indeed must not, wait for his community to cast off its slough of pride, fear, rationalized avarice, and sanctified misunderstanding. “Live”, Nietzsche says, “as though the day were here.” It is not society that is to guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us who shares the supreme ordeal-carries the cross of the redeemer-not in the bright moments of his tribe’s great victories, but in the silence of his personal despair.”
All of these comments are amazing. Azmanon, the Campbell quote is the topper.
“Live as though the day were here” is the only way we are going to begin to change this absurd Joseph Heller movie we have been living in. There is no more need to wait.
All of these comments are amazing. Azmanon, the Campbell quote is the topper.
“Live as though the day were here” is the only way we are going to begin to change this absurd Joseph Heller movie we have been living in. There is no more need to wait.
For many people…Americans…, mostly men (at least in the past), war has been the peak emotional experience of their lives. Forget puberty, forget falling in love, nothing beats the impact of life and death in war. It, of course, ruins many. There is the idea that “it makes a man out of you”…and there’s the rub. Is to be a man to kill or to come close to being killed? Whew… No wonder so many vets turn to drugs and/or drink… My dad did…
For many people…Americans…, mostly men (at least in the past), war has been the peak emotional experience of their lives. Forget puberty, forget falling in love, nothing beats the impact of life and death in war. It, of course, ruins many. There is the idea that “it makes a man out of you”…and there’s the rub. Is to be a man to kill or to come close to being killed? Whew… No wonder so many vets turn to drugs and/or drink… My dad did…
Sorry in advance for posting a bit too much:
I think you’re hitting on something important, but I’m not so sure this should be put in terms of energy, as if its an impersonal force that builds up and needs some form of release. I think Rick has perhaps hit on the important point, in claiming that war has a deeply personal effect upon those who are involved.
As far as I see it, the issue is not so much one of creative (or destructive) energy, but one of individuation, i.e., it has to do with the way people identify themselves, the way they individuate themselves through the things they do. All of us need to both identify ourselves with others and at the same time to differentiate ourselves and make ourselves unique individuals. This desire to individuate ourselves is quite a powerful force, and it is a driving impulse behind much collective endeavour. It is equally responsible for mid-life crises and the entire marketing industry (“don’t sell a product, sell a lifestyle”).
There’s a hell of a lot that can be said about this, but I’ll try and keep it relevant.
What we’re trying to get at with this dionysian build of energy isn’t just a surplus of economic power, or even strictly of opportunities available to the population. This is only part of it. The other part is a palpable lack of means for individuating oneself (either in terms of differentiating or identifying).
Situations like this are ripe for new systems of individuation to occupy. They present a niche waiting to be filled, be it by new social movements (be they purely cultural or political) or by other, more parasitic systems (the marketing industry, celebrity culture, etc.).
It’s important to note that I’m not claiming that such a dearth of individuation is ALL that causes social movements to develop, obviously political and cultural movements have particular ideas and events they crystallize around. However, these situations facilitate this process of crystallization.
There are a lot of problems in Western society that need to be looked at in these terms. However, picking up Jon’s problem: How do we channel our energies into less destructive means? I think we can reformulate it as the question of how we individuate ourselves as less destructive people (and less destructive societies). This means cutting of those ways people individuate themselves that have a negative impact by bolstering the alternatives.
For instance, this means giving young underachievers jobs that they can identify with (not just flipping burgers), other than the military (“be a man”).
However, most importantly, this means changing the perceptions of society itself, because its the status given to different choices which make them possibilities for individuating oneself amongst others.
This means turning back much of the individualist revolution of the 80′s. We need to break the culture of wealth-accumulation-at-all-costs, which means lowering its status in the eyes of others, so that its harder to identify oneself with how much money one earns (responsible for so many problems). It also means bolstering communities, because they generate their own means of identification and differentiation.
Sorry in advance for posting a bit too much:
I think you’re hitting on something important, but I’m not so sure this should be put in terms of energy, as if its an impersonal force that builds up and needs some form of release. I think Rick has perhaps hit on the important point, in claiming that war has a deeply personal effect upon those who are involved.
As far as I see it, the issue is not so much one of creative (or destructive) energy, but one of individuation, i.e., it has to do with the way people identify themselves, the way they individuate themselves through the things they do. All of us need to both identify ourselves with others and at the same time to differentiate ourselves and make ourselves unique individuals. This desire to individuate ourselves is quite a powerful force, and it is a driving impulse behind much collective endeavour. It is equally responsible for mid-life crises and the entire marketing industry (“don’t sell a product, sell a lifestyle”).
There’s a hell of a lot that can be said about this, but I’ll try and keep it relevant.
What we’re trying to get at with this dionysian build of energy isn’t just a surplus of economic power, or even strictly of opportunities available to the population. This is only part of it. The other part is a palpable lack of means for individuating oneself (either in terms of differentiating or identifying).
Situations like this are ripe for new systems of individuation to occupy. They present a niche waiting to be filled, be it by new social movements (be they purely cultural or political) or by other, more parasitic systems (the marketing industry, celebrity culture, etc.).
It’s important to note that I’m not claiming that such a dearth of individuation is ALL that causes social movements to develop, obviously political and cultural movements have particular ideas and events they crystallize around. However, these situations facilitate this process of crystallization.
There are a lot of problems in Western society that need to be looked at in these terms. However, picking up Jon’s problem: How do we channel our energies into less destructive means? I think we can reformulate it as the question of how we individuate ourselves as less destructive people (and less destructive societies). This means cutting of those ways people individuate themselves that have a negative impact by bolstering the alternatives.
For instance, this means giving young underachievers jobs that they can identify with (not just flipping burgers), other than the military (“be a man”).
However, most importantly, this means changing the perceptions of society itself, because its the status given to different choices which make them possibilities for individuating oneself amongst others.
This means turning back much of the individualist revolution of the 80′s. We need to break the culture of wealth-accumulation-at-all-costs, which means lowering its status in the eyes of others, so that its harder to identify oneself with how much money one earns (responsible for so many problems). It also means bolstering communities, because they generate their own means of identification and differentiation.
Jon and Azmanon,
At its core, what Larry addresses is the profound spiritual fissures and implosion that American society has endured over the last fifty years, ironically the period when the 60s “Flower Child”-turned-Huffington-Posters ruled the world, literally and figuratively.
As my link documents, I’ve found this strain in your thinking Jon from the beginning, which while not surprising, probably creates the conditions for you to overlook such “dimensions” at least so far in your published work.
Since my amazing first semester in grad school with Cory Doctorow and Manuel Castells, I have been arguing that their is a profound “arrogance of reason” that afflicts us all, that is partially at work in the troubling missed “dimensions” of this Empire critique.
My semester with Jon and Sasha was equally inspiring as it was Josh Kun’s seminar that was welcome corrective to our Digital Communication seminar blog’s hype, and ultimate disappearance, which was “published” and then “de-published” by the Annenberg Center.
What is missing in all these “arrogant of reason” critiques is a new type of humility found in embracing a new Socratic method, one that doesn’t aspire to figure out Empires (Jon, a little too much Hollywierd star wars here maybe. Or, if it does, qualifies it greatly, not in the “dylan” best artist while other equally, amazing artists are gone from history), but will just be quiet, listen and then help others take small steps in making change.
For a start, check out these poems by Czeslaw Milosz, “A Warning” and “Hollywood” at the below link:
http://uscpubd510.blogspot.com/
Jon and Azmanon,
At its core, what Larry addresses is the profound spiritual fissures and implosion that American society has endured over the last fifty years, ironically the period when the 60s “Flower Child”-turned-Huffington-Posters ruled the world, literally and figuratively.
As my link documents, I’ve found this strain in your thinking Jon from the beginning, which while not surprising, probably creates the conditions for you to overlook such “dimensions” at least so far in your published work.
Since my amazing first semester in grad school with Cory Doctorow and Manuel Castells, I have been arguing that their is a profound “arrogance of reason” that afflicts us all, that is partially at work in the troubling missed “dimensions” of this Empire critique.
My semester with Jon and Sasha was equally inspiring as it was Josh Kun’s seminar that was welcome corrective to our Digital Communication seminar blog’s hype, and ultimate disappearance, which was “published” and then “de-published” by the Annenberg Center.
What is missing in all these “arrogant of reason” critiques is a new type of humility found in embracing a new Socratic method, one that doesn’t aspire to figure out Empires (Jon, a little too much Hollywierd star wars here maybe. Or, if it does, qualifies it greatly, not in the “dylan” best artist while other equally, amazing artists are gone from history), but will just be quiet, listen and then help others take small steps in making change.
For a start, check out these poems by Czeslaw Milosz, “A Warning” and “Hollywood” at the below link:
http://uscpubd510.blogspot.com/
I’d like to add some wider perspective to this whole ‘It started with Wilson’ notion.
It’s true that Wilson put us into a war we had no business touching, for what he claimed were idealistic principles, and this may have been a new wrinkle on American Imperialism. But it’s also true that, a child of British Imperialism herself, America has always been minded towards expansion and empire.
We can start with shortly after/alongside the American Revolution with the calls to liberate Canada.
Then President Jefferson decided that America should be the policeman in the Mediterranean, going after the ‘Barbary pirates.’
We can add the ‘purchases’ from bankrupt empires of dubious claims over the territories west of the Mississippi (Napoleon) and Alaska (the Tsar).
Then of course we stole from Mexico in a war the land we now call Texas, along with a lot of the south-west.
We got the ‘empire bug’ like all other ‘civilized’ western nations trying to emulate Britain in the latter 19th century, warring on Spain to grab at Cuba and other isles in the Caribbean, and the Philippines. We also tried some slick practices to win over the King of Hawaii to join the US rather than the British Empire, which is what he had wanted to do.
And about this time it was an American Admiral, Mahon, who wrote the classic treatise claiming that Britain’s rise to power rode on the back of her navy, and advocating a large, strong, American navy to press our own case for growth and Imperial power. President Roosevelt (Teddy, 10 years before Wilson) obliged by seeing the great ‘White Ships’ of the American armada, and sending them on a tour of the world to show off America’s newest big stick.
Monroe basically declared the entire Western Hemisphere America’s backyard, and a century later we were subverting South American governments and fighting down there to support American corporations.
We also, post-Wilson, joined in the gold rush to try to grab a piece of China in the 1920s.
Jon quoted one of the Kagan boys in his first entry in this series, ‘After 9/11 we didn’t change, we just became more who we were.’ I’d say this is true, only in ways Kagan didn’t exactly mean, or if he did mean them, would be ashamed to admit.
The connection between technology and empire is, however, quite interesting. Just as technological Man attempts to ‘conquer’ Nature and ‘tame’ Her, so businesses aim at ‘empire’ (and are proud to call it such) and the national government has always rushed to defend business interests world-wide, at least since the time Thomas Jefferson was President.
I’d like to add some wider perspective to this whole ‘It started with Wilson’ notion.
It’s true that Wilson put us into a war we had no business touching, for what he claimed were idealistic principles, and this may have been a new wrinkle on American Imperialism. But it’s also true that, a child of British Imperialism herself, America has always been minded towards expansion and empire.
We can start with shortly after/alongside the American Revolution with the calls to liberate Canada.
Then President Jefferson decided that America should be the policeman in the Mediterranean, going after the ‘Barbary pirates.’
We can add the ‘purchases’ from bankrupt empires of dubious claims over the territories west of the Mississippi (Napoleon) and Alaska (the Tsar).
Then of course we stole from Mexico in a war the land we now call Texas, along with a lot of the south-west.
We got the ‘empire bug’ like all other ‘civilized’ western nations trying to emulate Britain in the latter 19th century, warring on Spain to grab at Cuba and other isles in the Caribbean, and the Philippines. We also tried some slick practices to win over the King of Hawaii to join the US rather than the British Empire, which is what he had wanted to do.
And about this time it was an American Admiral, Mahon, who wrote the classic treatise claiming that Britain’s rise to power rode on the back of her navy, and advocating a large, strong, American navy to press our own case for growth and Imperial power. President Roosevelt (Teddy, 10 years before Wilson) obliged by seeing the great ‘White Ships’ of the American armada, and sending them on a tour of the world to show off America’s newest big stick.
Monroe basically declared the entire Western Hemisphere America’s backyard, and a century later we were subverting South American governments and fighting down there to support American corporations.
We also, post-Wilson, joined in the gold rush to try to grab a piece of China in the 1920s.
Jon quoted one of the Kagan boys in his first entry in this series, ‘After 9/11 we didn’t change, we just became more who we were.’ I’d say this is true, only in ways Kagan didn’t exactly mean, or if he did mean them, would be ashamed to admit.
The connection between technology and empire is, however, quite interesting. Just as technological Man attempts to ‘conquer’ Nature and ‘tame’ Her, so businesses aim at ‘empire’ (and are proud to call it such) and the national government has always rushed to defend business interests world-wide, at least since the time Thomas Jefferson was President.
Madison was just as committed as Jefferson to staying out of the European war, and he continued to rely on economic pressure. Black Economic Empowerment
Madison was just as committed as Jefferson to staying out of the European war, and he continued to rely on economic pressure. Black Economic Empowerment
If you’re going to go back to the Barbary Pirates, don’t forget that they were pirates preying upon American merchant ships as well as the merchant ships of the European nations. The US had the natural resources…forests…to build the greatest fleet the Western world had known, and was bent upon doing that. We were starting to compete very successfully with England, Holland, and the rest of Europe for world trade, and the Barbary Pirates were making things difficult in the Mediterranean as the Brits were doing in the Atlantic. “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights” and all that…
If you’re going to go back to the Barbary Pirates, don’t forget that they were pirates preying upon American merchant ships as well as the merchant ships of the European nations. The US had the natural resources…forests…to build the greatest fleet the Western world had known, and was bent upon doing that. We were starting to compete very successfully with England, Holland, and the rest of Europe for world trade, and the Barbary Pirates were making things difficult in the Mediterranean as the Brits were doing in the Atlantic. “Free Trade and Sailors’ Rights” and all that…
All the “Americas” are essencially the same and somehow married ( more or less) to the same purpose. Utopia in a diverse cultural melting pot.
I just came back from a trip to the Ventuari river where Jhon and I went a few years back. Nothing has changed I stayed with the Yanomami tribe for 3 nights, we ate we laughted, went fishing in the morning and cryed when we departed.No questions asked.
War is such a waste. We could do so much better without it. No arrogance.
Saludos
Bernard
All the “Americas” are essencially the same and somehow married ( more or less) to the same purpose. Utopia in a diverse cultural melting pot.
I just came back from a trip to the Ventuari river where Jhon and I went a few years back. Nothing has changed I stayed with the Yanomami tribe for 3 nights, we ate we laughted, went fishing in the morning and cryed when we departed.No questions asked.
War is such a waste. We could do so much better without it. No arrogance.
Saludos
Bernard
Pete Wolf- I think this quote of yours gets to the heart of the matter.
“This desire to individuate ourselves is quite a powerful force, and it is a driving impulse behind much collective endeavour. It is equally responsible for mid-life crises and the entire marketing industry (”don’t sell a product, sell a lifestyle”).”
How much of this marketing driven individuation becomes an ultimately frustrating process for most people. One thinks that a certain piece of clothing will set you apart, help you on the “ladder to success”– but it doesn’t work out that way.
-American consumer culture raises our aspirations—Anyone can get rich.
-When expectations outstrip real outcomes, we feel either aggressively resentful or depressed
Pete Wolf- I think this quote of yours gets to the heart of the matter.
“This desire to individuate ourselves is quite a powerful force, and it is a driving impulse behind much collective endeavour. It is equally responsible for mid-life crises and the entire marketing industry (”don’t sell a product, sell a lifestyle”).”
How much of this marketing driven individuation becomes an ultimately frustrating process for most people. One thinks that a certain piece of clothing will set you apart, help you on the “ladder to success”– but it doesn’t work out that way.
-American consumer culture raises our aspirations—Anyone can get rich.
-When expectations outstrip real outcomes, we feel either aggressively resentful or depressed
My good friend Vint Cerf, known as the father of The Internet and inventor of TCP/IP wrote me because he was disturbed about one of Larry Gross’ claims. Here’s what Vint said:
“The Internet was NOT an
instrument of Defense Department nuclear policy. To state so is
complete nonsense. It was an outgrowth of an interest in improving
command and control through the use of computers. Perhaps more
important, the Defense Department explicitly did NOT limit access to
this technology. It was allowed to propagate world wide. All the
documentation was made available online at no cost and that is so to
this day. So I am mystified by Gross’ claims. ”
I think Vint has a good point in the sense that whatever the reason behind the original DARPA grants, they never restricted the use of the knowledge,protocols or innovation that came out of their work. I talked about the DARPA culture months ago, and I think this whole area needs more study.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/alternative-energy-and-innovation/
My good friend Vint Cerf, known as the father of The Internet and inventor of TCP/IP wrote me because he was disturbed about one of Larry Gross’ claims. Here’s what Vint said:
“The Internet was NOT an
instrument of Defense Department nuclear policy. To state so is
complete nonsense. It was an outgrowth of an interest in improving
command and control through the use of computers. Perhaps more
important, the Defense Department explicitly did NOT limit access to
this technology. It was allowed to propagate world wide. All the
documentation was made available online at no cost and that is so to
this day. So I am mystified by Gross’ claims. ”
I think Vint has a good point in the sense that whatever the reason behind the original DARPA grants, they never restricted the use of the knowledge,protocols or innovation that came out of their work. I talked about the DARPA culture months ago, and I think this whole area needs more study.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/alternative-energy-and-innovation/
Historical note: I second Vint Cerf’s claims about the internet. He invented some of it, but I was an early user, from the early ’70s. It was not classified, and was open to grad students and faculty at participating universities, like USC, if I recall correctly. The ARPANET, as it was called at the time, had some serious uses. My role was to back up the transmission of worldwide weather data from the Air Force Global Weather Central at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, to our climatological data center at Asheville, NC. The primary transmission medium was 9-track data tapes mailed in cardboard boxes, but sometimes small quantities of data were needed much more quickly. Those few of us at the AFGWC who were initiated into the arcana of the ARPANET were actually encouraged to play computer games (almost exclusively text-based adventure games) to maintain our familiarity with the protocols and procedures. My primary host was in Boston, with an alternate host in California. Later on, in another job, I had a couple of NCOs who used the net routinely for email correspondence with some of our client organizations and our subordinate data center. At one time, there was an ongoing, vigorous discussion about nuclear weapons policies (all unclassified) carried out among researchers at Los Alamos, Sandia, other government labs and universities. There was never any attempt to censor or otherwise interfere with such newsgroups. Of course, that was probably just because the brass had no idea what was going on.
Historical note: I second Vint Cerf’s claims about the internet. He invented some of it, but I was an early user, from the early ’70s. It was not classified, and was open to grad students and faculty at participating universities, like USC, if I recall correctly. The ARPANET, as it was called at the time, had some serious uses. My role was to back up the transmission of worldwide weather data from the Air Force Global Weather Central at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, to our climatological data center at Asheville, NC. The primary transmission medium was 9-track data tapes mailed in cardboard boxes, but sometimes small quantities of data were needed much more quickly. Those few of us at the AFGWC who were initiated into the arcana of the ARPANET were actually encouraged to play computer games (almost exclusively text-based adventure games) to maintain our familiarity with the protocols and procedures. My primary host was in Boston, with an alternate host in California. Later on, in another job, I had a couple of NCOs who used the net routinely for email correspondence with some of our client organizations and our subordinate data center. At one time, there was an ongoing, vigorous discussion about nuclear weapons policies (all unclassified) carried out among researchers at Los Alamos, Sandia, other government labs and universities. There was never any attempt to censor or otherwise interfere with such newsgroups. Of course, that was probably just because the brass had no idea what was going on.
Jon – I think the problem both of our societies are confronted with is that we’ve dismantled many of the social structures that allow us to individuate ourselves in ways other than through our purchasing power. This is the real truth of the consumer society. That is, unless one manages to become part of the increasingly separate culture (that of businessmen and executives) wherein purchasing power is no longer enough, and it becomes a matter of sheer financial conquest.
The unfortunate truth is that culture, art, music, and education for its own sake can’t entirely fill the gap. This isn’t to devalue these pursuits, but simply to recognise that they aren’t and can’t be open to everyone as a means of differentiating themselves. This is not to say they can’t be encouraged more, and a reform of the education system is the best way to achieve this (obsession with examination and assessment is to education what dehumanising unskilled labour is to employment).
The solution has to focus on two areas: identification with employment, and the rebuilding of existing and fostering of new communities.
The internet has proved very good at the latter, in that it can create small communities in which people can individuate themselves very easily. However, it can’t be a complete substitute for geographical community, and here again I think some attention to economic localism is required.
As for individuation through employment, this is an exceptionally complex issue with multiple causes and multiple solutions. However, we know that what we need to aim for is a situation in which ALL employment is respectable, not just high wage employment. Street cleaners should be allowed to take pride in their work just as doctors. Unfortunately, this requires a massive cultural shift.
Ironically, it is our identification of people with a role which does the most harm to those people’s ability to individuate themselves via that role. For example, treating a cashier as just a cashier, i.e., as interchangeable with any other, takes away that persons ability to differentiate themselves from others through that job. In this respect, short term contract labour has more than simple economic consequences on our society.
Jon – I think the problem both of our societies are confronted with is that we’ve dismantled many of the social structures that allow us to individuate ourselves in ways other than through our purchasing power. This is the real truth of the consumer society. That is, unless one manages to become part of the increasingly separate culture (that of businessmen and executives) wherein purchasing power is no longer enough, and it becomes a matter of sheer financial conquest.
The unfortunate truth is that culture, art, music, and education for its own sake can’t entirely fill the gap. This isn’t to devalue these pursuits, but simply to recognise that they aren’t and can’t be open to everyone as a means of differentiating themselves. This is not to say they can’t be encouraged more, and a reform of the education system is the best way to achieve this (obsession with examination and assessment is to education what dehumanising unskilled labour is to employment).
The solution has to focus on two areas: identification with employment, and the rebuilding of existing and fostering of new communities.
The internet has proved very good at the latter, in that it can create small communities in which people can individuate themselves very easily. However, it can’t be a complete substitute for geographical community, and here again I think some attention to economic localism is required.
As for individuation through employment, this is an exceptionally complex issue with multiple causes and multiple solutions. However, we know that what we need to aim for is a situation in which ALL employment is respectable, not just high wage employment. Street cleaners should be allowed to take pride in their work just as doctors. Unfortunately, this requires a massive cultural shift.
Ironically, it is our identification of people with a role which does the most harm to those people’s ability to individuate themselves via that role. For example, treating a cashier as just a cashier, i.e., as interchangeable with any other, takes away that persons ability to differentiate themselves from others through that job. In this respect, short term contract labour has more than simple economic consequences on our society.
Pete Wolf:
Bingo. This could almost be the definition of “culture”: structures that allow us to individuate ourselves. Enough shared understanding of what an activity is (like ‘playing second base’, ‘running marathons’, ‘playing folk music’, ‘writing novels’) to give it an appreciative audience, yet enough flexibility to allow people to do it distinctively.
Typical of contemporary American culture: we get reports on box office numbers for new films before commentary on the quality of the acting, directing, writing, musical score, etc. Media support for the cultural relevance of the motion picture arts comes coded with an insistent refrain: it’s the money, stupid!
Pete Wolf:
Bingo. This could almost be the definition of “culture”: structures that allow us to individuate ourselves. Enough shared understanding of what an activity is (like ‘playing second base’, ‘running marathons’, ‘playing folk music’, ‘writing novels’) to give it an appreciative audience, yet enough flexibility to allow people to do it distinctively.
Typical of contemporary American culture: we get reports on box office numbers for new films before commentary on the quality of the acting, directing, writing, musical score, etc. Media support for the cultural relevance of the motion picture arts comes coded with an insistent refrain: it’s the money, stupid!
Got an accidental emoticon there — parentheticals aren’t wordpress-safe. Just another obscure selection pressure on writing style.
Got an accidental emoticon there — parentheticals aren’t wordpress-safe. Just another obscure selection pressure on writing style.
Pete Wolf- Individuation through work assumes we can have work that is not alienating. Ironically, Marcuse thought that technology would provide the freedom from alienating work, by making all the grunt jobs performed by robots. I’m not sure it worked out that way after reading this morning about the work on the Killing Floor of the Kosher meat plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html#
Pete Wolf- Individuation through work assumes we can have work that is not alienating. Ironically, Marcuse thought that technology would provide the freedom from alienating work, by making all the grunt jobs performed by robots. I’m not sure it worked out that way after reading this morning about the work on the Killing Floor of the Kosher meat plant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/us/27immig.html#
Jon – You are right. But I’m not trying to advocate some utopia in which there is no alienating work. Unfortunately, not everyone can be craftsmen, and see themselves in what they make. Nonetheless, things can be a lot better than they are now. Changing the way in which society views different kinds of employment, and finding ways to minimize the amount of (but also importantly the intensity of) alienating labour, would go towards reducing the general level of alienation in society. Neither of these things is easy in the slightest, but I do think they’re important to keep in mind.
Something that was touched on a while ago though, which is linked to these ideas is the suggestion for some kind of compulsory national service for all 18 year olds (or some such age), one that involves more (what we call) voluntary work in the non-profit sector. I think this idea is good for many reasons, but if you just think about in terms of individuation, it provides a means for all those involved to both identify themselves as part of society, and (if the options for service are sufficiently varied, so that the experience isn’t homogeneous) differentiate themselves. This would hopefully lead to an increased sense of social responsibility, in virtue of individuating oneself not just in comparison to others, but also properly in terms of ones relations with them.
If you talk to men from Germany, and similar countries that still have national service programs, you find almost everyone has a story about their service. It’s something different people can connect over. A society in which everyone could call on at least some individual personal experience of working for a good cause (to both connect with others over, and individuate themselves through) would be a far healthier one.
Jon – You are right. But I’m not trying to advocate some utopia in which there is no alienating work. Unfortunately, not everyone can be craftsmen, and see themselves in what they make. Nonetheless, things can be a lot better than they are now. Changing the way in which society views different kinds of employment, and finding ways to minimize the amount of (but also importantly the intensity of) alienating labour, would go towards reducing the general level of alienation in society. Neither of these things is easy in the slightest, but I do think they’re important to keep in mind.
Something that was touched on a while ago though, which is linked to these ideas is the suggestion for some kind of compulsory national service for all 18 year olds (or some such age), one that involves more (what we call) voluntary work in the non-profit sector. I think this idea is good for many reasons, but if you just think about in terms of individuation, it provides a means for all those involved to both identify themselves as part of society, and (if the options for service are sufficiently varied, so that the experience isn’t homogeneous) differentiate themselves. This would hopefully lead to an increased sense of social responsibility, in virtue of individuating oneself not just in comparison to others, but also properly in terms of ones relations with them.
If you talk to men from Germany, and similar countries that still have national service programs, you find almost everyone has a story about their service. It’s something different people can connect over. A society in which everyone could call on at least some individual personal experience of working for a good cause (to both connect with others over, and individuate themselves through) would be a far healthier one.
Pete-Universal Service makes a lot of sense.
Pete-Universal Service makes a lot of sense.
Rick Turner speaks of war as the peak emotional experience of many men but as a veteran of the peacetime army I would submit that any shared, hard task can provide at least some of the sense of achievement and peak emotions without the waste and tragedy of war. I remember the pleasure of getting our urban, intellectual, out of shape, pal through the daily run in basic training by hanging back with him and whispering encouragement.
Pete Wolf’s call for a universal national service would put these idealistic emotions into better housing or food production or cleaner and more sustainable energy and better and less expensive health care. Imagine having an endless pool of young people willing to spend two years living frugally (and probably communally) earning the minimum wage and working for the betterment of the nation and the world! What an economic boost this would be to the country.
Am I way too optimistic for this tough crowd?
Rick Turner speaks of war as the peak emotional experience of many men but as a veteran of the peacetime army I would submit that any shared, hard task can provide at least some of the sense of achievement and peak emotions without the waste and tragedy of war. I remember the pleasure of getting our urban, intellectual, out of shape, pal through the daily run in basic training by hanging back with him and whispering encouragement.
Pete Wolf’s call for a universal national service would put these idealistic emotions into better housing or food production or cleaner and more sustainable energy and better and less expensive health care. Imagine having an endless pool of young people willing to spend two years living frugally (and probably communally) earning the minimum wage and working for the betterment of the nation and the world! What an economic boost this would be to the country.
Am I way too optimistic for this tough crowd?
Randy, this has come up before here, and I think the consensus is that it’s a good idea for a better future. Many of us still reap benefits of the WPA and CCC work done over seventy years ago. We can leave that kind of legacy for our progeny, too.
Randy, this has come up before here, and I think the consensus is that it’s a good idea for a better future. Many of us still reap benefits of the WPA and CCC work done over seventy years ago. We can leave that kind of legacy for our progeny, too.
No, Randy, you’re not.
No, Randy, you’re not.