Archive for November, 2011

November 30, 2011

Meek’s Cutoff: America’s Manifesting Destiny [Spoilers]

I don’t much care for Westerns. As I kid, I always found them traumatic – I empathised with the Indians, and didn’t understand why it was expected that I side with the settlers. The Indians, with their bare-chests, determined stoicism and the ability to melt, ghost-like, into the desert was far more beguiling to my seven-year old self than the fresh-faced bravado of the cowboys and their impractically clad ladyfolk. Besides, I always thought, it’s the Indian’s land. Why shouldn’t they defend it? As I got older, I found out about colonialism, genocide and manifest destiny; and my hatred of those cocky, wide-brimmed bastards who defended the endless wagon-trains from native assault became solidified.

With this in mind, I wasn’t expecting to enjoy Meek’s Cutoff, a film about just such a wagon train, winding its way westwards through the north-eastern corner of Oregon. But from the off, it was clear that this was no action-packed cowboys n’ Indians flick. The pace is positively glacial, and the director Kelly Reichardt has clearly no romantic delusions about the old west. Dialogue is kept to a minimum through much of the first twenty minutes; the setting really speaks for itself. Great care is taken to use intimate shots of the settlers to convey the emotional depth of their situation; expressing the uncertainty, fear and despair of a life on the trail with little more than an etching on a broken caravan, or the absence of a once treasured pet canary. Before too long, though, the central plot emerges from the general atmosphere of exhaustion – the train desperately needs to find water, and only have the vain and seemingly incompetent frontiersman Meek (Bruce Greenwood) to help them find it. That is, until they capture an enigmatic Native American (Rod Rondeaux), who soon is ordained as the guide in Meek’s place. In the end, the film gives little resolution to the plot’s overarching questions – something that usually irritates me intensely about American indie cinema – but I nonetheless thoroughly enjoyed it.

Why? Simply because this film is the perfect antidote to all those godawful Hollywood Westerns. Much more subtly than the blunt moralism of Dances with Wolves or the brisk nihilism of No Country for Old Men, Meek’s Cutoff is quite simply a complete and thoroughly satisfactory deconstruction of the American frontiersman. The swaggering, thick-bearded adventurer Meek is gradually measured out as a purveyor of nothing but tall tails and male bravado; a reassuring and charismatic figure in the comfort of a frontier town or a 60s living room, but a deeply unconvincing prospect for the settlers, who gradually lose their trust in him and, in the case of Emily Tetherow (played beautifully by Michelle Williams), actively grow to hate him. By the end of the film, Meek’s empowered-outsider status has evaporated, becoming by his own admission little more but a follower of the elder of the three settler patriarchs, Soloman Tetherow (Will Patton), who persuades the rest of the caravan to follow the path made by the Indian instead.

However, the Indian is not presented as the wise noble savage to Meek’s hubristic barbarian. Rather, the Indian is entirely inscrutable – a figure who neither the audience nor the other characters have any understanding of. His appearance is mysterious – we do not know if he is a scout, a medicine man, a lunatic or an outcast, as his occasional mutterings in a Native American language are left untranslated. The audience, like the settlers, are left to interpret his enigmatic movements, gestures and speech; but throughout his motives and ultimate objectives remain obscure. Here is no stereotyped Indian, existing only to underscore the virtue or depravity of white men. He is a true to himself, existing on his own terms and following his own path, whatever that may be. Whites are merely left puzzled in his path, making their own varied interpretations of his role in their own egoistic lifeworld.

To me, this dichotomy – between Great Mystery and Great Men – reflects the driving goal for the American Dream, and this film represents its recent apogee. The American people, like the settlers, are faced with two great visions of the road ahead, one requiring them to put their faith in the supposed hero of Manifest Destiny, now exposed as nothing more than a brutal and vainglorious charlatan. But as they gradually run out of the most basic of necessities, the alternative remains as elusive as ever. What direction the American people will take now is, to me, highly uncertain. But personally, the most enduring image I have of Meek’s Cutoff – of how out of place these ordinary Victorian whites looked in the middle of the wild – suggests the key question to be asked now is not “where are we going?”, but “how well are we adapted to the world as it is?”

November 22, 2011

Tina ist tot: A chance for real consensus?

The Iron Lady aka Tina.

The other day, I read a very interesting article by Owen Jones (of Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class fame) in the Independent. In it, Jones claims the economic consensus that underpinned the Thatcherite, Tina (There Is No Alternative”) mantra of necessary cuts and capitalist triumphalism has finally been shattered. The “Age of Consensus” as he calls it – a time when men like Francis Fukuyama could proclaim the end of history, when Reds were dead, Labour politicians were blue and laissez-faire capitalism was the only show in town – has finally come to a well deserved end. In the UK, Public sector unions are preparing to strike in singular condemnation of an economic system that makes public sector cuts a necessary fallout from private sector mistakes. 51% of people agreed with the Occupy movement’s opposition to the placing of “profit before people”, in one poll taken last month. Pundits are talking about basic, bread-and-butter political economy again. Jones goes on to sound a note of caution; that this shattering of consensus is about to get ugly. Indeed, it does seem that we’ve turned back the clock somewhat, with familiar old political rivalries blossoming into prominence – the EDL’s recent threats and attacks on occupations and their hostility towards upcoming trade union protests seems to be rather reminiscent of old-fashioned fascist trot-bashing, and the response shown by American police towards U.S. occupations has all the uncompromising brutality of late-nineteenth century goon squads. Even beyond the scrapping that will undoubtedly take place at the grassroots, it remains to be seen how the major parties and state infrastructure moves to respond to the growing chorus demanding change.

Owen Jones

Owen Jones: Calling time on Tina.

But what I hope doesn’t get swept away in the onrushing tide of new thinking is the idea of consensus itself. Because really, if we’re honest, what we’ve had over the past couple of decades hasn’t been a “consensus” at all. It isn’t as if sometime in the 80s the people of the world sat down together and democratically hammered out a system that would cater to all our diverse needs and capacities. Rather, the clue behind the true nature of “the consensus” lies in its full name – “The Washington Consensus.” Rather than a consensus, what we have had is a swaggering, globally engaged dominant discourse; an ideology that was able to outlast the other great intellectual juggernauts of the industrial age, not through a groundswell of public support (as the noble term “consensus” would indicate), or because of its practical value (as Tina would have it) but through its patronage by the District of Columbia. The Neoliberal Ideology served to create a cosy relationship between the rich and powerful in the (traditionally separate) spheres of national politics and international business; whose legal and institutional procedures were enforced by pugilistic foreign and economic policies and justified by academic grandees funded by generous grants from the business community.

The Age of Consensus was governed by almost the polar opposite of a true consensus – a set of beliefs that were decided upon by one, small but powerful group of people, who then used their power to force everyone else to agree with them. The presence of Tina at the centre of their rhetoric makes this clear – saying that there is no alternative is a sure-fire sign of somebody who wants to shut down debate. True consensus is a gold standard for inclusive, everchanging democracy – attempting to create agreement, or at the very least mutual understanding, by the careful and honest sharing of diverse perspectives among equals. As Foucault observed, it is impossible to avoid playing games of power – some people are better at persuading than others – but at least you can make sure there is as little domination as possible. Everyone is included, and nobody is left behind. For me, this ideal still holds water – without it, we are doomed to recreating the fractious tribalism and eventual bloodshed to which past revolutions have fallen. Hope, for me, comes in the shape of things like OccupyLSX’s Bank of Ideas, where people are coming together to discuss a viable alternative to mainstream political economy. Hopefully, whatever alternative/s that space produces, it will be remembered that it is only establishing true consensus, rather than claiming it as a fait accompli, that would be truly revolutionary.

November 15, 2011

Libran, ENFJ or Neutral Good? Personality Profiling and Cultural Categories

The Zodiac: Totems for Westerners

The Zodiac: Totems for Westerners

Recently, I had somebody calculate my astrological moon sign. I’ve always seen myself as a somewhat typical Gemini – mentally agile, talkative, flighty… a writer. But I was completely blown away by how well my moon sign encapsulated my personality. Diplomatic, avoids confrontation, hates making choices, loves spending time with a partner… that’s me! People often heap scorn on astrology, particularly in its Sunday-morning-paper guise, but this not only really nailed my personality, but was so specific that I doubt this fitted into the “so general it could work for anyone” shtick. If, for example, I’d got the Moon in Scorpio or Taurus, that wouldn’t have reflected me at all.

But this didn’t drive me to contemplate the old chestnut of is-there-any-truth-in-this-astrology-lark. Far too much ink has been spilt over that debate. It did, though, get me thinking about how different people talk about personalities. Some people I know, particularly those who hate astrology, wax lyrical about Myers-Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI). Others (half-jokingly) refer to themselves using Dungeons and Dragons alignments, such as chaotic good. Insignificant? Perhaps. But I’ve got this theory that a person’s preferred way of relating to their personality reflects wider cultural attitudes.

Let me explain. People who put any stock in astrology whatsoever are usually “spiritual”. And although people usually consider “Spirituality” to be the broadest of broad churches, being spiritual nonetheless involves a specific kind of worldview – one in which the natural and human worlds are to some extent permeable; so that stories of personal significance can be written in otherwise impersonal features of the world around us. This holistic attitude is flattered in astrology, which affirms a strong connection between the lives of human beings and the movements of the heavens. No causal mechanism is put forward though, because none is necessary – astrology gives spiritual people a way of thinking about their personalities, in a way that meshes neatly with their general worldview.

Similarly, Myers-Briggs initialisms reflect the values and views of people who are drawn to using them. Unlike astrology, steeped as is it in gallons of mystic lore and occult terminology, MBTI sounds modern, analytical and professional. Cutting out the symbolism and cosmic vitalism, MBTI cites particular common traits, and then combines them in different ways in different people. Despite being criticised in much the same way as astrology for being overly vague and imprecise, that’s not important – what is important is that it looks scientific. It appeals to the yuppie generation; men and women of the business world, with blackberries and LinkedIn profiles, who adore the trappings and lingo of science but have neither the patience nor the time for qualified predictions or peer review. As for D&D, it represents a further step towards the rationalisation of life. The confusing, frustratingly blurred topographies of moral attitude and social inclusion that often push teens to escape in the first place are replaced with a neat three-by-three grid, that persists (within the D&D universe) at the cosmological level.

All this is important, because it shows just how prone human beings are to intermingling our ways of thinking about (our)selves into our worldviews, and vice-versa. Regardless of the factual accuracy of such schemes, we construct often highly complex systems for interpreting the complexity of daily experience. They’re tools for thinking, not models for explaining. It doesn’t matter that no measurable electro-magnetic or gravitational force acts upon us from the stars – the point is that the animals of the zodiac, to paraphrase the anthropologist extraordinaire Claude Levi-Strauss on Ojibway doodems, are good to think with. One could say, quite fairly I feel, that your star-sign (or your MBTI) is your totem.

November 11, 2011

Little Furry Animals: Good Intent beyond Big Solutions

Philip Carr-Gomm gave the talk "Hippy Dreams and Nazi Nightmares" at a recent Samhain camp.

Samhain is a time for remembering the ancestors; calling to mind their lessons and learning from their mistakes. This can be sobering, but is always fascinating and sometimes even productive. A talk I recently went to was very much in this spirit. Meditating upon the question of “How are we to live?” Philip Carr-Gomm, the Chosen Chief of the druid order I’m a member of, looked back to the origins of many aspects of the 60s counter-culture – from Muesli to Nudism – in the German Lebensreform movement. It is here where the old joke that even Hitler was a vegetarian gains new, bitter currency; the same desire for social change and spiritual transformation that inspired Steine and Kuhne also fueled the rise of Nazism. Philip ended this journey into the counter-culture’s past with a problem – if we want to change things for the better, how can we avoid falling into the same trap that the German Lebensreform movement did?

The solution, I think, lies in something we already have. That something is the single major difference between the contemporary “alternative” subculture and its immediate ancestors; the presence of postmodernism. Part of what made Nazism so terrible was its relentless faith in order, progress and a singular vision of how the world should be. In Modernity and the Holocaust, Zygmunt Bauman shows how this attachment to uniform, instrumental solutions not only fathered the industrial aberrations of Treblinka and Auschwitz, but also on a deeper level bred an extreme fear of radical, uncontrolled diversity. The Holocaust, as an attempt to make manifest a vision of the world purged of problematic differences, was therefore a highly modernist phenomenon. People today however, especially people who are part of the counter-culture, are deeply sceptical of overarching, normative claims and are downright hostile towards any attempt to force such claims upon others in the field of public policy. Beneath the diversity of contemporary popular activist groups such as the Occupy movement, the Tea Party and even aspects of the Arab Spring lies a sense of frustration with singular, monolithic authority and the answers to the world’s problems that it promises. People want to be empowered to seek their own salvation, not yoked in service of someone else’s grand vision.

Nazism may have drawn inspiration from German Romanticism, but it was also highly modernist its character - valourizing uniformity and control.

That’s not to say that we’re dispensing with all truth claims or moral authority here. Scepticism of big ideas does not equate to the fundamental denial of truth per se. Most people in the counter-culture do not hold that, for example, global warming does not exist for global warming deniers, or that food additives are totally a-okay if you believe they are. But when making truth claims, there are two rules we should follow. Firstly, right and wrong should only be used sparingly as a pair of categories – if postmodernism has taught us anything, it is that most questions have many possible answers, and which answer is eventually picked is largely dependent on context. We don’t need consensus on everything, we just need to be able to live together. Secondly, the spectre of Nazism has taught us a pragmatic lesson – that if you want to create a world governed by peace, happiness, spirituality and love, it can’t be made by force. At most, force can be a holding action where all other options have failed and when you are faced with overwhelming violence from the opposing side. But that’s it. The minute you start violently overruling or eliminating other people, rather than winning them over, then the dream has died. Not only that, but you run the risk of provoking the opposition into even more violence. By being violent, cruel and ruthless, we create a more violent, cruel and ruthless world. And such a world is not one that anybody, I think, would like to live in.

We don't want singular solutions, we want space to develop plural ones - the Occupy Everywhere movement, which is organised via consensus process, reflects this desire.

We don’t need to dispense with good works to avoid the pitfalls of Nazism – there are some right answers. But to be overly glib in claiming to have them or incautious in their application is the road to hell on earth, paved with the good intentions of so many movements that have come before, not to mention the bones of their victims. What they didn’t realise is that the aim isn’t to discover “The Truth” then force everyone else to agree with it – but to create a space where all views can be discussed fairly and respectfully, until a basic consensus about how we can all live together is established. Other than those basic needs, groups of people (and individuals) should have the freedom to organise however they wish. We need to cultivate, as Hardt and Negri have argued, a Multitude – a chorus of plural voices, all living different lives and acting on different perspectives, but in agreement over need to preserve the chorus itself. As was said at the talk, it is less about shouting your answers from the rooftops, and more about being quiet enough to allow the little furry animals to come into the forest clearing.

November 10, 2011

Dawkins, deity and the intellectual division of labour

Richard Dawkins: Atheist Provocateur

The other day, there was a very interesting (if predictable) debate on Radio 4 concerning the decidedly overdone issue of Science vs. Religion. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, physicist Lisa Randall and biologist-come-polemicist Richard Dawkins crossed swords in a 45-minute filibuster of a discussion, that despite many vigorous exchanges didn’t really achieve anything except a reassertion of the original problem. Randall, somebody I’ve never heard of before, seemed to a toe a fairly conventional rational positivist line – emphasising freedom of individual choice, and the ultimate superiority of science. Dawkins was as Dawkins usually is and, I’ll be honest, I’m no fan of that. Sachs, despite coming within spitting distance of the point I’d like to make, made the monotheists’ mistake of invoking a transcendent realm where science’s magisterial authority does not apply. As a Pagan who believes in one Nature of which the gods themselves are part, I am not afforded such a get-out clause myself. This is no great loss however, as Dawkins and Randall were quick to manoeuvre Sacks’ absent-gardener god into irrelevance.

Lisa Randall: Scientific Sceptic

Randall and Dawkins both set about arguing that “religion” (read, transcendent monotheism) is unnecessary – the universe is glorious enough, and science is explanatorily powerful enough to mean that we humans should eventually do away with “myths” entirely. Sacks, obviously, didn’t agree, and made a stalwart defence of his style of thought, arguing that religion reaches places that science cannot. The key quote from him was “Science takes things apart to see how they work, religion puts things together to see what they mean”; clearly intended as a bit of a ta-da moment. The two atheists didn’t much like this much though, with both Randall and Dawkins drawing a distinction between personal meaning and objective meaning – the former being about things like “What do I want to do with my life?” and the latter being questions about the world, which can only properly be answered by science. In short, the worth of religious meaning making can only ever be subjective, never “fact”. However – and this was the kicker for me – Dawkins then went on to plug the theme of his most recent book; not only is science objectively true (unlike religious myths) but it is even more beautiful, grand and awesome than anything in the canon of the world’s spiritual traditions. He called this “the magic of reality”.

Of course, any humanities student worth their salt could spot the trick Dawkins is playing here – he’s basically appropriating the terminology of non-scientific disciplines (particularly theology) that have been used against him in the past. Religionists have complained that science doesn’t explain the human condition, and spoils some of the mystery of life. So Dawkins has contended that, no, he does still appreciate the glories of living, it’s just that now he knows how it all works.

Fine. But the ‘magic of reality’ isn’t a scientific idea. Sure, it’s an emotional reaction to something that science can explain (a rainbow) or to a scientific idea (rainbows are caused by the refraction of light in atmospheric moisture). Even the emotion itself can be explained using science (a complex interaction of neurones and neurochemicals in the amygdala and the frontal cortex). But that doesn’t mean the expression of that feeling as it is subjectively experienced (“Oh, what a lovely rainbow!”) is scientific. It isn’t.

It’s clear that both Dawkins and Randall ascribe to a baldly old-fashioned (not to mention discredited) model of human experience – namely that of the subject/object, relative/absolute dichotomy. We humans are all subjects, who think and feel, whilst everything else is an object. I can legitimately say “That rainbow is beautiful!” because beauty is a subjective thing, and subjective things are relative to individuals. However, if I say “That rainbow is a serpent” that is illegitimate because serpents and rainbows are objects, with absolute [scientific] definitions. The problem is, that this essentialist understanding of subjectivity ignores the fact that science expresses no fundamental distinction between human beings, human thoughts and everything else in the universe. “Beauty” is a cluster of neurones in my brain, sure. But so is “rainbow” and “snake”. “Fire”, “gods”, “goodness”, “health”… all these exist as physical arrangements of matter and energy in our brains, which have grown in response to certain experiences over time.

What I don’t think Dawkins and Randall have realised, is that if the only source of truth is science, then there exists no basis for any non-scientific form of understanding whatsoever. So yes, we can do away with religion, but we also need to dispose of art, music, politics, drama, non-quantitative history, literature, philosophy, the qualitative social sciences and poetry – all are, from a dully scientific perspective, imperfect means of engaging with the same material that is dealt with by cognitive neuroscience and social psychology. Even day-to-day language and the “popular science” books Dawkins likes to write become meaningless when measured against the standards of these disciplines. Eventually, we’ll know enough about brains to realise that not only is there no place for God in a purely scientific worldview, but nor is there any place for human beings either.

But I’m not saying that positivist atheists are all a bunch of immoral, “hopeless” people though, as Sacks rather snidely hinted at. I don’t imagine that Dawkins and co. are seriously interested in piloting us towards some brave new world, where everything is calculated remorselessly according to grim, Malthusian logics. They’re still human, so they undoubtedly have morals, emotions and even a spirituality – Richard Dawkins’ enthusing over the “magic of reality” is a case in point. But by denying the objective validity of any emotional, imaginative or otherwise non-positivist ideas, they’ve basically made themselves into hypocrites. Even if they say that science is king, they don’t really treat it as such. If they did, politics could not be “without the realms of science”, as they suggest, nor would their enthusiasm for nature have any validity.

Jonathan Sacks: Rabbinical Rhetorician

As a Pagan, I would not just stand by Sack’s masterful gobbit, I’d actually take it further. Rather than science talking about the world and religion pointing to something beyond it, I contest that science and spirituality/art/philosophy are different ways of talking about the same thing – Nature. Human beings are complicated creatures, and our brains are incredible meaning-making engines. But they only make meaning – be it “subjective” or “objective” – in relation to a world “out-there”. Goodness, hope, love, beauty are just as “real” as mass, energy or the colour blue – but they can’t be reduced to structures in the brain, as Dawkins might contend, as they also inhere in the external phenomena in response to which those structures grow. Personality is no different. I would be totally unable to believe in the goddess Sulis if there was no spring at Bath, or if its waters didn’t have healing powers, dependent upon geothermal warmth and dissolved minerals. Just as scientific theories are built in response to the world of experience in which we live, so are other forms of philosophy, including theology – but they, like science, have their own standards of validity. To deny them that independence is foolish, because it denies something vital about our humanity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 766 other followers