Reheated (7)

For newcomers, three more items from the archives.

Thrashing the Hegemon.

Fearless artist José Carlos Teixeira gives Western society the thrashing it deserves.

Mr Teixeira’s ostentatious subversion is all the more amusing because it’s so conformist. He, like many others, is doing what he thinks he ought to be seen doing, if only by those playing much the same game. Making a thing of beauty isn’t a consideration and isn’t attempted, possibly because it doesn’t suit the role-play of being a “social and political agent.” What matters to Mr Teixeira is demonstrating his compliance with the belief that art should be a vehicle for anti-bourgeois gestures, which signals both the cleverness of the artist and his ideological credentials. This is done by muttering the standard incantations – “hegemony,” “subversion,” etc. The use of such terms indicates the artist belongs to an approved ideological caste and has the approved political views. (We can be fairly sure that the assumptions being “challenged” and “subverted” won’t include egalitarianism, the parasitic nature of arts subsidy or the latest conceits of the postmodern left.) So the more loudly a piece of art affects an air of subversive radicalism, the less reason there is to believe it delivers anything of the sort.

Moral Inertia.

Anti-social behaviour and the weight of doing nothing.

The stare, body language and bellowing have to be calibrated just so. Too little force and mockery may ensue – from which there’s no recovery. This is after all a game of humiliation. You have to look as though you mean it absolutely. Those being bellowed at have to at least entertain the possibility that you may do them serious harm if they fail to comply. The risk of embarrassment has to be theirs and theirs alone. This requires a certain willingness to look like an escaped mental patient, at least temporarily. But looking utterly bonkers and socially incongruous is much easier to do if you’re not inhibited by a large group of other people conspicuously doing nothing.

Every Bit as Hobbled.

Christina Hoff Sommers highlights inaccuracies in feminist textbooks. The Sisterhood takes umbrage.

Needless to say, Sommers’ line of enquiry isn’t universally welcomed. Her points about gross errors, overstatement and competitive victimhood are often met with prickling indignation, not least from those whose activities include some combination of the above. Some denounce Sommers as “conservative” – a synonym for evil – a “female impersonator” and an “anti-feminist,” a term that suggests both the crime of apostasy and a very narrow definition of what “real” feminists should be concerned with and how they’re permitted see the world.

There’s more, of course, in the greatest hits.

Comments

[rjmadden]

Just spent an hour reading your blog. Quality stuff. Keep it up David.

[David]

“Just spent an hour reading your blog.”

No refunds. Credit note only.

[WTP]

On the feminist vein, ran across this person's link on The Philosophy Magazine blog entry concerning Tiger Woods. Granted, this person is of minor consequence in the grand scheme of things, but I was fascinated by the ability to write clearly relative to the "critical thinking" skills employed....

http://feminazi.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/proof-men-arent-human/

Perhaps one could be generous enough to see a tongue-in-cheek perspective. This one couldn't.

[Canada Corner]

"I recall one particularly miserable train journey during which a group of four teenagers amused themselves by throwing trainers to each other, narrowly missing the heads of other passengers. When, inevitably, one of the shoes hit a woman in the face, no-one intervened."

Why didn't you do anything?

[David]

Canada Corner,

See the preceding sentence and the following paragraph for the not entirely flattering answer. I was a callow youth at the time and assumed, naively, that the adults present might intervene. The experience and what it revealed helped inform my current, more assertive, inclinations. Which I suppose is the point of the post.

[Canada Corner]

I probably would have done the same thing in my younger days. Of course now I'm over six feet tall and I work out regularly so most people would think twice about messing with me. One of the things I hate the most about defending strangers in situations like you described is the burning resentment I would feel towards those who failed to chip in when I was the one who initially stuck my neck out.

[David]

Canada Corner,

“One of the things I hate the most about defending strangers in situations like you described is the burning resentment I would feel towards those who failed to chip in when I was the one who initially stuck my neck out.”

Well, I think being inert or cowardly in those situations isn’t without its own cost. The train example I mentioned had a definite atmosphere of self-loathing with passengers trying to avoid eye contact, presumably out of embarrassment. Nobody seemed to benefit from their failure to act. I suppose what’s needed is a change of culture – and an understanding that such instances aren’t just about adolescent exuberance or disregard for others. It was obvious, at least to me, that the teenagers found the throwing of trainers fun precisely because it was a game of dominance. They were testing how far they could go - how close to people’s heads they could get - and they won.

The only way I know of changing that culture of passivity is by example. Though it’s not without its hazards.

[Canada Corner]

"The only way I know of changing that culture of passivity is by example. Though it’s not without its hazards."

I agree. I guess the resentment just comes with the territory but it's ultimately the right thing to do when confronted by hooligans and rednecks (a specialty in my neighborhood). I find in most circumstances the hooligans are just as cowardly as the people studiously reading their newspapers. All it takes is someone with a spine.

I also agree with rjmadden. You have a most awesome blog.

[Uncle Pinky]

Oh dear.

I'd forgotten how much I snickered while having my paradigm soundly thrashed the first time around.

Please do continue with this Project:Reheated. These reminders of how to eff the ineffable are pearls of great price.

Added value is that I now must revisit my Wodehouse to refresh my memory of what to do with "stern young singers" and related sorts.

So, thanks. Twice.

[tehag]

"As a repetitive common saying, [“It’s OK”] encapsulated paradoxes and contradictions, be it in the form of electoral results, in the state of war, in the lack of equality and freedom, in the discrimination and mutual racism I could witness almost every day."

I have to ask: why hasn't your head exploded? I switched from history to computer science because I couldn't conceal my disdain for this stuff. What keeps you sane?

[David]

“What keeps you sane?”

Um, laughter, I think. And of course the exploding banana mask...

http://www.williamlamson.com/#/selected_work/think_globally_act_locally/video/1

What?

[ojo]

:D