Sowell speaks about his new book, ‘Intellectuals And Race’, and speaks against multiculturalism:
‘What multiculturalism does is it paints people into the corner in which they happen to be born. You would think that people on the left would be very sensitive to the notion that one’s whole destiny should be determined by the accident of birth as it is, say, in a caste system. But what the multiculturalism dogma does is create the same problems that the caste system creates. Multiculturalism uses more pious language, but the outcome is much the same.’
Here is Sowell, heavily influenced by the Chicago School, arguing the welfare state maintains some of the same dependence in the black community that slavery required:
Very few people are willing to pay for opinion, as everyone’s got an opinion. The platform is now available to share opinion and information very cheaply. Large outlets do have a valid complaint in the loss of fact-gathering, fact-checking, shoe-leather journalism, and accountability for politicians and the reporting of public affairs and current events. It’s a vicious circle for them:
‘Boosting circulation revenue will help stem losses from print advertising, since it has become clear that digital advertising will not be enough. For every $16 lost in print advertising last year, newspapers made only around $1 from digital ads. The bulk of the $37.3 billion spent on digital advertising in 2012 went to five firms: Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and AOL.’
Those five are the new curators of information at the moment, because they have partially designed how that information is stored and retrieved, and are competing intensely amongst each other.
With the new technology, a few aggregators have been quite successful, but even finding good links can take time. For everyone else, do what you do best and link to the rest. Readers don’t come easy. Outlets like the New Yorker still offer long-form journalism, but it, too, costs money and time.
Remember The Maine! The good old days…by malik2moon
Malcolm Gladwell argues here that apart from the information/journalism divide, the technology still ultimately costs something as well…”Free” is a utopian vision, and I suspect Gladwell knows this pretty well: From The New Yorker: Malcolm Gladwell’s “Priced To Sell”
‘The Syrian civil war is spilling into the city of Tripoli, the second largest in Lebanon. Sunni Muslims in the poor neighborhood of Bab al-Tabbaneh are at war with an Alawite militia in the adjacent hilltop neighborhood of Jebel Mohsen that supports Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Last week there was even a shootout at a hospital, of all places.
So far this is hardly original. What makes this conflict absurdly unusual is that segments of the Lebanese army are protecting both militias, and they’re doing so on behalf of a foreign government—Syria’s’
Koons’ site here. Part 1 of a 5-part documentary above.
I often find myself reacting to modern art and pop art, like many people, with my bullshit detector continually sounding at a low buzz. Are these great artists? What has happened at the intersection between art, money, and media in the ‘modern’ world? Is there any ‘there’ there?
Koons’ Made In Heaven only amplifies that sound, blurring the line between art and porn, private experience and public show, innocence (so easily corrupted) and naive, narcissistic indulgence.
Excellent photo found here…gps1941 photostream here. More on the original St. John The Baptist here.
This is kitsch par excellence, exquisitely rendered. I admit that I can still break out into laughter while staring at it, admiring Koons’ ability to use his materials to realize a very particular concept, and to execute that concept and evoke what might even be a particular emotion in onlookers. The quality and finish of these pieces is high and Koons works in various materials, including porcelin, metal, wood, and mixed media. Like Warhol, he’s set up a studio with workers churning out his art. There is no doubt some genuine artistic ability there, creative imagination, vision, and devotion to his craft.
Great art?
On what he was trying to achieve:
‘This type of dislocated imagery is what motivates people. They’re amused by it, but they have a lot of guilt and shame that they respond to it. I was trying to remove that guilt and shame.’
Another quote which highlights an idea of some import to the nation:
‘Coming from a suburban, middle-class background, as he did, he felt that there was something, if not dignified, at least, too easily discarded about this kind of imagery and this kind of sentiment.’
In a way, Koons could be seen as quintessentially American, taking the country, its lack of refinement as an artist might see it, its marketing and advertising, the products of its egalitarian spirit and consumer culture into his embrace. By recalling his own experiences and trying to provide deeper context (and by constantly self-promoting), he certainly has a commitment to America. This raises questions of perpetual interest to those who see their duty in making, criticizing, curating, buying and enjoying art. It also coincides with a larger movement.
From the video:
‘I think that Warhol, as radical as he seems, still very much prized the idea of originality at the core of his working process, and it’s hard not to see him as being a very original artist in that sense. The idea of Koons rejecting all originality, I think, is central to understanding what his work was about.’
and:
‘The way Andy predicted celebrity, Jeff predicted branding.’
I don’t doubt for a second there’s a bright, aesthetically inclined teenager out there laying under the illuminating glow of a Thomas Kinkade signed print.
As posted before, Camille Paglia is a child of the 60’s, wants better art education, and is sympathetic to themes found on this blog:
———————-
Such artistic impulses also have to deal the rest of America’s bustle and mass culture. Some of our best-known exports to the world are made by groups of us here at home, organized in certain ways. Examples abound, from Hollywood movies to McDonalds and Starbucks to our politics to Mars exploration, but we Americans have a real talent for this kind of thing, and Koons seems to be trying to hold up a mirror to our desires and the culture. Naturally, this creates tension between the individual and the society, what kind of society we have, and what kind of society we ought to have.
Here’s another quote from the video:
‘Koons like to fill things, blow them up, and make his own breath last forever. He’s interested in eternity, in immortality.’
You may recall hearing about Lars Hedegaard, former Marxist, admirer of our 1st amendment, and founder of Denmark’s Free Press Society. He’s still under police protection, having written on many occasions that Islam itself is part of the problem. Naturally, he’s become a target for costly legal battles on charges of racism. He’s also been marked for death by some Islamists, joining a long list of those who have become targets of righteous Islamist anger.
“The assassin came to his home dressed as a postman. When the historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard opened his front door, the man — whom Lars describes as ‘looking like a typical Muslim immigrant’ in his mid-twenties — fired straight at his head. Though Hedegaard was a yard away, the bullet narrowly missed.’
Our own beloved NY Times, begrudgingly supportive of Hedegaard’s cause, ran a story calling him an ‘anti-Islamic provacateur.’
‘However, as Mr. Hedegaard’s own opinions, a stew of anti-Muslim bile and conspiracy-laden forecasts of a coming civil war, came into focus, Denmark’s unity in the face of violence began to dissolve into familiar squabbles over immigration, hate speech and the causes of extremism.’
Having read many of Hedegaard’s articles, I can say he is highlighting uncomfortable truths upon a factual basis with an historical outlook. I can’t say I agree with the idea that Islam is entirely incompatible with Europe, but it’s a no-brainer to stand up for his right to speak. Here is a good response to the Times article.
There’s no doubt the multiculturalist orthodoxy too easily allows what Christopher Hitchens’ termed ‘one-way multiculturalism:’ The apologetic European’s invitation to recently arrived Muslims to go full Muslim; isolating themselves in growing enclaves, loosely tethered to their host countries with vague notions of human rights and soft Marxist solidarity.
Here, some feel emboldened to adopt increasingly Islamist dress and identity, while maintaining higher birth rates as their populations grow steadily. Suddenly, the well-meaning, less-fecund Europeans are confronted with face veils, full burqas, and claims for Sharia law. Their brows furrow. Their hearts race. What happened?
If someone like Hedegaard comes along, they stow him uncomfortably away. He’s upset the apple-cart: The bien-pensant worldview steering much of the liberal, multi-culturalist press, politics and public debate. If he’s lucky, he can drum up public support enough to censure the Islamist crazies who come calling.
The celebration of all faiths and all tribes equally under an expansive liberal State fighting for social justice, equality of outcome, and multicultural inclusion is not a desired outcome. A class of professional journalists, social scientists, academics and cultural critics who will oversee the forward march to peace and progress under the banner of multiculturalism has downsides.
Theodore Dalrymple argues that France has the potential to handle Muslim immigration better because of its ideological rigidity, which can better meet the ideological rigidity of its Muslim immigrants…Theodore Dalrymple Still Attacking Multi-Culturalism In Britain
In the age of Obama, Matt Welch suggests a return to neo-liberalism, as he notes that some liberal journalists have gone full progressive. He tracks this phenomenon at the link: Continue reading →
His post expands on ideas explored in the book, and is well worth a read:
‘What I am suggesting is that our crisis of governance, which is reflected but only partly expressed by the mess our political class has made in Washington, is ultimately anchored in a cultural shift that is both a source for and a consequence of revolutionary technological change. Increasing numbers of young and well-educated Americans love the gadgets that help isolate them from one another because they do not wish to be obligated by civilities, do not wish to be constrained by responsibilities to others, do not wish to be limited in any way. We are witnessing the eternal temptation to self-indulgence raised to both principle and art.’
And:
‘Why should we be concerned about this? Because if the individuating tendencies inherent in the technology are not offset by creative balances that can restock social trust, or social capital, in America, it means that we will drift ever further from a high-trust social equilibrium conducive to liberty to a kind of order that needs ever more government to make it work. We will have to face what David Brooks has called “brutality cascades”, a kind of positional arms race to the bottom that ensues when it becomes difficult to impossible for standards of behavior to form out of interpersonal relationships.’
I’m sympathetic to the theme because this blog is animated by a notion of how to conserve tradition, and maintain civic virtue enough to maintain to a smaller, more responsive government on all levels.
Also, it’s a blog, my own little digital piece of the public square and my ticket for a few hours a week of self-indulgent utopia free of social interaction.
Generally, I approach this issue from a more conservative/libertarian perspective. I feel I’ve gone on a bit of a journey to explore both some of the anarchy of libertarianism, the problems with anarchy/hierarchy in Europe, and the possibility of classical liberalism.
In my experience, there are many reasons why libertarians and conservatives unite. The primary one is on full display now: Libertarians are anti-collectivist and anti-statist, drawing a ring around the individual and proceeding from there. The progressive pursuit of virtue through collectivist principles and the big government required to do it is a call-to-arms for most libertarians (they’re no fans of legislated religious morality either). While both groups have strong disagreements on where our rights come from, and who has the moral legitimacy to be in charge, conservatives and libertarians can usually agree on this much during a progressive administration.
Another reason for the alliance (more beneficial to conservatives, perhaps) is that libertarians tend to be much hipper to the sciences and technology, having a broad fan base in science fiction and usually more accustomed to arriving at truth and pursuing knowledge through the sciences and similar products of the Enlightenment.
We’ve already seen a huge shift in wealth and social influence to tech money in our society, and this will continue. Many traditionalist and religious conservatives tend not to be as hip to the sciences and technology, and increasingly run the risk of being seen to be as relevant to ‘modern’ life as a group of Amish, dutifully and communally raising a barn, gazed at from passersby on the road. Well, perhaps that’s a bit much, but some technorati no doubt see things that way.
Now, libertarianism can be accompanied by attendant utopianism and grand visions of the future (as strong as the progressive and collectivist love of technocracy). Yet, as for predictions about the future, here’s Jerry Pournelle describing his own home computer and how publishing might look in a few decades time.
Keep in mind he was saying this in 1979:
——————
That’s pretty damned accurate and reasonable. Perhaps his chart could be useful, as he was a sci-fi writer who likely ended up closer to Burkean conservativsm. Conservatives, take note.
The obligatory blog questions:
-How do you see technology affecting your life?
-What are your duties to the people around you, and to the common good?
-Do you ever get the urge to hit that guy talking loudly on his bluetooth, or push that prepossessed, couldn’t be bothered girl at the bus stop into oncoming traffic as she texts away with her earbuds in?
-Are you that guy or girl?
Addition: Via Instapundit-Huxley vs. Orwell, with Huxley in the lead. Robert Heinlein built his own house. L. Ron Hubbard is a good example of when sci-fi writers become ‘alleged,’ cult/religious figures.
Another Addition: Are we losing volunteerism because more women are working and have less time to volunteer, and work locally, and be engaged civically?
