Those inclined to argue over the commercial success or failure of particular films are much more inclined to do so when a film is fairly high-profile (who would notice it otherwise); when people feel they have reason to care about why a commercial endeavor that does not affect their lives at all one way or the other performs in the marketplace; and when there is room for disagreement about how well it has done.
Last summer Deadpool was most certainly a high-profile film. And I think that a good many people were interested in how it would do--partly because it was the first really big superhero film of the year, and especially the first big Marvel movie after the catastrophe that was Captain Marvel 2. Still, the general run of opinion became overwhelmingly bullish about this one early on, and only got more so, as weeks in advance of release the tracking data suggested a $200 million+ opening weekend, to which expectation the film lived up fully, as it went on to absolutely unambiguous success. Tripling its opening weekend domestic gross to collect over $600 million in North America, and making still more than that internationally, it broke the billion dollar barrier no superhero film had managed to do since 2021's Spider-Man: No Way Home, became the most successful film in not just the Deadpool series but the X-Men franchise when we consider the matter in "real," inflation-adjusted terms, the highest-grossing live-action movie of the year in North America, a sure maker of a colossal profit (I would be shocked to see it outside the top five on Deadline's list next year), and a movie that would have been a big win for Marvel even before the pandemic let alone in the depressed situation that followed it, all in spite of the handicap of its "R" rating and its "edgy" and "cult" interest. Given the fan base for both Deadpool and Wolverine many were thrilled to see the movie become so--but as there was really no grounds whatsoever for disputing its being a major success, and so nothing for its admirers (or detractors) to argue about on that level.
By contrast a movie like the one that came out just a week earlier, Twisters, left those interested in these matters with a lot more to consider. It was a high-profile movie--and the media's politicizing it (however unpersuasively) likely got some to care more about how it did than they otherwise would have. At the same time the movie grossed a quarter of a billion dollars domestically, which looks impressive, especially these days--but that is just half what the first film managed when you adjust for inflation, while its ticket sales were weak internationally. With the movie's global take thus $370 million it was easy to see a movie that reportedly cost over $150 million to produce and much more to market failing to make its money back in theaters and, depending on how the post-theatrical earnings played out, being at best marginally profitable, and perhaps a modest loser, even as much of the press talked it up as a big hit. The result was that if far fewer people were interested in the movie than in Deadpool the combination of politicization, uncertainty and a very challengeable media narrative left those who are prone to talk about these things with a lot more to chew over.
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
Talking Back to the News: Is it Worth It?
These days more people than ever who follow the news, in spite of not having a professional or vocational interest in the news, comment on that news in one public way or another. Whether getting in their say on a comment thread at a news outlet, or on social media, or on a blog of their own, or any of a number of other places, they talk back to the media.
Often they do so because the coverage has in their view been unsatisfactory.
Often they find it unsatisfactory because, by a reasonable standard, it is unsatisfactory.
Those who do respond have every right to voice their opinion--with, I would add, their doing so an exercise of the right to free speech rather than an abuse of that right insofar as their opinion is an honest one. They may even be said to have an obligation to voice their opinion, if they are calling out something that must be called out.
Still, the time and energy absorbed by getting involved in such response, the deeper mental and emotional engagement involved, have their cost. Those who most recognize the news media's corruption and incompetence may, genuinely finding fault with just about everything that news media presents (which is easy enough, because they do such an atrocious job "bringing us the world"), may easily find themselves spending all their time talking back in this way.
Indeed, in an age in which the most pompous news outlets out there make clickbait of their headlines, with obnoxious provocation a common strategy, much of their content is intended to spur such a reaction--such that making his case for why The Atlantic is "the worst magazine in America" Nathan J. Robinson remarks how many of that publication's headlines are "designed to annoy people into arguing about it," such that he has to remind himself "that 'it's bad on purpose to make you click" in order "to restrain [his] instinct to write multi-thousand word rebuttals." Those of us who, unlike Mr. Robinson, are not making a living from our opinions, or enjoying access to platforms that would permit our "multi-thousand word rebuttals" to reach an appreciable audience, can still less afford to get sucked into doing so every time we see a crime against journalism, even those apt to appear in a single publication (like The Atlantic). I will not go so far as to say that you should never talk back, but you should know the practical cost, be selective--and if you feel you can't do that anymore, probably reduce your exposure to the news rather than talk back to it all.
Often they do so because the coverage has in their view been unsatisfactory.
Often they find it unsatisfactory because, by a reasonable standard, it is unsatisfactory.
Those who do respond have every right to voice their opinion--with, I would add, their doing so an exercise of the right to free speech rather than an abuse of that right insofar as their opinion is an honest one. They may even be said to have an obligation to voice their opinion, if they are calling out something that must be called out.
Still, the time and energy absorbed by getting involved in such response, the deeper mental and emotional engagement involved, have their cost. Those who most recognize the news media's corruption and incompetence may, genuinely finding fault with just about everything that news media presents (which is easy enough, because they do such an atrocious job "bringing us the world"), may easily find themselves spending all their time talking back in this way.
Indeed, in an age in which the most pompous news outlets out there make clickbait of their headlines, with obnoxious provocation a common strategy, much of their content is intended to spur such a reaction--such that making his case for why The Atlantic is "the worst magazine in America" Nathan J. Robinson remarks how many of that publication's headlines are "designed to annoy people into arguing about it," such that he has to remind himself "that 'it's bad on purpose to make you click" in order "to restrain [his] instinct to write multi-thousand word rebuttals." Those of us who, unlike Mr. Robinson, are not making a living from our opinions, or enjoying access to platforms that would permit our "multi-thousand word rebuttals" to reach an appreciable audience, can still less afford to get sucked into doing so every time we see a crime against journalism, even those apt to appear in a single publication (like The Atlantic). I will not go so far as to say that you should never talk back, but you should know the practical cost, be selective--and if you feel you can't do that anymore, probably reduce your exposure to the news rather than talk back to it all.
Ten Tips for Staying Sane While Following the News
Following the news is stressful, and often pointlessly so, not only because of the undeniably terrible things going on in a world that is very likely becoming more unjust, more conflicted, more dangerous, but because the scum of the Media-Industrial Complex are intent on getting and holding your attention through confusion, fear, outrage for the sake of advancing their assorted political agendas (which are unlikely to be in your personal interest), and of course, commercial gain. They will report much that is unimportant, while what they report that is important they are likely to report unhelpfully--offering a few bits of information that may be inaccurate or false over and over and over again (not always innocently), with the associated content puffed up with associated irrelevancies, ill-connected factoids, empty speculation and mindless bluster from their so-called "experts." My suggestion is that those not intent on shutting out the world utterly curate their news carefully. As this is admittedly easier said than done, what would be some actionable advice here? I offer the following ten items as being of use in following the news generally.
1. Carefully time the occasion and quantity of your news intake. This means that you should not let yourself compulsively seek out the news--and avoid whatever will force it on your attention. Keep away as much as possible from social media accounts, from clickbait-crammed portals to your e-mail accounts, and anything else that will inflict "What's trending" on you, and when you must use those services ignore those trying to lure you in. Instead check the news only deliberately, when you want to do so, preferably with a clear head so that you don't get distracted, don't lose track of the time, don't waste time paying attention to what is probably important to you. Indeed, delimit the amount of time you're willing to put into this--something a lot easier to do if you make a point of looking at the news not every day but every week (or two) as you read your news rather than watch it (reading offering more control than subjecting yourself to a broadcast where they tell you what they want in the order in which they want to tell it to you around a series of commercial breaks), and use that time carefully, only reading past a headline if you are convinced there is really something important here, and when you do even that, "preview" a piece before deciding whether to do more. (In brief: look at the opening paragraph, look at the conclusion, look at the accompanying graphics and topic sentences. Unless there really is something you really want to read, don't look at any more.)
2. When you do seek out the news avoid news aggregators, which are of decreasing value. These increasingly push on you utterly worthless sources (perhaps due to a failure of filtration, perhaps due to other reasons), while the proliferation of paywalls and adblock blockers has meant that you cannot simply, at no financial cost, conveniently sample the coverage of a variety of news outlets the way you used to, depriving them of what was once their primary advantage. Instead I would suggest your having a select--ideally, very short--list of news outlets that follow current events that you find worthwhile and rely mainly on those.
3. Remember that an accurate image of a major event, which is likely to be complex, is likely to emerge only slowly--and unless you yourself are a public official or activist, or personally, financially or in some other way connected to what is going on, there is rarely (not never, but rarely) any reason why you personally can't wait. Barring a news outlet's having really, really earned your trust, take everything you read, see and hear with at a minimum a grain of salt--the more in as very few in the news media will let a little thing like the truth get in the way of their object of stoking fear, anger, hatred at their chosen targets to make you keep watching.
4. In light of the slowness with which a clear picture is likely to emerge of a current event, and the fact that it is very rare that you will actually need to immediately do anything in response to the report, learn to avoid getting sucked into following a story from minute to minute, or even day to day, when you do not absolutely have to pay such close attention. Again, this is easier to do if you get in the habit of only checking in with the news once a week or less, and if you take everything reported in the news with a grain of salt--with this also the easier if you favor sources that are in at least their original, non-web, version print rather than TV-oriented and so oriented to the mind-numbing 24/7 news cycle.
5. Do not presume to understand any event or issue out there on the basis of the news media's torrent of little bits--all as, again, taking in all the little, usually low-content, bits is likely to leave you understanding events less than more. Even a minimum of comprehension will require stepping back and doing some research of your own. Of course, if you check the news only intermittently you will have more time for this, and more of the lucidity needed for making such judgments, but this is time consuming, and no one person can do it for everything. Again, be selective about when you make the effort.
6. In doing such research, especially in the absence of a deep background in a subject, one unavoidably has to turn to those who are equipped to make sense of these things. In finding them out be ready to step away from the "objective" mainstream (which is really anything but objective) and look at more avowedly "ideological" sources for a grasp of what is going on. They are less squeamish about explaining things, and indeed some such media outlets pride themselves on their effort to do so. (Compare, for example, what you are likely to get in Vox or The Conversation with what you get from the New York Times.) Additionally, in contrast with the hypocrisy about objectivity you get from the mainstream media they are usually pretty clear about where they stand. (If a publication is ready to apply a contentious ideological label to itself such as "conservative" or "progressive" I find that they tend to live up to the promise.) This makes it the easier to judge what they may get right, and where they may fall short--and indeed I would suggest that you have such sources on your list of "go-to" sites.
7. Rid yourself of the presumption that all sides in an argument are equally worthy of respect. They aren't, as the controversies over "both sidesism" show. In a rational argument the side that doesn't respect the facts or logic is unworthy of any more respect than that--and if you are at all interested in understanding what is going on, you have the responsibility to make the judgment. Judge carefully, of course, and be ready to judge again should new information seem to call your old judgment into question--but in the end do not shrink from judging.
8. If you care about what actually matters in the world, pay less attention to politics (in the sense of the sound bites of political hacks, and the endless analysis thereof) and more to policy (what, in the end, governments actually do)--because the latter is so little discussed that you have to strain to find it, as against the "show business for ugly people" with which the news media is so enthralled, and expects the public to also be enthralled. Really, it isn't all that enthralling--and even were it so you aren't there to be enthralled, but informed in the way that attention to this prevents you from being.
9. Remember that the way the news media works means that no amount of effort will perfectly insulate you from the trivial and the pernicious. Indeed, should you try to dig a little deeper into a matter and in the process engage in Internet searches, widen the variety of the news outlets you consult, etc., you will probably subject yourself to a great deal of this. The result is that it will take restraint to keep you from being diverted or baited by it (for instance, enabling the human refuse who present a piece "bad on purpose to make you click" to snare you into clicking).
10. When you have had enough of the news for a period, feel free to take a break from it altogether. Indeed, while an occasional "news fast" is no substitute for more careful news consumption (just as a period of fasting is no substitute for a healthy diet) I can personally testify that they can be helpful--not least in getting you "back on the wagon" after a period of lapse from whatever habits you have developed to manage your news intake.
1. Carefully time the occasion and quantity of your news intake. This means that you should not let yourself compulsively seek out the news--and avoid whatever will force it on your attention. Keep away as much as possible from social media accounts, from clickbait-crammed portals to your e-mail accounts, and anything else that will inflict "What's trending" on you, and when you must use those services ignore those trying to lure you in. Instead check the news only deliberately, when you want to do so, preferably with a clear head so that you don't get distracted, don't lose track of the time, don't waste time paying attention to what is probably important to you. Indeed, delimit the amount of time you're willing to put into this--something a lot easier to do if you make a point of looking at the news not every day but every week (or two) as you read your news rather than watch it (reading offering more control than subjecting yourself to a broadcast where they tell you what they want in the order in which they want to tell it to you around a series of commercial breaks), and use that time carefully, only reading past a headline if you are convinced there is really something important here, and when you do even that, "preview" a piece before deciding whether to do more. (In brief: look at the opening paragraph, look at the conclusion, look at the accompanying graphics and topic sentences. Unless there really is something you really want to read, don't look at any more.)
2. When you do seek out the news avoid news aggregators, which are of decreasing value. These increasingly push on you utterly worthless sources (perhaps due to a failure of filtration, perhaps due to other reasons), while the proliferation of paywalls and adblock blockers has meant that you cannot simply, at no financial cost, conveniently sample the coverage of a variety of news outlets the way you used to, depriving them of what was once their primary advantage. Instead I would suggest your having a select--ideally, very short--list of news outlets that follow current events that you find worthwhile and rely mainly on those.
3. Remember that an accurate image of a major event, which is likely to be complex, is likely to emerge only slowly--and unless you yourself are a public official or activist, or personally, financially or in some other way connected to what is going on, there is rarely (not never, but rarely) any reason why you personally can't wait. Barring a news outlet's having really, really earned your trust, take everything you read, see and hear with at a minimum a grain of salt--the more in as very few in the news media will let a little thing like the truth get in the way of their object of stoking fear, anger, hatred at their chosen targets to make you keep watching.
4. In light of the slowness with which a clear picture is likely to emerge of a current event, and the fact that it is very rare that you will actually need to immediately do anything in response to the report, learn to avoid getting sucked into following a story from minute to minute, or even day to day, when you do not absolutely have to pay such close attention. Again, this is easier to do if you get in the habit of only checking in with the news once a week or less, and if you take everything reported in the news with a grain of salt--with this also the easier if you favor sources that are in at least their original, non-web, version print rather than TV-oriented and so oriented to the mind-numbing 24/7 news cycle.
5. Do not presume to understand any event or issue out there on the basis of the news media's torrent of little bits--all as, again, taking in all the little, usually low-content, bits is likely to leave you understanding events less than more. Even a minimum of comprehension will require stepping back and doing some research of your own. Of course, if you check the news only intermittently you will have more time for this, and more of the lucidity needed for making such judgments, but this is time consuming, and no one person can do it for everything. Again, be selective about when you make the effort.
6. In doing such research, especially in the absence of a deep background in a subject, one unavoidably has to turn to those who are equipped to make sense of these things. In finding them out be ready to step away from the "objective" mainstream (which is really anything but objective) and look at more avowedly "ideological" sources for a grasp of what is going on. They are less squeamish about explaining things, and indeed some such media outlets pride themselves on their effort to do so. (Compare, for example, what you are likely to get in Vox or The Conversation with what you get from the New York Times.) Additionally, in contrast with the hypocrisy about objectivity you get from the mainstream media they are usually pretty clear about where they stand. (If a publication is ready to apply a contentious ideological label to itself such as "conservative" or "progressive" I find that they tend to live up to the promise.) This makes it the easier to judge what they may get right, and where they may fall short--and indeed I would suggest that you have such sources on your list of "go-to" sites.
7. Rid yourself of the presumption that all sides in an argument are equally worthy of respect. They aren't, as the controversies over "both sidesism" show. In a rational argument the side that doesn't respect the facts or logic is unworthy of any more respect than that--and if you are at all interested in understanding what is going on, you have the responsibility to make the judgment. Judge carefully, of course, and be ready to judge again should new information seem to call your old judgment into question--but in the end do not shrink from judging.
8. If you care about what actually matters in the world, pay less attention to politics (in the sense of the sound bites of political hacks, and the endless analysis thereof) and more to policy (what, in the end, governments actually do)--because the latter is so little discussed that you have to strain to find it, as against the "show business for ugly people" with which the news media is so enthralled, and expects the public to also be enthralled. Really, it isn't all that enthralling--and even were it so you aren't there to be enthralled, but informed in the way that attention to this prevents you from being.
9. Remember that the way the news media works means that no amount of effort will perfectly insulate you from the trivial and the pernicious. Indeed, should you try to dig a little deeper into a matter and in the process engage in Internet searches, widen the variety of the news outlets you consult, etc., you will probably subject yourself to a great deal of this. The result is that it will take restraint to keep you from being diverted or baited by it (for instance, enabling the human refuse who present a piece "bad on purpose to make you click" to snare you into clicking).
10. When you have had enough of the news for a period, feel free to take a break from it altogether. Indeed, while an occasional "news fast" is no substitute for more careful news consumption (just as a period of fasting is no substitute for a healthy diet) I can personally testify that they can be helpful--not least in getting you "back on the wagon" after a period of lapse from whatever habits you have developed to manage your news intake.
Ten Tips for Staying Sane While Following the News: Short Version
I recently wrote a post about curating the news so as to keep yourself from being driven insane by it. These ten tips, presented in summary form, are:
1. Carefully time the occasion and quantity of your news intake. (Avoid social media and anything with clickbait, only look at the news when you want to do so, read rather than watch, ignore what isn't important, and preview what may be important before diving in.)
2. Avoid news aggregators. Just keep a short list of sites you find worthwhile and consult those.
3. Take everything they say with a "grain of salt.
4. Don't get sucked into following things from minute to minute, day to day--precisely because they probably won't have more information for you--and indeed think about checking the news only weekly, or even less often than that.
5. Remember that understanding the news means real research--which is the more reason to avoid anything more than a glance unless you really want to know what's going on.
6. Favor those news outlets which rather than hiding behind a pretense of "objectivity" analyze and explain.
7. Remember that not every side in an argument is worthy of respect. Make the judgment.
8. Pay less attention to politics, more to policy.
9. Remember that there is no perfect insulation from the media's idiocies--and you will have to exercise restraint to not get sucked in.
10. A news fast is no substitute for sounder news curation, but still helpful from time to time--especially if you have found yourself picking up bad habits again.
1. Carefully time the occasion and quantity of your news intake. (Avoid social media and anything with clickbait, only look at the news when you want to do so, read rather than watch, ignore what isn't important, and preview what may be important before diving in.)
2. Avoid news aggregators. Just keep a short list of sites you find worthwhile and consult those.
3. Take everything they say with a "grain of salt.
4. Don't get sucked into following things from minute to minute, day to day--precisely because they probably won't have more information for you--and indeed think about checking the news only weekly, or even less often than that.
5. Remember that understanding the news means real research--which is the more reason to avoid anything more than a glance unless you really want to know what's going on.
6. Favor those news outlets which rather than hiding behind a pretense of "objectivity" analyze and explain.
7. Remember that not every side in an argument is worthy of respect. Make the judgment.
8. Pay less attention to politics, more to policy.
9. Remember that there is no perfect insulation from the media's idiocies--and you will have to exercise restraint to not get sucked in.
10. A news fast is no substitute for sounder news curation, but still helpful from time to time--especially if you have found yourself picking up bad habits again.
Should We Treat "Entertainment" News as News During a News Fast?
In a word, "Yes."
After all, entertainment news is still news, with many of the most wearying characteristics of other kinds of news--namely its bombardment of the audience with disconnected bits of information (and the Talking Heads' often asinine opinions about them).
However, there is also the reality of what that news consists in. Frivolous as that news often is, entertainment news is not so separate from the rest of the world that in following it along you do not expose yourself to the news more broadly.
For example, you look to see what people are saying about that recent Big Dumb Blockbuster, thinking that this is harmless enough. (It's not a war, after all, or a famine, or a natural disaster.) Yet even Big Dumb Blockbusters are apt to reflect reality in some degree--to be seen as commenting upon it in some degree, especially by those looking to find something offensive to their sensibility in everything. At the very least you expose yourself to the idiocies of the "culture wars," which have, indeed, made much of the content of the real news the argument about pop culture, including the stuff of Big Dumb Blockbusters, with this, in turn, becoming part of the entertainment news.
The result is that any really serious news fast will excise it from one's life--though frankly, given what much of this news consists in anyway, that really shouldn't seem like any great sacrifice for anyone really needing a break from the media culture surrounding us.
After all, entertainment news is still news, with many of the most wearying characteristics of other kinds of news--namely its bombardment of the audience with disconnected bits of information (and the Talking Heads' often asinine opinions about them).
However, there is also the reality of what that news consists in. Frivolous as that news often is, entertainment news is not so separate from the rest of the world that in following it along you do not expose yourself to the news more broadly.
For example, you look to see what people are saying about that recent Big Dumb Blockbuster, thinking that this is harmless enough. (It's not a war, after all, or a famine, or a natural disaster.) Yet even Big Dumb Blockbusters are apt to reflect reality in some degree--to be seen as commenting upon it in some degree, especially by those looking to find something offensive to their sensibility in everything. At the very least you expose yourself to the idiocies of the "culture wars," which have, indeed, made much of the content of the real news the argument about pop culture, including the stuff of Big Dumb Blockbusters, with this, in turn, becoming part of the entertainment news.
The result is that any really serious news fast will excise it from one's life--though frankly, given what much of this news consists in anyway, that really shouldn't seem like any great sacrifice for anyone really needing a break from the media culture surrounding us.
What Does it Mean to be Bourgeois?
Previously writing of the matter of "middle classness" I have stressed the necessary material foundation of middle class existence--its historical basis in independence based on ownership of means of production; as this became less tenable as a basis for thinking about any but a very small portion of the population, social analysts' substituting for the idea of a property-owning "Old" middle class a "New" middle class of dependent professional-managerial employees; and the combination of consumption level, security and opportunity that these two situations were supposed to afford those who possessed those foundations.
The emphasis on the material was because so many of those who discuss the "middle class" are so shabbily evasive about the material requirements of the situation as they make middle classness about having a college degree or an office job or subjective perception of one's standing or professed "values" or some other such thing, a tack which enables them to present the middle class as far larger than it really is for various political reasons--like deflecting any charge that it has shrunk in the neoliberal era. (My own reading of the situation is that the "New" middle class, properly speaking, was never more than a small minority, that notions of a solid and comfortable middle classness as the societal norm in even the post-World War II United States were always a promise and not a reality--that the "wide middle class" we talk about is actually better understood as a "quasi-middle class," enjoying middle class-ish levels of consumption, but not really middle class security or chances to get ahead--and that this quasi-middle class has if anything tended to wither since then, to the point that its members' pretension to middle classness looks very, very threadbare these days.)
However, there is still something to be said of the middle class as a social grouping with distinct attitudes, the more easily pinpointed when one looks at that term connected with but only imperfectly synonymous with middle classness (the more in as we have to contend with that reality of quasi-middle classness), "bourgeois." Generally identified with conventionality, conformism, conservatism--above all, in relation to the economic system and its orthodoxies, namely capitalism and the economic individualism to which it enjoins all of society's members--it means not only an expectation of self-reliance on one's own part and that of others, but that one should have at the center of their life, as an end in itself rather than because of the associated material rewards, concern for self-advancement within a socioeconomic system the bourgeois treats as so natural and eternal that the claim that "society--there is no such thing," if such obvious idiocy as a description of the social world that they may not stand by it when it is presented to them so flatly, very much reflects how they think about the world in practice. At the same time they believe that their non-society--their market-centered non-society--is the best of all possible worlds, not least in its being more than any other a fair and meritocratic allotter of individual outcomes, so much so that they think that no one in this system can reasonably ask for more than "equality of opportunity," with the bar for what qualifies as such equality set so low its existence can seem, often is, mere empty piety; easily incline to seeing practical outcomes as moral outcomes such that what people get monetarily is what they "earn" and "deserve"; and regard those at the top (the words "entrepreneur," "startup," "hedge fund," "billionaire" speak as no others do to their imaginations) as "successful" and as "winners" who attained what they did because of their superior qualities ("intelligence," "talent," "drive," "grit") and "hard work" and are unquestionably worthy of respect, admiration, emulation, while they regard those who are not at the top as "unsuccessful" and "losers" the opposite in every way, failures whose personal faults have received their due, a person's worth summed up in their "net worth". By the same token the bourgeois views calls for modification of any of these outcomes in even the slightest way as not only an attack on their selfishness (for even if only people far richer than themselves are to be taxed under a particular proposal, they fear the tax man may come for those in their bracket next--and that if he doesn't, well, they will be rich someday too, won't they?) but also what passes with them for morality, for they see any such act as a penalty imposed on virtue for the sake of rewarding vice that, given their very low opinion of the human average, and especially of those they deem socially inferior, strikes at the very foundations of civilized life itself.
All that said the unattractions of the "Way of the Bourgeois" seem fairly obvious. The good bourgeois is enjoined to a narrow path of responsibility, restraint, diligence in pursuit of remote and uncertain reward that because of that stress on responsibility, restraint, diligence they are not even allowed to enjoy very much--all as even when they do relatively well their gains are paltry by comparison with what those possessed of genuine WEALTH enjoy (the statistics showing that billionaires are rarer than one in a million, and in spite of the Horatio Alger propaganda few of these really "self-made" in any sense). Indeed, the bourgeois' drive is more often rooted in their horror at the thought of falling into the lower class (and so not only having that much less of everything, but being one of those they despise) than of any real prospect of getting the big prizes.
Naturally it is desirable that those walking this path "not think too much" about what is asked--demanded--of them as against what they are likely to get, and indeed they are constantly dissuaded against this by those who stress "confidence" and "faith"--confidence and faith that one will be one of those winners at the top, somehow--and that those who must reckon with where they have actually got never question the promises made them. If they are not a billionaire, or even a millionaire, or even making minimum wage (especially if they are not even making minimum wage), they must be conditioned to think first, foremost and preferably last of how they personally went wrong--or if they must lay blame anywhere else, do so upon "safe" objects (like the "welfare queens" they are sure exist, and the "limousine liberals" coddling them, that must be why they're not a billionaire yet).
All this, in turn, conditions everything else--their sticking with the herd and groveling before rank and Authority, their ideas on family and religion and education and culture and much, much else. (A man, they think, must have a family, but in spite of all the cant about family always put work first--because a family's purpose is above all to "tie him down" and compel him to "work hard," keeping him on that narrow path that provides the only possible justification for his existence on Earth. One must have religion--or at least religiosity--because whether or not he actually believes, or can, "faith" is so important for getting along. One must admit the need for education as helpful in success, somehow, and think much of their children going to "good schools" and enjoin them to high academic achievement--but regard educators as second-rate people at best and intellectualism with distaste and distrust. One must grant the need for recreation, but more grudgingly, suspect "outside interests" as competing with one's "real job," and steer clear of what they are told are "childish things," such that somehow it is all right for a grown man to spend vast amounts of time and money as a fan of a football team, but not for him to play the latest edition of John Madden.) This outlook conditions, too, the manner of their stomaching the endless betrayals of self, moral compromises, indignities, hypocrisies inseparable from this mass of contradictions and repressions all this entails. (If playing by these rules isn't making him happy--if it makes them that sitcom stereotype of the unapproachable grouchy middle-aged dad who yells all the time--well, that's just how life is, and it is the sin qua non of mature responsible adulthood to accept every one of those misery-making standards unquestioningly, 'cause reasons, for, as is so often the case, their extreme, Panglossian, optimism about the system in the abstract goes along with an equally extreme pessimism about the chances of individual happiness in this world, to the point of merely speaking of the idea eliciting from them an ironic sneer.)
Of course, thanks to the narrowness, to the betrayals and compromises and indignities and hypocrisies and evident misery entailed, the package is such that in spite of the most intensive indoctrination of everyone from birth on up in this system of thinking and acting, many resist the expectations pressed upon them by their elders and society at large. Those who would "work to live" rather than "live to work," and still more those who would "walk the paths of Bohemia," necessarily do so. Likewise the fascination of that latterday form of aristocratic existence that is "celebrity" and the "fantasy careers" directed at achieving it reflect the desire, as widespread as it is natural, for something freer, easier, more humanly varied and satisfying--as a figure such as Upton Sinclair was able to point out a century ago writing of America in the Roaring '20s, with its attraction if anything grown since. The desire for an alternative is evident, too, in the desire to "drop out" of the fittingly named Rat Race altogether that few dare act upon, though the evidence is that more are doing so all the time in an age in which, as the burgeoning underemployment of college graduates, and the collapsing purchasing power of the wages of even those who do land "the good job" testifies, the effort expected of the would-be member of the middle class keeps growing, while the likelihood of actually being middle class keeps shrinking.
Indeed, looking at the endless invective that the courtiers of power and flatterers of the respectable in the media fling at the younger of the working-age age cohorts (the much-maligned "millennials," and after them Generation Z) it is clear that their perception of a lack of "proper bourgeois virtue" on their part is the cause. Refusing to draw the glaringly obvious conclusion that their reserve toward bourgeois ways comes from the fact that that whole way of life is just not working for them, even to the extent that it had for earlier cohorts, said guardians of morality merely insist upon adherence to the Old Ways as they pour out abuse showing them to be as lacking in wit as they are in humanity--and never noticing all the while how remote their intolerance is from the rhetoric of "freedom" and "choice" of which they make so much, or the undercurrent of crab bucket mentality and plain envy evident in their verbal assaults on anyone who would want anything else or more out of life.
The emphasis on the material was because so many of those who discuss the "middle class" are so shabbily evasive about the material requirements of the situation as they make middle classness about having a college degree or an office job or subjective perception of one's standing or professed "values" or some other such thing, a tack which enables them to present the middle class as far larger than it really is for various political reasons--like deflecting any charge that it has shrunk in the neoliberal era. (My own reading of the situation is that the "New" middle class, properly speaking, was never more than a small minority, that notions of a solid and comfortable middle classness as the societal norm in even the post-World War II United States were always a promise and not a reality--that the "wide middle class" we talk about is actually better understood as a "quasi-middle class," enjoying middle class-ish levels of consumption, but not really middle class security or chances to get ahead--and that this quasi-middle class has if anything tended to wither since then, to the point that its members' pretension to middle classness looks very, very threadbare these days.)
However, there is still something to be said of the middle class as a social grouping with distinct attitudes, the more easily pinpointed when one looks at that term connected with but only imperfectly synonymous with middle classness (the more in as we have to contend with that reality of quasi-middle classness), "bourgeois." Generally identified with conventionality, conformism, conservatism--above all, in relation to the economic system and its orthodoxies, namely capitalism and the economic individualism to which it enjoins all of society's members--it means not only an expectation of self-reliance on one's own part and that of others, but that one should have at the center of their life, as an end in itself rather than because of the associated material rewards, concern for self-advancement within a socioeconomic system the bourgeois treats as so natural and eternal that the claim that "society--there is no such thing," if such obvious idiocy as a description of the social world that they may not stand by it when it is presented to them so flatly, very much reflects how they think about the world in practice. At the same time they believe that their non-society--their market-centered non-society--is the best of all possible worlds, not least in its being more than any other a fair and meritocratic allotter of individual outcomes, so much so that they think that no one in this system can reasonably ask for more than "equality of opportunity," with the bar for what qualifies as such equality set so low its existence can seem, often is, mere empty piety; easily incline to seeing practical outcomes as moral outcomes such that what people get monetarily is what they "earn" and "deserve"; and regard those at the top (the words "entrepreneur," "startup," "hedge fund," "billionaire" speak as no others do to their imaginations) as "successful" and as "winners" who attained what they did because of their superior qualities ("intelligence," "talent," "drive," "grit") and "hard work" and are unquestionably worthy of respect, admiration, emulation, while they regard those who are not at the top as "unsuccessful" and "losers" the opposite in every way, failures whose personal faults have received their due, a person's worth summed up in their "net worth". By the same token the bourgeois views calls for modification of any of these outcomes in even the slightest way as not only an attack on their selfishness (for even if only people far richer than themselves are to be taxed under a particular proposal, they fear the tax man may come for those in their bracket next--and that if he doesn't, well, they will be rich someday too, won't they?) but also what passes with them for morality, for they see any such act as a penalty imposed on virtue for the sake of rewarding vice that, given their very low opinion of the human average, and especially of those they deem socially inferior, strikes at the very foundations of civilized life itself.
All that said the unattractions of the "Way of the Bourgeois" seem fairly obvious. The good bourgeois is enjoined to a narrow path of responsibility, restraint, diligence in pursuit of remote and uncertain reward that because of that stress on responsibility, restraint, diligence they are not even allowed to enjoy very much--all as even when they do relatively well their gains are paltry by comparison with what those possessed of genuine WEALTH enjoy (the statistics showing that billionaires are rarer than one in a million, and in spite of the Horatio Alger propaganda few of these really "self-made" in any sense). Indeed, the bourgeois' drive is more often rooted in their horror at the thought of falling into the lower class (and so not only having that much less of everything, but being one of those they despise) than of any real prospect of getting the big prizes.
Naturally it is desirable that those walking this path "not think too much" about what is asked--demanded--of them as against what they are likely to get, and indeed they are constantly dissuaded against this by those who stress "confidence" and "faith"--confidence and faith that one will be one of those winners at the top, somehow--and that those who must reckon with where they have actually got never question the promises made them. If they are not a billionaire, or even a millionaire, or even making minimum wage (especially if they are not even making minimum wage), they must be conditioned to think first, foremost and preferably last of how they personally went wrong--or if they must lay blame anywhere else, do so upon "safe" objects (like the "welfare queens" they are sure exist, and the "limousine liberals" coddling them, that must be why they're not a billionaire yet).
All this, in turn, conditions everything else--their sticking with the herd and groveling before rank and Authority, their ideas on family and religion and education and culture and much, much else. (A man, they think, must have a family, but in spite of all the cant about family always put work first--because a family's purpose is above all to "tie him down" and compel him to "work hard," keeping him on that narrow path that provides the only possible justification for his existence on Earth. One must have religion--or at least religiosity--because whether or not he actually believes, or can, "faith" is so important for getting along. One must admit the need for education as helpful in success, somehow, and think much of their children going to "good schools" and enjoin them to high academic achievement--but regard educators as second-rate people at best and intellectualism with distaste and distrust. One must grant the need for recreation, but more grudgingly, suspect "outside interests" as competing with one's "real job," and steer clear of what they are told are "childish things," such that somehow it is all right for a grown man to spend vast amounts of time and money as a fan of a football team, but not for him to play the latest edition of John Madden.) This outlook conditions, too, the manner of their stomaching the endless betrayals of self, moral compromises, indignities, hypocrisies inseparable from this mass of contradictions and repressions all this entails. (If playing by these rules isn't making him happy--if it makes them that sitcom stereotype of the unapproachable grouchy middle-aged dad who yells all the time--well, that's just how life is, and it is the sin qua non of mature responsible adulthood to accept every one of those misery-making standards unquestioningly, 'cause reasons, for, as is so often the case, their extreme, Panglossian, optimism about the system in the abstract goes along with an equally extreme pessimism about the chances of individual happiness in this world, to the point of merely speaking of the idea eliciting from them an ironic sneer.)
Of course, thanks to the narrowness, to the betrayals and compromises and indignities and hypocrisies and evident misery entailed, the package is such that in spite of the most intensive indoctrination of everyone from birth on up in this system of thinking and acting, many resist the expectations pressed upon them by their elders and society at large. Those who would "work to live" rather than "live to work," and still more those who would "walk the paths of Bohemia," necessarily do so. Likewise the fascination of that latterday form of aristocratic existence that is "celebrity" and the "fantasy careers" directed at achieving it reflect the desire, as widespread as it is natural, for something freer, easier, more humanly varied and satisfying--as a figure such as Upton Sinclair was able to point out a century ago writing of America in the Roaring '20s, with its attraction if anything grown since. The desire for an alternative is evident, too, in the desire to "drop out" of the fittingly named Rat Race altogether that few dare act upon, though the evidence is that more are doing so all the time in an age in which, as the burgeoning underemployment of college graduates, and the collapsing purchasing power of the wages of even those who do land "the good job" testifies, the effort expected of the would-be member of the middle class keeps growing, while the likelihood of actually being middle class keeps shrinking.
Indeed, looking at the endless invective that the courtiers of power and flatterers of the respectable in the media fling at the younger of the working-age age cohorts (the much-maligned "millennials," and after them Generation Z) it is clear that their perception of a lack of "proper bourgeois virtue" on their part is the cause. Refusing to draw the glaringly obvious conclusion that their reserve toward bourgeois ways comes from the fact that that whole way of life is just not working for them, even to the extent that it had for earlier cohorts, said guardians of morality merely insist upon adherence to the Old Ways as they pour out abuse showing them to be as lacking in wit as they are in humanity--and never noticing all the while how remote their intolerance is from the rhetoric of "freedom" and "choice" of which they make so much, or the undercurrent of crab bucket mentality and plain envy evident in their verbal assaults on anyone who would want anything else or more out of life.
Ten Things to Remember About the Mainstream News Media's Politics
I have been writing about the media's failings for some time now--not least its political biases. On the basis of that, here's a list of "ten things to remember about the mainstream media's politics," in the broad as well as narrow sense of the term.
1. Contrary to the orthodoxy the consumer is not king and the media does not simply "give the people what they want." It gives people what its owners and advertisers want, and what those who supply them with their information want, and what its carefully selected elite, careerist, group-thinking and upward-identifying managers and staff (courtiers to kings rather than tribunes of the people) want, especially insofar as those capable of punishing them with lawsuits and in other ways do not object. That is to say that the media is fundamentally oriented to the interests of the powerful, with this orientation reinforced by the fact that to the extent that it caters to the public it does not cater to all of the public equally, its more affluent elements more valued because of their purchasing power (it is they who buy subscriptions, and whom advertisers desire to reach), and therefore better served--and these tend to be privileged, upward-identifying and status quo-supporting. The result can be--and indeed, is--a very different thing from what the public at large wants to know, or needs to know.
2. The "objective" news reporting the mainstream media prides itself on has its roots in a centrist view of the world. Purporting to be "above ideology" and "neutrally" dealing with "just the facts" with the help of equally neutral "technocratic" expertise it amounts in practice to deluging the public with disconnected and uncontextualized bits of information, and then bringing on "experts" to tell the public "what it all means" rather than explain the events of the day to them so that they can really understand the matter and make sense of things for themselves.
3. Even in doing the above ideology comes into the matter. The "centrist" persuaded they are above ideology is in fact obedient to an ideology they simply do not recognize or acknowledge. Indeed, the centrist is actually deeply, and classically conservative in their politics--with this conservatism determining which bits of information they report, which experts they consult, which views they platform, as well as what they do not report or platform, as they go about their "objective" reporting.
4. Centrist conservatism has in recent decades been identifiable with a significant embrace of economic neoliberalism, and social and foreign policy neoconservatism. Centrists do accommodate "identity politics" in a way the avowed conservative tends to deeply dislike, but it should be remembered that identity politics is not a left idea, but, however much it annoys cultural traditionalists, in its postmodernist philosophy and nationalist tendency very much of the right, even before one considers how identity politics is constantly used to change the subject from and even attack those who would raise matters like class. Identity politics has thus been a prop to conservatism, rather than a compromise of it, and readable as consistent with conservative philosophy broadly in premises and usage.
5. If centrism dominates the mainstream one should acknowledge that the mainstream media does not simply limit itself to presenting the views of the center to the public. However, that media does not deal with other views equally, treating the left as anathema, keeping even the safely center-left on rather a short leash (consider what MSNBC required of Phil Donahue during his time on that channel, and especially its executives' notions of a "fair and balanced" discussion of the Iraq war), and affording the avowed right considerably more indulgence--with their indulgence carrying over to what may be recognized broadly as the far right. Taken altogether this makes the media a platform for neoliberalism, neoconservatism and (stoked by its identity politics) culture war, with the media's platforming of often far right views making much of it a "pink slime" machine helping "mainstream" its views (with the result that the far right has been increasingly mainstream).
6. In presenting different understandings of the world the media is often accused of "both sidesism." In practice both sidesism is a rarity. Most of the time the media gives us "one sidesism," especially on the larger questions--because there is essentially elite, Establishment consensus on the matter. (Where in the media did we find serious challenge to the "There Is No Alternative"-type promotion of neoliberal economic policies?) The rare turn to both sidesism indicates argument among those the media treats as counting for something in the world--disagreement within the Establishment--as other opinions are rarely of any account in its eyes. Moreover, some of these cases of both sidesism are cases which should be treated in a "one side" way. As the case of climate change demonstrates, both sidesism is frequently a matter of powerful interests finding it convenient to deny scientific facts being respectfully platformed by a deferential media.
7. Where the respect for Establishment expertise is concerned the center's respect for the Establishment comes in far ahead of its respect for expertise. Consider, for example, the argument that "no one could have seen the crisis in subprime mortgages" coming. This was not just a lie but a stupid one. Many did see it coming. Consider, for example, former Wall Street analyst, Hudson Institute member, United Nations adviser and University of Missouri Professor economist Michael Hudson, who published an article anticipating the crash in the May 2006 issue of Harper's. Right he may have been about what was happening and what it was leading toward, but his politics are such that he is "no one" from the standpoint of the mainstream, and so only rarely noticed and easily ignored--Hudson getting a mention for his prediction in the Financial Times, but the pushing of the "no one saw this coming" narrative continuing as if it never happened. By contrast, another public intellectual's denial that anyone could have seen it coming, and insisting the financial community was responsible for nothing, it's all black swans, see, in line with his political prejudices that, as David Cameron admitted, align with his own, made him a "rock star" not just with said community but with the press generally. Because that's what matters within the media world.
8. In line with their courtier-like elitism the mainstream media pays a great deal of attention to politics relative to policy. In doing so they lionize political figures as the drivers of current events, promulgating a "Great Man Theory of Current Events" at the expense of more nuanced, systemic understandings of the play of political forces (and certainly any consideration of the matters of societal structure, class, power so anathema to the centrist), and divert attention from policy--for as the journalist recounting some development demonstrates again and again, in taking the reader or listener through the speechifying and haggling they so much bury them in the details of "how" a thing happened that "what" actually happened (i.e. What sort of a bill or a budget did we actually get in the end?) falls by the wayside. The outcome is by no means uncongenial to those who see the world the media's way.
9. Befitting the mainstream media's aforementioned commitment to the status quo, and deference to wealth, power and position, and extreme opposition to and contempt for the opposite, the media is prone to "suck up" and "punch down." Thus it virtually never holds the elite to account, no matter what their crimes--such that after dishonestly and cynically wrecking an economy, or starting a catastrophic war, the press will sing of the goodness, wisdom, even "genius" and greatness of the actor in question, while when it cannot eschew reference to the badness of the outcome obscuring their responsibility by presenting the relevant figures as "tragic" terms--all as it subjects the powerless to the harshest moralizing (those who have all of the power having none of the responsibility while those who none of the power have all the responsibility, for everything, somehow). Indeed, the media's very vocabulary shows as much, with the ordinary man or woman "lying," the CEO or president "telling a falsehood."
10. If the media is absolutely guilty of the charge of sensationalism and playing to the lowest common denominator it does so within distinct limits--choosing what it sensationalizes according to its ideology, and its dictation that the media punch down rather than up. Thus does the media rile the public up against imaginary welfare queens as the supposed cause of the country's economic and fiscal distress--while saying little or nothing of trillions given out to the very real "welfare queens" of Wall Street and Big Oil, and the way in which working people for that "welfare" with raises in their taxes, and cuts to their services.
1. Contrary to the orthodoxy the consumer is not king and the media does not simply "give the people what they want." It gives people what its owners and advertisers want, and what those who supply them with their information want, and what its carefully selected elite, careerist, group-thinking and upward-identifying managers and staff (courtiers to kings rather than tribunes of the people) want, especially insofar as those capable of punishing them with lawsuits and in other ways do not object. That is to say that the media is fundamentally oriented to the interests of the powerful, with this orientation reinforced by the fact that to the extent that it caters to the public it does not cater to all of the public equally, its more affluent elements more valued because of their purchasing power (it is they who buy subscriptions, and whom advertisers desire to reach), and therefore better served--and these tend to be privileged, upward-identifying and status quo-supporting. The result can be--and indeed, is--a very different thing from what the public at large wants to know, or needs to know.
2. The "objective" news reporting the mainstream media prides itself on has its roots in a centrist view of the world. Purporting to be "above ideology" and "neutrally" dealing with "just the facts" with the help of equally neutral "technocratic" expertise it amounts in practice to deluging the public with disconnected and uncontextualized bits of information, and then bringing on "experts" to tell the public "what it all means" rather than explain the events of the day to them so that they can really understand the matter and make sense of things for themselves.
3. Even in doing the above ideology comes into the matter. The "centrist" persuaded they are above ideology is in fact obedient to an ideology they simply do not recognize or acknowledge. Indeed, the centrist is actually deeply, and classically conservative in their politics--with this conservatism determining which bits of information they report, which experts they consult, which views they platform, as well as what they do not report or platform, as they go about their "objective" reporting.
4. Centrist conservatism has in recent decades been identifiable with a significant embrace of economic neoliberalism, and social and foreign policy neoconservatism. Centrists do accommodate "identity politics" in a way the avowed conservative tends to deeply dislike, but it should be remembered that identity politics is not a left idea, but, however much it annoys cultural traditionalists, in its postmodernist philosophy and nationalist tendency very much of the right, even before one considers how identity politics is constantly used to change the subject from and even attack those who would raise matters like class. Identity politics has thus been a prop to conservatism, rather than a compromise of it, and readable as consistent with conservative philosophy broadly in premises and usage.
5. If centrism dominates the mainstream one should acknowledge that the mainstream media does not simply limit itself to presenting the views of the center to the public. However, that media does not deal with other views equally, treating the left as anathema, keeping even the safely center-left on rather a short leash (consider what MSNBC required of Phil Donahue during his time on that channel, and especially its executives' notions of a "fair and balanced" discussion of the Iraq war), and affording the avowed right considerably more indulgence--with their indulgence carrying over to what may be recognized broadly as the far right. Taken altogether this makes the media a platform for neoliberalism, neoconservatism and (stoked by its identity politics) culture war, with the media's platforming of often far right views making much of it a "pink slime" machine helping "mainstream" its views (with the result that the far right has been increasingly mainstream).
6. In presenting different understandings of the world the media is often accused of "both sidesism." In practice both sidesism is a rarity. Most of the time the media gives us "one sidesism," especially on the larger questions--because there is essentially elite, Establishment consensus on the matter. (Where in the media did we find serious challenge to the "There Is No Alternative"-type promotion of neoliberal economic policies?) The rare turn to both sidesism indicates argument among those the media treats as counting for something in the world--disagreement within the Establishment--as other opinions are rarely of any account in its eyes. Moreover, some of these cases of both sidesism are cases which should be treated in a "one side" way. As the case of climate change demonstrates, both sidesism is frequently a matter of powerful interests finding it convenient to deny scientific facts being respectfully platformed by a deferential media.
7. Where the respect for Establishment expertise is concerned the center's respect for the Establishment comes in far ahead of its respect for expertise. Consider, for example, the argument that "no one could have seen the crisis in subprime mortgages" coming. This was not just a lie but a stupid one. Many did see it coming. Consider, for example, former Wall Street analyst, Hudson Institute member, United Nations adviser and University of Missouri Professor economist Michael Hudson, who published an article anticipating the crash in the May 2006 issue of Harper's. Right he may have been about what was happening and what it was leading toward, but his politics are such that he is "no one" from the standpoint of the mainstream, and so only rarely noticed and easily ignored--Hudson getting a mention for his prediction in the Financial Times, but the pushing of the "no one saw this coming" narrative continuing as if it never happened. By contrast, another public intellectual's denial that anyone could have seen it coming, and insisting the financial community was responsible for nothing, it's all black swans, see, in line with his political prejudices that, as David Cameron admitted, align with his own, made him a "rock star" not just with said community but with the press generally. Because that's what matters within the media world.
8. In line with their courtier-like elitism the mainstream media pays a great deal of attention to politics relative to policy. In doing so they lionize political figures as the drivers of current events, promulgating a "Great Man Theory of Current Events" at the expense of more nuanced, systemic understandings of the play of political forces (and certainly any consideration of the matters of societal structure, class, power so anathema to the centrist), and divert attention from policy--for as the journalist recounting some development demonstrates again and again, in taking the reader or listener through the speechifying and haggling they so much bury them in the details of "how" a thing happened that "what" actually happened (i.e. What sort of a bill or a budget did we actually get in the end?) falls by the wayside. The outcome is by no means uncongenial to those who see the world the media's way.
9. Befitting the mainstream media's aforementioned commitment to the status quo, and deference to wealth, power and position, and extreme opposition to and contempt for the opposite, the media is prone to "suck up" and "punch down." Thus it virtually never holds the elite to account, no matter what their crimes--such that after dishonestly and cynically wrecking an economy, or starting a catastrophic war, the press will sing of the goodness, wisdom, even "genius" and greatness of the actor in question, while when it cannot eschew reference to the badness of the outcome obscuring their responsibility by presenting the relevant figures as "tragic" terms--all as it subjects the powerless to the harshest moralizing (those who have all of the power having none of the responsibility while those who none of the power have all the responsibility, for everything, somehow). Indeed, the media's very vocabulary shows as much, with the ordinary man or woman "lying," the CEO or president "telling a falsehood."
10. If the media is absolutely guilty of the charge of sensationalism and playing to the lowest common denominator it does so within distinct limits--choosing what it sensationalizes according to its ideology, and its dictation that the media punch down rather than up. Thus does the media rile the public up against imaginary welfare queens as the supposed cause of the country's economic and fiscal distress--while saying little or nothing of trillions given out to the very real "welfare queens" of Wall Street and Big Oil, and the way in which working people for that "welfare" with raises in their taxes, and cuts to their services.
Cardinal Richelieu's Six Lines
The remark that "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" is commonly attributed to Cardinal Richelieu. The historical evidence for the attribution may not be as shaky as that for Lenin's alleged remark about "useful idiots," but it is very weak.
For my part the remark interests me far less as testimony to Richelieu's having been Machiavellian in outlook than its truthfulness. Those with a mind to find excuses to destroy someone can and do find it in anything they do--as we are ceaselessly reminded in the age of "cancel culture."
For my part the remark interests me far less as testimony to Richelieu's having been Machiavellian in outlook than its truthfulness. Those with a mind to find excuses to destroy someone can and do find it in anything they do--as we are ceaselessly reminded in the age of "cancel culture."
George Monbiot's Ounces of Hope and Tons of Despair Today
About a decade ago George Monbiot published a piece titled "An Ounce of Hope is Worth a Ton of Despair," in which, reflecting "on the past few decades of environmental campaigning" (his own included) it seemed to him that had environmentalists "set out to alienate and antagonise the people we've been trying to reach, we could scarcely have done it better." What specifically concerned him was the multitude of mistakes that the environmentalist movement had made--from accommodating itself to neoliberalism in ways large and small (looking for "common ground" with their opponents, etc.), to stressing fear and despair in a way actually encouraging the "extrinsic" value system reinforcing opposition to environmentalism, to its failure to connect protection of the environment with any vision of a "better world."
Mr. Monbiot strikes me as having been right on every score here. But unfortunately his message has been little heeded--all as, of course, those most hostile to policies which would protect the environment make the most of those failings. The result is that not only does the decade 2014-2024 have very little to show for it from the standpoint of working toward "sustainability" in a broad way, or even redress of specific problems of this kind (like climate change), but on top of added damage and lost opportunity the political context has grown less promising from the standpoint of such action, the anti-environmentalist right made gains that seemed scarcely imaginable to many a decade ago, while deepening economic crisis, pandemic, the unraveling of the global economy in the most illiberal fashion imaginable, and the resurgence of great power conflict have increased the number of demands on the time and attention of even the alert and well-intentioned--all as environmentalists and the broadly progressive go on making the same mistakes. The result is that the piece seems to me just as relevant today as it was a decade ago--and attention to its insights the more urgent.
Mr. Monbiot strikes me as having been right on every score here. But unfortunately his message has been little heeded--all as, of course, those most hostile to policies which would protect the environment make the most of those failings. The result is that not only does the decade 2014-2024 have very little to show for it from the standpoint of working toward "sustainability" in a broad way, or even redress of specific problems of this kind (like climate change), but on top of added damage and lost opportunity the political context has grown less promising from the standpoint of such action, the anti-environmentalist right made gains that seemed scarcely imaginable to many a decade ago, while deepening economic crisis, pandemic, the unraveling of the global economy in the most illiberal fashion imaginable, and the resurgence of great power conflict have increased the number of demands on the time and attention of even the alert and well-intentioned--all as environmentalists and the broadly progressive go on making the same mistakes. The result is that the piece seems to me just as relevant today as it was a decade ago--and attention to its insights the more urgent.
Watching Just Because Other People Are
One of the absurdities of contemporary pop culture is just how much time and money people spend consuming stuff they don't like. In contrast with those who, for example, find their food choices limited by their financial means, health needs or personal values, and so eat what they do not like because they must eat to live, in spite of no comparable compulsion people "hate watch." Or they watch because their partner wants to watch and does not want to watch alone (even though it's just TV and not the movies). Or because they want to be "part of a conversation," even though they have no material incentive whatsoever to bother, not being journalists or scholars with an intellectual interest in the matter, or professional critics paid to do so.
Personally I find life too short for such stupidities.
Personally I find life too short for such stupidities.
Doomist Proclamations and the Silence About Geoengineering
Imagine for a moment a scenario in which we were told that it is as certain as it is possible for anything to be certain that a massive asteroid is headed straight for Earth and that its impact will destroy civilization, and perhaps humanity itself.
Imagine that there was a suggestion of launching a space mission to divert that asteroid and thus save Earth.
Imagine that opponents of that mission pointed out that the mission could fail altogether to divert the asteroid, or perhaps causing a piece of the asteroid to break off and possibly do damage to the Earth even as the bulk of it is diverted--and then everyone said "All right, because of the risks involved in attempting to deflect certain doom for everyone and everything let's rule the idea of a space mission out of discussion altogether, permanently."
This can seem to be the stance of climate doomists regarding geoengineering. They are certain that absolute catastrophe in the near-term is locked in, and yet absolutely opposed to even discussing any action that might buy time because it is "too risky."
I cannot take such an intellectual position seriously. If the situation really is "that bad"--if the apocalypse is at hand--then one expects that, unpleasant as the risks may be, one is willing to bear some risk of unfortunate side effects to head off certain disaster. Alas, that assumes an interest in actually resolving the problem--which, it seems, is quite an uncertain proposition where they are concerned.
Imagine that there was a suggestion of launching a space mission to divert that asteroid and thus save Earth.
Imagine that opponents of that mission pointed out that the mission could fail altogether to divert the asteroid, or perhaps causing a piece of the asteroid to break off and possibly do damage to the Earth even as the bulk of it is diverted--and then everyone said "All right, because of the risks involved in attempting to deflect certain doom for everyone and everything let's rule the idea of a space mission out of discussion altogether, permanently."
This can seem to be the stance of climate doomists regarding geoengineering. They are certain that absolute catastrophe in the near-term is locked in, and yet absolutely opposed to even discussing any action that might buy time because it is "too risky."
I cannot take such an intellectual position seriously. If the situation really is "that bad"--if the apocalypse is at hand--then one expects that, unpleasant as the risks may be, one is willing to bear some risk of unfortunate side effects to head off certain disaster. Alas, that assumes an interest in actually resolving the problem--which, it seems, is quite an uncertain proposition where they are concerned.
Doomists and Consumer-Bashers are the Useful Idiots of Anti-Environmentalism
What passes for a discourse about the world's environmental problems is notoriously pervaded by "doomism," and attacks on consumers. As the miserable failure of the environmental movement to realize its objectives has demonstrated, this has not been a terribly useful approach--but we are saturated in it anyway. The plain and simple reason is that this is because it is not a terribly useful approach. Knowing that doomism and consumer-bashing induce apathy, denial and hostility to environmentalism the mainstream media, which has not been on the side of redress of environmental problems (their "both sidesism" bespeaks not ignorance or clumsiness, but deference to the same interests to which they have always been deferential), is ever happy to give them a very considerable platform, precisely because these "inactivists," when not deliberately fraudulent, have been the "useful idiots" of opponents of such action (to the point of that long and increasingly worthless rag The New Yorker giving Jonathan Franzen a high-profile platform upon which to display the ignorance and superficiality which make him such a darling of the ignorant and superficial tastemakers of the literary scene).
The wonder of the situation is that many ostensibly progressive political media outlets give doomists and consumer-bashers so much time and space on their platforms. The answer, I suppose, is that they fail to recognize the perniciousness of their standpoint, confused as they are like a great many others about how the world actually works amid a colossal collective breakdown of the ability to think.
The wonder of the situation is that many ostensibly progressive political media outlets give doomists and consumer-bashers so much time and space on their platforms. The answer, I suppose, is that they fail to recognize the perniciousness of their standpoint, confused as they are like a great many others about how the world actually works amid a colossal collective breakdown of the ability to think.
Who Was Thomas Malthus? And Who Are the Standard-Bearers for his Ideas Today?
Thomas Malthus, of course, was an English clergyman remembered today principally for his work in economics--which few seem to understand, in spite of his explicitness about his concerns (I suspect, because few bother to actually read him). Simply put, he was a champion of the landowners who was eager to crush any hope of the existence of a fairer and freer society and justify callousness toward the poor--and the intellectual tradition which followed from his work is inseparable from that view. Naturally it has historically been the right which has cited Malthus, while progressives spurned his views. However, in an age in which the right has identified itself with the defense of capitalism above all, and environmental crisis has called into question the reconcilability of the freedoms of business with ecological sustainability, the right has distanced itself from Malthus, favoring Cornucopianism instead, while ostensible progressives embrace the Malthusian perspective--all of it, whether explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously.
One may see in that yet another example of the extreme muddle into which the late twentieth century plunged what passes for political thought.
One may see in that yet another example of the extreme muddle into which the late twentieth century plunged what passes for political thought.
The "Self-Help System" in International Relations, and Self-Help Culture
Those who study International Relations theory are certain to learn of "realist" theory, and to encounter characterization of the international system in that theory as "a self-help system."
By this they do not mean that the international system is about the kind of "self-realization" that Oprah Winfrey used to promote, but that in the absence of any authority over the international system really capable of making its writ good the states comprising the system have no one to rely on but themselves in providing for their own security, sovereignty, survival--the system a "self-help system" in the sense that in the end only your "self" will help you.
It is a bleak, brutal vision of the world that may seem at odds with the "optimistic" tenor of much self-help culture, but I would argue that they are not really so far apart as they may seem. After all, what do those who look to self-help want? They want to make their lives better, or at least less bad, in some way--and, while setting aside the extreme limitations of the essentially individualistic approach (there is such a thing as society, and most of what will improve or worsen individual lives is far beyond individual control), what they would ideally want is a sympathetic ear, a good listener, a wise friend who will let them express a concern, and then if there is hope that anything that might be doable, help by talking the issue through so that they can make up their own mind about what to do in their own particular situation.
Alas, sympathetic ears, good listeners, wise friends seem to me rare treasures in this world, unavailable to many. And so they pay their $29.99 for what is almost always the platitudinous one-size-fits-all claptrap of a self-satisfied huckster--with, making matters worse, said huckster's guise a Strict Father figure who thinks the obvious and conventional thing beloved of the "apologists and admirers of injustice, misery and brutality" is always the one and only right thing to do and that people only need a Red Forman threatening them with "foots in asses" to make them shut up and get down to doing it.
By this they do not mean that the international system is about the kind of "self-realization" that Oprah Winfrey used to promote, but that in the absence of any authority over the international system really capable of making its writ good the states comprising the system have no one to rely on but themselves in providing for their own security, sovereignty, survival--the system a "self-help system" in the sense that in the end only your "self" will help you.
It is a bleak, brutal vision of the world that may seem at odds with the "optimistic" tenor of much self-help culture, but I would argue that they are not really so far apart as they may seem. After all, what do those who look to self-help want? They want to make their lives better, or at least less bad, in some way--and, while setting aside the extreme limitations of the essentially individualistic approach (there is such a thing as society, and most of what will improve or worsen individual lives is far beyond individual control), what they would ideally want is a sympathetic ear, a good listener, a wise friend who will let them express a concern, and then if there is hope that anything that might be doable, help by talking the issue through so that they can make up their own mind about what to do in their own particular situation.
Alas, sympathetic ears, good listeners, wise friends seem to me rare treasures in this world, unavailable to many. And so they pay their $29.99 for what is almost always the platitudinous one-size-fits-all claptrap of a self-satisfied huckster--with, making matters worse, said huckster's guise a Strict Father figure who thinks the obvious and conventional thing beloved of the "apologists and admirers of injustice, misery and brutality" is always the one and only right thing to do and that people only need a Red Forman threatening them with "foots in asses" to make them shut up and get down to doing it.
Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Of Linda Evangelista, Gwyneth Paltrow and the Neoliberal Age
The story goes that the beginning of the end for the supermodel was Linda Evangelista's much-cited quip about not getting "out of bed for less than ten thousand dollars a day," and this remark, which could so easily have been taken as a bit of self-mockery (I personally think this was how it was meant), instead drawing forth a backlash against the extremely high public profile of the elite of the modeling world.
I have never found this version of events persuasive, but it may say something that so many people think it is--especially as we hear far, far more snobbish utterances all the time without there being any such consequences, not only when they come from, for instance, the elite whose doings make up so much of the "business" news, but even from celebrities much more easily comparable with Linda Evangelista, like Gwyneth Paltrow, whose speaking anything not written for her by a screenwriter seems an unceasing stream of far worse snobberies leaving far less room to take them as jest (e.g. "I am who I am. I can't pretend to be someone who makes $25,000 a year" variety), as indeed she often doubles down on the ways she offended people before (as seen in the appalling "Gwyneth Paltrow Accepts Your Apology" cover of the issue Town & Country that hit the magazine racks in May 2020 amid the pandemic's socially fraught early days, which seems to have attracted no comment whatsoever).
Granted, some will point to a less forgiving attitude on the part of the press toward models than toward "Oscar-winning" actresses who also become "entrepreneurs" and "businesswomen" trafficking not in anything so "frivolous" as beauty but in "wellness." There is also the way an ever more pervasive and aggressive identity politics plays into the media's responses, with such figures' supporters ever ready to react against anyone who criticizes anything a public figure does with a ferocious counterattack charging them with double standards, prejudice, bigotry against whatever demographic categor[ies] they are identified with (at once changing the subject and muddying the issue, usually very sanctimoniously and also usually very effectively). However, the more fundamental thing may be just how much more brazen the ultra-privileged have become about displaying their inegalitarianism in the last quarter of a century, and how very accommodating and defensive of that sentiment the operatives of that media have been, ever ready to not just excuse but exalt elite stupidity, self-satisfaction and disdain for the plebs and their feelings and opinions as they cheer for every punch they throw downward--and in the process unfailingly remind us that if some present the generality of "journalists" as tribunes of the people they are in reality courtiers who strive to be more royalist than the king.
I have never found this version of events persuasive, but it may say something that so many people think it is--especially as we hear far, far more snobbish utterances all the time without there being any such consequences, not only when they come from, for instance, the elite whose doings make up so much of the "business" news, but even from celebrities much more easily comparable with Linda Evangelista, like Gwyneth Paltrow, whose speaking anything not written for her by a screenwriter seems an unceasing stream of far worse snobberies leaving far less room to take them as jest (e.g. "I am who I am. I can't pretend to be someone who makes $25,000 a year" variety), as indeed she often doubles down on the ways she offended people before (as seen in the appalling "Gwyneth Paltrow Accepts Your Apology" cover of the issue Town & Country that hit the magazine racks in May 2020 amid the pandemic's socially fraught early days, which seems to have attracted no comment whatsoever).
Granted, some will point to a less forgiving attitude on the part of the press toward models than toward "Oscar-winning" actresses who also become "entrepreneurs" and "businesswomen" trafficking not in anything so "frivolous" as beauty but in "wellness." There is also the way an ever more pervasive and aggressive identity politics plays into the media's responses, with such figures' supporters ever ready to react against anyone who criticizes anything a public figure does with a ferocious counterattack charging them with double standards, prejudice, bigotry against whatever demographic categor[ies] they are identified with (at once changing the subject and muddying the issue, usually very sanctimoniously and also usually very effectively). However, the more fundamental thing may be just how much more brazen the ultra-privileged have become about displaying their inegalitarianism in the last quarter of a century, and how very accommodating and defensive of that sentiment the operatives of that media have been, ever ready to not just excuse but exalt elite stupidity, self-satisfaction and disdain for the plebs and their feelings and opinions as they cheer for every punch they throw downward--and in the process unfailingly remind us that if some present the generality of "journalists" as tribunes of the people they are in reality courtiers who strive to be more royalist than the king.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
