On Foucault's The Will to Knowledge

In the first volume of The History of Sexuality, The Will To Knowledge, Foucault dissolves the conventional wisdom that says sexuality has been repressed since the Victorian age. He argues instead that it began to flourish in the 18th century through discourse. Conceptually, sexuality came into being then as a social construct that has since permeated our lives. This flourishing began with the rite of confession and from there evolved and spread through the newly powerful institutions of science, medicine, and education. A general example: What was a simple debauchery before came to be identified as a specific perversion--and only one of many possible perversions--that evidenced any number of other sexual issues to be uncovered in the recesses of childhood memory and untangled in the psychiatrist's office and later echoed in the medical texts. Sexuality is a secret we tirelessly mine for truths about ourselves. Foucault doesn't deal in conspiracies. Rather, his are institutional analyses, demystifications of the larger issues and forces at play anytime we and our managers attempt reform and understanding.

This volume--or, at least this translation--feels less inspired than Foucault's earlier works, gifting us with fewer flourishes and specific citations. But the overall concepts are more accessible; for example, the recent history of family medicine and psychiatry are less foreign to casual readers than, say, the innards of the asylum. But my main criticism is this: Madness and Civilization excelled at painting a picture of what madness meant before the modern age took hold of it; The Will To Knowledge, on the other hand, gives us little idea of what sex meant to society prior to the Victorian era. Nevertheless, like any Foucault work, this is to be studied and enjoyed for its originality, insight, thoroughness, style, and potential. And I enjoyed this volume far more than I did the third volume, The Care of the Self.

Celebrity among the titans of industry

Thursday on NPR staffer Guy Raz and The Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walter Mossberg discussed Steve Jobs' legacy. Raz asked, "Is there anybody living today that is remotely his peer, anywhere close to his genius?" Mossberg answers, "Well, I am a technology writer, and I, you know, there may be people in other industries and other walks of life, but certainly in the technology business and in American business in general, I actually don't think there is anyone. You know, if you look at the headline of the print Wall Street Journal this morning, it just simply says Steven Paul Jobs, 1955-2011, over six columns. And we've been talking here on our - in our staff trying to think of who other than the president of the United States would merit a headline upon his death in The Wall Street Journal of that magnitude? And we just can't think of anybody." The media's recent deification of Jobs is reflexive, and especially so in this case, with a WSJ columnist gauging significance through the actions of his own media outlet.

Step outside this circle of media attention begetting celebrity begetting media attention and we might argue that, Of course Jobs is a historical giant--he's the reason we all have personal computers, making this the Information Age and all that entails. But this is also the result of media simplifying a narrative and thereby making a myth of creation. Jobs did not work alone; his innovations had impact to be sure, but the man and his ideas are not the sole seed of the Modern Age.

Could an artist ever receive such accolades from the media? Not likely, if The Wall Street Journal has any say. Validation and recognition is saved for the rich and powerful.

NPR goes wildly awry

Under the headline An Update On The 'Three Cups Of Tea' Lawsuit, NPR reports news of a class action lawsuit filed by donors to Greg Mortenson's charity as named in his now defamed book, Three Cups of Tea. Then the reporters, led by Melissa Block, call the lawsuit frivolous. Melissa Block begins pushing the frivolous angle when she asks court reporter Gewn Florio, "Gwen, when you talk to lawyers there, are there people who think that there is a reasonable basis for this suit to go forward? It does seem like they're launching pretty novel claims here. Or do they assume that it will be dismissed?"

Why would the case be summarily dismissed? Mortenson set up a fraudulent charity and solicited funds for that charity via marketing efforts built on his book and media appearances. School children donated to this guy's cause; why should they and the rest of his donors not have recourse to the law? Melissa Block keeps pushing the frivolous angle, asking, "Is anybody there in Montana saying this is just a case of lawsuits gone wildly awry, that this should not be settled in a court? That if they felt bad about buying the book or giving their money that's one thing, but this is not the basis of a class-action lawsuit?" To which Florio concedes with disinterest, "Sure, I think people say that, yeah exactly, this is not the way to settle it. That he's been discredited, people will no longer buy the book, things sort of play out in the marketplace." Mortenson is already rich--the marketplace was the vehicle for his fraud; the courts are where justice is supposed to be done, so let them decide the merits of the case.

Jack Goes Boating

Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance as Jack in Jack Goes Boating reminds me of Wilson, his character in Love Liza. Jack is a stunted man just awakening to possibility, and the movie ends with him starting a new phase of life through a relationship with a woman who understands him; Wilson had a good relationship and professional life, but the movie begins when that phase abruptly ends, his wife having just committed suicide, wounding him indefinitely. Jack is getting up, whereas Wilson is falling, perhaps landing at the movie's end. These films resemble snapshots but unfold narratives every bit as epic as that of Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings.

Although Jack is painfully quiet, Hoffman broadcasts Jack's inhibitions and insecurity by prescribing a subdued nervousness to the character's bearing. But we also witness Jack's sweet, gentle spirit when he listens repeatedly to his favorite song, the limited soundtrack he's assigned to his compact existence. Philip Seymour Hoffman is the best actor we have.

Giving and taking rights

Women in Saudi Arabia will be able to vote in that country's next election. Meanwhile, in America states are adding new voting barriers for the poor.

Going out on a high note

Article conclusions in The New York Times often mislead the audience. Two common types of conclusions that do readers a disservice are (1) the happy ending and ( 2) giving an opinion the last word.

First, the happy ending can negate a serious discussion. We saw an example of this yesterday in the article "Deep Recession Sharply Altered U.S. Jobless Map". The article focuses on high unemployment rates in the American South and West. Of course, this discussion omits mention of employment and business trends that preceded the recession--the decline of manufacturing jobs due to off-shoring, for example. Nevertheless, after discussing high unemployment, the article ends with this:

But Mr. Kaglic said that the recent return of manufacturing jobs was giving him hope, and that one reason for the high unemployment rate was that more people were now seeking work.

“I would look at it as our dreams are delayed,” he said, “rather than our dreams being denied.”

This "things are looking up" conclusion wipes out everything preceding it.

The second kind of ending is the conclusion that gives one opinion the last word. Giving an opinion the last word legitimizes that opinion, and that opinion becomes the reader's takeaway. We see an example of this today in the article "Wealthy, Influential, Leaning Republican and Pushing a Christie Bid for President". This piece says that a group of wealthy, elite business and financial leaders are pushing New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie to run for president. The article hints that these elites favor Christie not solely for his charisma, but also for his anti-union stance and record of fiscal conservatism. Of course, that these policies might damage the middle and working classes and the poor goes unstated, and absolutely no voice is given to critics of Mr. Christie. This glowing opinion of the NJ Governor gets the last word:

“I had Christie to our board meeting the April after he took office, and he knocked their socks off,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group with a gold-plated roster of prominent Democratic and Republican moneymen. “And ever since, there’s been nothing but enthusiasm for him. He’s considered smart, courageous, a straight talker, kind of an antipolitician.”

So is this what the reader is to conclude about Chris Christie? What about his record? What affect might his policies have on the 99% of people who aren't pushing a Christie bid? What will Christie do for them? Lots of people want Kucinich or some other Progressive to run, but this fact gets no coverage. This Christie article shows without saying that money buys office, our system is corrupt.

Lady Gaga's Little Monsters

The fantasy Lady Gaga sells her fans is one of homogeneous fame ("You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!”). Their real life, which actually is authentic, is replaced by an inauthentic fantasy. Lady Gaga offers her Little Monsters only the denial of self-authorship.

Serving the artist's commercial interest, these fans find comfort, support, and acceptance when together they assume the label Little Monsters. They believe that their self-identification as freaks and outsiders embraces their outsider status, the counterpoint to a mainstream composed of their more popular, better looking peers. But rather than creating a social alternative, they have simply recreated an in-group within the larger mainstream which inadvertently pushes new fashions, concepts of coolness, and other cornerstones of capitalism. In doing so they are even more integral to the system they feel alienated from. They welcome and modify trends, furthering the cycle of need and acceptance.

Poem by Rainer Maria Rilke

A poem--can't swear to the translation or line breaks:

For Hans Carossa
 -by Rainer Maria Rilke

Losing too is still ours; and even forgetting
still has a shape in the kingdom of transformation.
When something's let go of, it circles; and though we are
rarely the center
of the circle, it draws around us its unbroken, marvelous
curve.

Palestinian statehood

Spiegel gave a compelling and fairly even account of the implications and stakes surrounding the leadership of Palestine's UN bid for statehood.

A thought on the film No Country for Old Men

In No Country for Old Men, the killer Anton deals in consequences. He is the harbinger of the heartless world, a bringer of death who does not decide who lives and dies. To his mind, what you're doing and where you find yourself traces back to either chance or to some choice you made. He has no patience for ambiguity; fortunes hinge on the flip of a coin and once you call it, results are sure to follow. In this story, Anton's primary target is the hunter Llewellyn Moss.

Moss, now finding himself the prey, resists the inevitable, plotting his escape as best he can given what little wiggle room he has. He acts, and when acted upon, he counters. If ultimately the outcome falls to chance, he will throw his weight on the scale and make sure his chance is the fighting kind.

Sheriff Bell reflects on both men: Permanence and change, fate and self-determination weigh on his mind. He sees men like Anton as evidence the light is fading from this world. After fate claims Moss and untethered chance visits Anton, Bell is left awake in a world that's always been dark and cold, dreaming of the succession of humble men like him who can't do much about it.

On Percy Walker's The Last Gentleman

I had a longish review of The Last Gentleman but lost it through Google. So here's the shortened version:

Williston Bibb Barret was lost. With much help he discovered that his troubles belonged to man's condition and not to him alone. He found a future when he accepted one--in this case, the orthodox life of marriage, kids, church, and so on. Not as good as The Moviegoer but still very good.

Soccer Game, September 17, 2011

Jon Stewart's rhetorical situation

I like this quasi-profile of John Stewart because the author approaches his subject from various angles, posing  provocative questions and then offering answers, alternately recognizing strengths while attacking some well-argued weaknesses. The primary criticisms leveled at Stewart are that (1) he takes himself too seriously and (2) he unknowlingly plays the redeemer, criticizing the establishment from a safe place while making himself invulnerable to counter-criticism by repeatedly denying his power--this "redeemer" characterization of Stewart refers to America's "need for redeemers to rise out of its ranks". Its a great read but I argue that the author puts too much emphasis on Stewart the individual and not enough on the larger rhetorical situation.

I agree that his modesty borders on false, but when Stewart denies his power I interpret this as his assessment not so much of himself but of his rhetorical situation: His audience consists of young, self-imagined dissidents and slackers who ultimately don't mobilize well as a group. Stewart can't mobilize them the way Beck can appear to mobilize his audience--a block of voters already energized thanks to a dedicated media and powerful political machine. Despite mainstream media's claims to the contrary, the Tea Party is not a "state of mind" or unaffiliated multiplicity of citizenry; they are an easily identified demographic with shared values and an agenda. By comparison, Progressives can stand for almost anything--gay marriage, worker's rights, the environment, anti-globalization, minority achievement, tax policy, gun control, prison reform, entitlement improvements, education, peace, and so on--and getting them to the polls as individuals is challenging enough. Stewart's power lies solely in his popularity as a smart Liberal media critic, a face appearing not on reputable stages like CNN or even MSNBC, but on Comedy Central for a few minutes a night, four nights a week during part of the year. The matter is not that Stewart won't be a force for change; it's that he can't be.

The author implies that Stewart is a coward because he stands for nothing; he only satirizes while acting as the Liberal conscience. But then the piece ends with Stewart dreaming up a network based on media reform. Isn't that standing for something? (If it is true.) If Stewart does nothing more than The Daily Show the rest of his life, then No, he isn't politically useful to Progressives. He merely provides a venue for people who think popular news is a joke.

But as a media attraction (as opposed to a political force), Stewart does have power. So I don't follow the criticism that Stewart takes himself too seriously. So what if he does? The author's cited examples include his behavior during appearances on Charlie Rose, Rachel Maddow, or on various FOX programs. Look, when Stewart is given a serious platform such as a guest spot on Charlie Rose, he acts like a guest on Charlie Rose. He takes advantage and shows another other side of himself. As for switching between Stewart the TV personality and Stewart the man, entertainment has a long history of performers trying to reach through the wall separating performer from audience in an attempt to connect. When the run of a show ends, like when Conan had to leave his show or when Carson retired from his, the man opts for sincerity as sincerity is called for.

In the peripheral sits an interesting issue: What to make of Stephen Colbert? Right now, neither man has a cause or larger vision with which to rally voters. But among his other achievements, Colbert formed a super PAC and gave a scathing, high-profile performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner. In criticizing Stewart, is the author alternately congratulating Colbert? Is Colbert still funny?

More of the same

Last week, the mainstream media put unrelenting focus on the anniversary of 9-11. While appearing sentimental, coverage ultimately served to make a very complex matter meaningless by emphasizing only two aspects: (1) Victimhood and (2) Unity. Even the terrorists and their networks were relegated to the margins.

Last night

Awed. Moved. Speechless. But a little burdened, too. Like some great secret was shared with me but I didn't know what it meant and no one caresd. I went to bed thinking, That was so awesome, and woke up thinking, So, so awesome. Not much can move me like that. Not "move" like the way a powerful movie can move you, but like the way a world wonder can move you. The music and the venue and the performance and the performers all teemed with a penetrating glow that inspired in me the still wonder that can set a quiet little boy on edge. The songs were alive.

Justin Vernon thanked opening act Kathleen Edwards and described himself years ago listening to her records and drowning his pain in whiskey. He said that tracing the thread in this life is hard but music was his thread and it lead him there and to her and to a better place. He was in a wonderful place.

The day after

In the article "E.U. Divided by 'Palestine' Bid at U.N.", The New York Times supports the indefinite postponement of Palestinian statehood. The logic given is circular. The article states:

Yet despite what is at stake, neither those European countries that support nor those that oppose the Palestinian resolution have a Plan B for the “day after” the resolution. 

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who is a staunch defender of Israel, said last week that she was concerned about the “day after,” asking what might happen on the ground if the Palestinians unilaterally went to the U.N. General Assembly. 

“The big question is the day after,” said Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, an international relations specialist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “The settlements will still be there. The Israeli Army will still be there.” 

The situation might quickly deteriorate if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, stops, as he has threatened, the transfer of customs revenues owed to the Palestinians. The Obama administration, too, might cut aid to the Palestinians and even downgrade its ties.
There is a danger, too, that riots among the Palestinians could ignite the anger of Israel’s other Arab neighbors. 

All of this, analysts say, would make it imperative for the Europeans to think hard about how they could help the situation on the “day after.”

So, Palestinians want statehood and independence from Israeli occupation, but EU states can't allow Palestine statehood because the territory is still occupied. The article recognizes that withdrawal and Israeli concerns can be negotiated first, but the writer immediately dismisses any such reasonable solution:

But the truth is that the Europeans have no Plan B. “It’s because we have not seen the text of the resolution,” said an E.U. diplomat. But when they do, chances are it will be too late.

So, UN and EU diplomatic negotiators could develop a plan but because they haven't already, they can't support Palestinian statehood when it comes to a vote at the UN. The New York Times does a faithful job towing the State Department's line.

Something about The Wizard of Oz

The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion each sensed some deficiency within himself. They learn from the Wizard, who is not a really a Wizard, that they are not deficient. At the end of the journey, they were not given a gift so much as they had the idea of a void extinguished. Soon after the void was extinguished, the magical world they were in, with its wonders and dangers, disappeared.

They were incarnations of Dorothy's circle. When they needed help, these characters were magical, foreign, and mysterious. When that need vanished, they were ordinary men, as familiar as an uncle or cousin. The magic was in the journey they were all on together, all of them needing, recognizing their needs, resolving always to serve those needs together and until the end.

2011 Prediction: Dallas Cowboys (6-10)

• at NY Jets              L, 30-16
• at SF 49ers             L, 17-21
• Redskins                W, 20-12
• Lions                       W, 17-16
• at NE Patriots         L, 34-9
• Rams                       W, 16-12
• at Philly Eagles       L, 41-20
• Seahawks                W, 24-13
• Bills                          L, 18-14
• at Wash Redskins   L, 21-17
• Dolphins                 W, 20-17
• at Ariz Cardinals    L, 24-15
• Giants                       L, 16-12
• at TB Buccaneers   L, 20-10
• Eagles                      L, 31-13
• at NY Giants          W, 17-13

2011 Predictions: San Francisco 49ers (7-9)

• Seahawks                      W, 23-13
• Cowboys                        W, 21-17
• at Cincy Bengals          W, 20-6
• at Philly Eagles             L, 35-13
• Buccaneers                    L, 20-18
• at Det Lions                   L, 24-16
• Browns                           W, 27-20
• at Wash Redskins         L, 18-13
• Giants                             W, 17-13
• Cardinals                       L, 23-13
• at Bal Ravens                L, 30-9
• Rams                              W, 20-12
• at Ariz Cardinals           L, 21-16
• Steelers                           L, 36-15
• at Seattle Seahawks      L, 20-17
• at SL Rams                    W, 16-10

Holding middle ground: The jobs speech, September 8, 2011

The best lines from the President's September 8, 2011, jobs speech:

I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live.

This line is troubling. His flippant reference to the Republicans' unwillingness to negotiate says he thinks he's dealing with merely a tougher streak of politics as usual. The middle ground is gone and Obama, either bravely or stupidly, clings to the notion that it isn't.

 We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.

An Orwellian betrayal we can expect to hear more often.

I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards.

Falls on deaf ears, like the rest of his appeals, but this part speaks volumes to the state and direction of America's standard of living. He evidently can see the tables turning but is either unwilling or unable to see what's at stake.

Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world. But there has always been another thread running throughout our history--a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

Direct appeals to values are always interesting. Here he references competing values. The speech had other good lines; I'm thinking mostly of the times he tried to head critics off at the pass by announcing that his proposals were not controversial and not class warfare.

Overall, the speech had more strengths than weaknesses, and imparted a strong variation in tone. And insisting that Congress pass his plan and not some mockery of their own was shrewd. However, the basic theme remains: The President thinks he can manage and get cooperation. He can't. He's outgunned rhetorically and organizationally.