I couldn't agree more with your observations regarding the rediscovery of 'Ancient Musick', i.e. the use of original baroque instruments and the ensuing different dynamics of performing. So let's hear it for Trevor Pinnock, harpsichordist extraordinaire and for the english Concert which he founded.
If you need cheering up, here's the Overture to Handel's 'Music for the Royal Fireworks' performed by the English Concert under Trevor Pinnock:
Thank you Evans. Not long ago I visited a museum on old music instruments in a forgotten city in Spain and there I found a few records featuring medieval tunes some of them traditional Jewish songs in their original lyrics kept by the Sephardi tradition. A few little musical jewels there.
Much of the original instruments movement is guesswork. Yes, you can come up with something close to what they used to use, but the musicians are still trained on modern instruments and just not as good on the older ones, which require a different technique.
Plus we don't know how things were played a few hundred years ago and many of the decisions on tempo and approach are pure imagination. Just listen to player piano recordings of Debussy, who is relatively recent. Most people would not play the way he did, even though we have these recordings, and we can reproduce pianos of 100 years ago, because the sensibilities and modern expectations are different.
Sorry, but we do known how 'things were played' in the early 18th century - because there are books written by well-known practitioners with advice (or 'guidance',as we'd say today) for players. I own a couple for them, in facsimile ... and the advice on tempi, phrasing, ornamentation is exceptionally useful for today's players.
The builders of traditional instruments today are often of the same family who built them such long time ago, their methods have survived, as have some of the instruments now displayed in museums.
Yes, modern players will have to learn the techniques to be used with those instruments - but they have been and are doing it.
As for 'sensibilities and expectations' of modern audiences or indeed players: well this is something any art form has to battle with, more or less successfully, and always keeping in mind that the 'modern Zeitgeist' is purposefully pushed on said audience. After all, who'd want to be called 'elitist' because they publicly prefer some old-fashioned art, or an artist who is deemed to be 'ol'd because 'nobody is doing this any more.
Above all, let's not forget the words from ancient Rome: "de gustibus non est disputandum". So what if someone prefers a modern interpretation - it doesn't mean I have to. If I prefer to listen to Trevor Pinnock on the harpsichord rather than someone else - so what? Let's all be glad we do have the choice.
What moderns don't understand about culture until 1950 is that, before television, everyone was bored out of their minds. Theater-goers paid solid money and they expected 4-5 hours of distraction. I'm guessing that standard performance tempi for old music is shockingly slow compared to today.
You make a number of interesting points worthy of reflection and discussion. I want to focus my own response on two things:
1. History as a contested space.
2. Liberalism as the velvet glove covering the iron fist of capitalism.
The post-modern critique of les grands reçits or great narratives of history was carried out not as a cavalier assault on tradition but as a way of restoring voices and perspectives typically excluded from official accounts of the past, typically written, as we are often reminded, by the victors. Or, as in the case of the West, by imperialist powers such as Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, France, and the United States. These histories are typically written to justify and legitimate the power exercised to achieve specific outcomes - e.g., the colonization of the Western Hemisphere and India. As such, they routinely omit the perspectives of the victims, who are themselves typically depicted as savages worthy of the violence perpetrated against them. Starting, arguably, with Nietzsche and continuing through figures such as Derrida, Lyotard, and a number of outstanding Marxist critics, these grand narratives were subject to critiques which exposed their largely ideological function and opened up space for alternative, inclusive narratives or histories which gave the victims of colonial violence a voice: indigenous peoples, women, Blacks, Indians, gays, etc.
This is a crucially important undertaking and largely in keeping with your own reading of Orwell's take on the Party's control of historical narrative. The post-modern / materialist critique of traditional histories is not the cavalier practice you seem to make it out to be, but a necessary corrective to the distortion and silencing of the voices of people crushed under the heel of the colonial and post-colonial powers.
My second point is that Liberalism as a political ideology has always been the respectable face of capitalist exploitation, established precisely as an antidote to the perceived threats posed by the French Revolution and nascent socialism in England. This is why whenever Liberalism has lost its ability to keep the masses subdued, it quickly turns into fascism in the strict sense in which Mussolini first articulated - a marriage between the authoritarian state and capitalist power. The tactics of fascism are well known in the West, characterized by intense ethnic nationalism, an appeal to "tradition" (see those grand narratives above), and the creation of a common threat or enemy (Jews, Blacks, gays, transgenders, Latin Americans, Chinese, immigrants, etc.). Ultimately, though, the purpose is not noble but the defense of capitalists and their supporters.
As far at the debasement or trivialization of culture, Marx has already provided us with a solid explanation in his theory of commodification, where the only value of importance is exchange value, irrespective of use or anything else. That is why so much popular culture is garbage, though I think that's actually overstated because plenty of popular culture is quite good.
Finally, speaking as a vegan, I find your throw away line against exploiting non-human animals unconvincing. The fact that something has been done for a long time is insufficient justification for continuing to do it. And I suspect you would readily agree if the practice was something like enslaving human beings, forced genital mutilation, or any number of things I expect we would all agree should no longer be done. No doubt there are many things we justify today that the future will take issue with, such as the genocides in Gaza and the DRC, to name two.
But thank you for taking the time and energy to start this conversation. As always, much appreciated.
> The post-modern critique of les grands reçits or great narratives of history was carried out not as a cavalier assault on tradition but as a way of restoring voices and perspectives typically excluded from official accounts of the past... these grand narratives were subject to critiques which exposed their largely ideological function and opened up space for alternative, inclusive narratives or histories which gave the victims of colonial violence a voice: indigenous peoples, women, Blacks, Indians, gays, etc.
The counterpoint to that line of thought is that the critique of the grand narratives has itself become the grand narrative of our time! What else can you call a school of thought promoted in all of the great capitalist newspapers, by the all of the various liberal parties in their multiplicity of uniformity, and generally throughout academia? The dominant position by far, in these various arms of the ruling class is, at least nominally, inclusive and, indeed, members of the ruling class go to pains to highlight their attention to the concerns of "women, Blacks, Indians, gays" and other marginalized groups. I don't think that the critique of the grand narratives can be called a corrective in the process of being applied when the grand narratives being critiqued are no longer present to be corrected. One might speak of traces left underneath the surface, but any attempt to eliminate those traces will inevitably find itself confused and misdirected as those traces become indistinguishable from the general noise of culture and new narratives must be constructed from those traces to be deconstructed.
> These histories are typically written to justify and legitimate the power exercised to achieve specific outcomes...
Couldn't the same be said about the critiques of those histories? The colonial powers wrote their histories in order to legitimize their use of power to colonize and exploit, and anti-colonial thinkers criticized those histories and developed new histories in order to legitimize anti-colonial movements' use of power to end colonialism and exploitation. Certainly, the latter is more worth justifying, but presenting the issue as simply dialectical and reactive ignores the agency of those members of marginalized groups and their allies, who, like any other group that had secured power, sought to develop an ideological framework to justify and guide the exertion of that power.
It's also worth noting that many specific uses (or even abstentions) of governmental power are themselves justified by narratives which highlight marginalized groups. Affirmative action, restorative justice and increased leniency in prosecution, the disbursement of funds, loans, and offices to members of marginalized groups, refugee policy and asylum, etc. are all legitimized by the idea that these actions are taken to right historical wrongs and injustices as revealed by the critiques that you discuss. Certainly, it's no settled subject whether these are ultimately beneficial or not, but they still constitute exertions of institutional power, and, nowadays, even seem to be some of the most notable and contentious exertions of power made by the various governments of the liberal world! Indeed, much of the current reaction to the critique of the grand narratives comes not because of their rise to dominance in the academic or theoretical space, which most people are ignorant of, but because of their usage to justify concrete exercises of power that are readily apparent to most people.
For what it's worth, I agree with your other statements, but I tend towards moderation when it comes to the various ideological currents within the humanities. Perhaps it is impossible to remove ideology from any science, but I find that it may be present in greater or lesser measure, and ideology in lesser measure produces the more enjoyable study.
You're not wrong about the way in which the materialist critique of official historical narratives ultimately descended into the fractiousness of identity politics in the West, particularly in the United States. And "identity" itself has become little more than a marketing tool fully exploited by corporations. What this demonstrates is the resilience and fluidity of capitalism in its ability to absorb oppositional discourses and normalize them in ways that render them non-threatening to the capitalists.
As long as opposition is expressed solely as discourse - for example, within universities as cultural studies, women's studies, LGBTQ+ studies, etc. - it is happily tolerated and, in some cases, even celebrated as an example of the West's superior, enlightened values. However, the minute that opposition is expressed in the form of political action, as in Occupy Wall Street, BLM or the current resistance to Israel's genocide against Palestinians, the response is swift and brutal. There is zero tolerance for true opposition to capitalist state power.
So, yes, you are correct that the critique of ideology and its various manifestations in the West have been easily contained by threats of violence and/or actual violence, but are treated with indulgence when they are put into the service of reinforcing ruling class and imperialist hegemony.
But that does not change the fact that the critique of ideology is nevertheless essential provided that it is accompanied by rigorous self-critique. Obviously there is no position outside ideology from which one can articulate a pure history since, as Marx puts it, all history is essentially the history of class struggle, of contestation. And Mao Zedong pointed out the necessity of continuing the critique even after the capitalists are vanquished and the proletariat controls the means and modes of production, to use the classical Marxist formulation.
Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion. I used to do this sort of thing for a living but, not surprisingly, couldn't make a living from it at the time and went on to other things. But I try to remain engaged and informed. You clearly do the same.
A few days ago I was watching Mad Max: Beyond The Thunderdome. The film is not held in high regard by fans of the franchise, but I like it. Tina Turner is among that rare breed of pop star who can act convincingly within a limited range. Overall it has aged well. Part of that comes from the knowledge that most of what you are seeing on screen was built and had a physical presence, as opposed to being computer generated.
A pivotal scene in the post-apocalyptic narrative occurs when one of the leaders of a group of children - survivors of a plane crash in the Australian desert who have made a home for themselves in a river canyon - tells the story of where they came from, with the younger children joining in, doing sound effects. It is a tale with a grounding in reality, plugged with whatever cultural detritus happened to be at hand: The plane crashed in the desert. That is true. It is still there, deeply embedded in the sand. Captain Walker, along with some of the other survivors went to find help and, of course, they vanished without trace. The children are convinced that Walker will return and fly them home to the city - a place that none of them remember and can scarcely conceive in their imaginations. Captain Walker is represented by a stock photograph of a pilot in a Viewmaster slide-show reel. A photograph of a chorus girl in the same reel is enthusiastically identified as Mrs Walker.
This oral retelling of history, interwoven with a piecemeal mythology, is performed daily as a reminder of where they came from and where they are going. A moment of pathos and uncertainty, when an old record that has been incorporated into a staff of prophecy is played and turns out to be a course in basic French, is elevated to a moment of awe when the instructor announces "Je vais chez moi. I'm going home".
On reflection, I think that the children in Beyond The Thunderdome have a more cogent grasp on their past and their future than our incumbent government who simply exist. There is no cohesion. Formulating any kind of historical narrative that you can be held to is undesirable. Henceforth there is no cohesive social progression beyond that which might line the pockets of those with nakedly conflicted interests.
Labour, who will almost certainly take hold of the reins of power early on Friday morning, are entangled in conflicting ideologies, seasoned with a hint of authoritarianism, that draws unflattering comparisons with the Trudeau regime in Canada. It is going to a rough ride with corporate interests pulling on those remaining strings that we haven't already sold.
Recently, I attempted to trade-in my paper drivers licence (that is beginning to resemble one of the Dead Sea Scrolls) for a photo card, so that I could do things such as vote in person, but was told that I lacked sufficient ID to make the upgrade. I will not be troubling the ballot boxes on Thursday. It comes as a relief not to have to suffer the indignity of stating which fist (the left or the right one) I would prefer to punch me in the face for the next four years, or which of the fringe candidates I would like to head-butt me.
I echo the recommendation of Rick Beato whose YouTube channel is a recent discovery. His interviews with musicians has re-framed my appreciation of certain bands. In particular I now see Stone Temple Pilots in a new light.
I'm starting a watch of the Mad Max franchise, and look forward to this revelation on the abstractive nature of history.
It is for this reason that I claim that President Trump and Charlie Chaplin's Tramp character will merge in the future's version of the past: he will become President Tramp, the orange everyman.
I found the comment on "living tradition" very incisive. Of interest, perhaps, is that the Orthodox Church is founded and continues based on living tradition. There is actually no process for changing dogma in the Church. And trying to find a systematic, "official" dogma is basically impossible. The Church moves in alignment with Tradition. When something is done (by a priest or group) that breaks from the Tradition, it is slowly brought back into conformity with it. The process often takes years, decades, centuries.... Schism is not an uncommon result, but it is treated as a separation in marriage, not a complete break. One priest I know simply says it is "messy" but it remains the Church. It moves in the ebb and flow of history, over long periods of time, and the caricature you describe never does more than poke at it.
Good article. I find the content you provide to be very insightful into the nature of our current Western "civilization".
Honestly, I feel too dumb to comment about your content after looking up many words for their definitions and re-reading for comprehension. All I can say is, your writing is always fascinating and provocative with much for me to learn and new ideas to explore. I realized yesterday, I must be addicted to X as I sat there tweeting and trolling for 12 hours straight getting out my anger and frustration with sarcastic soundbites. Thank you for your brilliant insights, I can certainly up my game!
Please don't think like that. If anything the fault is mine for being a fussy stylist addicted to irony, and also someone who can never resist an aside on a related (or not) subject.
I am addicted to reading this man's work aloud as my elocution practice. I rarely talk to people and find myself tongue-tied, and I choose writers whose prose I love: Aurelian and Sam Kriss (also on Substack).
I'd always wondered about the seeming similarity between ancient Roman imperial cult and the modern PMC "ideologies." The striking thing about the old Roman imperial cult was that nobody took it "seriously," or at least, no one really "believed it." (Least of all, emperors themselves, especially Emperor Vespasian. Who said Roman emeprors, even when they were dying, didn't have a sense of humor!) The imperial cult was a civil ritual that everyone was expected to perform, even if nobody actually believed it, just because. However, it is something that they were (had to be) willing to kill for, unless they could come up with a legalistic excuse (i.e. people who followed a certifiably old religion older than Roman Empire, or whatever). One could easily imagine how flustered Pliny the Younger was when he had to deal with a bunch of newish cultists (the Christians) who were willing to die for seemingly nothing, i.e. the imperial cult rituals that everyone knew was fake. But, once they defied the accepted norms without a good legal reason, they had to die and all that. Very PMC like mentality, I suspect.
This is, in a sense, notably different from the religious persecutions in the later era: crusaders, inquisitors, etc. actually believed in what they professed to, or at least, there was a presumption of serious belief, enough that they had to be willing to die for what (they said) they believed in. In contrast, nobody was willing to die for the Roman emperor, since it was no more real than the DEI or whatever that modern Liberalism preaches. Indeed, modern Liberalism has to claim that these propositions are "natural" because no one really needed to anything to preserve and maintain them, but they would just maintain themselves if leff alone (a sort of invisible hand theory of morality and rights). Not even Romans believed their stories to that extent, I suppose....
"In the end, this inevitably turns into caricature: in the West, we don’t have politics, we have a caricature of politics, a cooperative satire on politics played not by politicians but by actors playing politicians, full of self-referential irony and the cynical and facile manipulation of symbols and slogans from the politics of the past, when words actually did mean something. All we have left now is the politics and culture of exhaustion. Nothing “means” anything any more, everything is endlessly recycled."
Start liking it.
Anyway, I can tell you why Macron and Sunak called the elections when they did. They want the elections to take place before the direct and open intervention in Ukraine takes place, as any election afterwards will be viewed as a referendum on that war.
In other words, now is the zenith of support and popularity for Macron and for Sunak Both will only become more detested going forward.
One thing I always remember about the Party in 1984 is how diverse the inner party membership is--that it didn't subscribe to racism or whatever. But that fits with being non ideological: it takes a set of convictions to be seriously racist, i suppose.
But DEI today is a bit more than that: nobody "really" believes it, but everyone must practice it in order to go places. A bit like the old Roman imperial cult. Nobody believed its tenets, especially not the emperors (Emperor Vespasian in particular--who ssid ancient Romans didn't have sense of humor, especially when they were dying!). But it's worth remembering that refusal to partake
Never mind the content, agree or not, there are expressions, analogies, counterpoints, contrasts, irony indeed, and well-crafted sentences, never florid, but effulgent.
“The only way to evaluate culture is how well it sells. The only measure of success in politics is power acquired. And you cannot maintain a society on that basis, still less develop it. The result is that caricature has become the normal means of expression because that is all people know how to do.”
Analytically, consider that argument. It’s really a fusillade. Two confident statements as premises, another follows, the conjunctive that synthesizes, but also piles on, then further contention as conclusion…and, as lead in to further, perhaps, lamentation. Aurelien shall require more words to do so, and we shall enjoy it.
Caricature but without the laughters. One of the conditions of humour is to understand proportions. This is possible only if you have a point of reference of values. Impossible in the anything goes as long as I get my individual kicks liberalism of today.
Please don't think like that; I wouldn't want you to change one tiny thing about your writing, which I love. You should see me on X @karenthedamned pointing out spelling mistakes to posts I don't like, lol!
You were doing so well, until you succumbed to temptation and an simplistic straw man by introducing the “glassy-eyed militant vegan”.
It reminds me of a quote I read in some volume of philosophy where the author describes the typical book on the subject as in Part 1 describing the common errors committed in most such works, and in Part 2 going on to perpetrate them. Only you seem to have done it the other way round here. (i.e. from “glassy-eyed militant vegan” to “Typically, though, they could not say where their heterodox views were based on: they got them from somebody who got them from somebody, who …”).
I am not personally a vegan, but the whole subject of carnivory, animal welfare and veganism involves a range of serious problems which should not be dismissed so frivolously and contemptuously, especially nowadays when methane emissions may contribute quite substantially to global warming.
Apart from that slip though, congratulations on an excellent article.
Actually, I wasn't getting at veganism: I would be happy to listen to a reasoned defence of the practice. My point is that increasingly, absolutist, normative moral positions are being taken without any regard to history, or even practicality.
The story of western veganism: the US went from "Christian by default" to "secular by default" during the 1950s and 1960s. In the 70s we instead 1) adopted a bunch of weird pagan beliefs (biorhythms, Kirlian photography) and 2) discovered that people want to think they are doing good in the world. For the latter, people cast about to Eastern religions and to superficially moral activities like veganism. This is how veganism took root in the West. Sure, there are solid reasons for vegetarianism, but the vegan flourish of avoiding "death cooties" has a definite pagan air.
For our non-US readers: a "cootie" is a child's concept of contagion particles.
Adam Curtis' "Can't get you out of my head" documentary profoundly explores the same questions, juxtaposing Traditionalist East vs Liberalist West, with stunning visuals courtesy of the BBC archives, hypnotic narration, and razor sharp commentary. He avoids the pitfalls of everyday politics, and instead delves head down to the core of the matter: the absurdity of the human condition. Highly recommended, in fact his documentaries should be compulsory viewing for every thinking human being particularly in the "Liberal" West. Free on YouTube
To dismiss Boko as suffering from a kind of subset of the lack of traditional beliefs methods and procedures of modern western industrial society party political practices is absurd – the Boko are the opposite of modern in their ultra traditional beliefs
Boko kidnaps/inducts children for two purposes – it uses boys for many terrorist/guerilla day to day operations, as being anonymous - buying goods, infiltration, messages, planting x,y and z more easily
And for ransom – I believe this started with the Chibok girls, certainly by then Boko realised how to put pressure the US, the real masters/enablers of the corrupt Nigerian state
-and especially to pressure the fake much despised pseudo ‘African’, Obama, very uncertain of his status/standing in Africa, and entirely submissive to the gender wars dictat of his dominant wife
This worked like a dream PR wise – no Freudian pun intended
– but they did not succeed in their goal of luring the US army into the conflict in a bigger way, with all the possibilities of protection, cash and weapons extraction, the killing or kidnap of US personnel that this promised (c.f. Taliban)
Boko does have a serious quarrel with western influenced forms of education – so would Socrates – or anyone living a life in pre modernity, especially pre agriculture
– you suggest the name came from their attacks on schools, the reverse is the case
Your failure to understand this sort of distorted far from mainstream Islam, prevalent throughout large areas in Africa, is the result of your lack of education – it is ridiculous to medicalise this with a normalising Freudian analysis – when it is the result of desperate poverty and the encroachment of modernity on a only just surviving lifestyle
I don't think I said what you think I said. The appellation came before the attacks on schools, as you say, and I didn't intend to imply anything else. As for the ingredients you'll be familiar with the literature on the bizarre mixture of tradition and modernity that characterises militia groups in West Africa. And I don't think BH had much to do with the US, who have always been minor players in the region.
Boko have not only an ideological dispute with the US, as the icon of western decadence, and as the prime example of the enemy of Islam on display in west and central asia, but practical as the dominant western military power in the region
(In this country, for example, overt presence and evident stewardship is handled by the French, but everyone down to the imported Sahel gardiens know that it is the Americans who call the shots, even if the French take the blame: as a Brit this should ring a bell with you)
The strategy of all such groups is to take advantage of the arms armour and cash the US trails behind them
To caracterise the US as a minor player in the region would seem to indicate the presence of major, it would be hard to name any – in any case by their actions Boko ensured the US would become entangled, as was their intention
After the Chibok kidnapping Obama did rea ct by considerably upgrading intervention, over riding previous concerns about Nigerian government corruption
The US may have had in mind to gain other benefits from intervention, but the named cause and purpose were Boko and the girls
He even said he’d take a trip there! He was always talking about going to Africa and always never going
Since when increasing US association and implication with the policies of the Nigerian gvmts, culminating in the Tinubu implant, has ensured swift decline to the current collapsed state conditions
As Boko has continued to expand operations throughout the country
Do you see a correlation or a cause here – I see both
I couldn't agree more with your observations regarding the rediscovery of 'Ancient Musick', i.e. the use of original baroque instruments and the ensuing different dynamics of performing. So let's hear it for Trevor Pinnock, harpsichordist extraordinaire and for the english Concert which he founded.
If you need cheering up, here's the Overture to Handel's 'Music for the Royal Fireworks' performed by the English Concert under Trevor Pinnock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIhvelwCuUk
Enjoy!
Thank you Evans. Not long ago I visited a museum on old music instruments in a forgotten city in Spain and there I found a few records featuring medieval tunes some of them traditional Jewish songs in their original lyrics kept by the Sephardi tradition. A few little musical jewels there.
Much of the original instruments movement is guesswork. Yes, you can come up with something close to what they used to use, but the musicians are still trained on modern instruments and just not as good on the older ones, which require a different technique.
Plus we don't know how things were played a few hundred years ago and many of the decisions on tempo and approach are pure imagination. Just listen to player piano recordings of Debussy, who is relatively recent. Most people would not play the way he did, even though we have these recordings, and we can reproduce pianos of 100 years ago, because the sensibilities and modern expectations are different.
Sorry, but we do known how 'things were played' in the early 18th century - because there are books written by well-known practitioners with advice (or 'guidance',as we'd say today) for players. I own a couple for them, in facsimile ... and the advice on tempi, phrasing, ornamentation is exceptionally useful for today's players.
The builders of traditional instruments today are often of the same family who built them such long time ago, their methods have survived, as have some of the instruments now displayed in museums.
Yes, modern players will have to learn the techniques to be used with those instruments - but they have been and are doing it.
As for 'sensibilities and expectations' of modern audiences or indeed players: well this is something any art form has to battle with, more or less successfully, and always keeping in mind that the 'modern Zeitgeist' is purposefully pushed on said audience. After all, who'd want to be called 'elitist' because they publicly prefer some old-fashioned art, or an artist who is deemed to be 'ol'd because 'nobody is doing this any more.
Above all, let's not forget the words from ancient Rome: "de gustibus non est disputandum". So what if someone prefers a modern interpretation - it doesn't mean I have to. If I prefer to listen to Trevor Pinnock on the harpsichord rather than someone else - so what? Let's all be glad we do have the choice.
What moderns don't understand about culture until 1950 is that, before television, everyone was bored out of their minds. Theater-goers paid solid money and they expected 4-5 hours of distraction. I'm guessing that standard performance tempi for old music is shockingly slow compared to today.
You make a number of interesting points worthy of reflection and discussion. I want to focus my own response on two things:
1. History as a contested space.
2. Liberalism as the velvet glove covering the iron fist of capitalism.
The post-modern critique of les grands reçits or great narratives of history was carried out not as a cavalier assault on tradition but as a way of restoring voices and perspectives typically excluded from official accounts of the past, typically written, as we are often reminded, by the victors. Or, as in the case of the West, by imperialist powers such as Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, France, and the United States. These histories are typically written to justify and legitimate the power exercised to achieve specific outcomes - e.g., the colonization of the Western Hemisphere and India. As such, they routinely omit the perspectives of the victims, who are themselves typically depicted as savages worthy of the violence perpetrated against them. Starting, arguably, with Nietzsche and continuing through figures such as Derrida, Lyotard, and a number of outstanding Marxist critics, these grand narratives were subject to critiques which exposed their largely ideological function and opened up space for alternative, inclusive narratives or histories which gave the victims of colonial violence a voice: indigenous peoples, women, Blacks, Indians, gays, etc.
This is a crucially important undertaking and largely in keeping with your own reading of Orwell's take on the Party's control of historical narrative. The post-modern / materialist critique of traditional histories is not the cavalier practice you seem to make it out to be, but a necessary corrective to the distortion and silencing of the voices of people crushed under the heel of the colonial and post-colonial powers.
My second point is that Liberalism as a political ideology has always been the respectable face of capitalist exploitation, established precisely as an antidote to the perceived threats posed by the French Revolution and nascent socialism in England. This is why whenever Liberalism has lost its ability to keep the masses subdued, it quickly turns into fascism in the strict sense in which Mussolini first articulated - a marriage between the authoritarian state and capitalist power. The tactics of fascism are well known in the West, characterized by intense ethnic nationalism, an appeal to "tradition" (see those grand narratives above), and the creation of a common threat or enemy (Jews, Blacks, gays, transgenders, Latin Americans, Chinese, immigrants, etc.). Ultimately, though, the purpose is not noble but the defense of capitalists and their supporters.
As far at the debasement or trivialization of culture, Marx has already provided us with a solid explanation in his theory of commodification, where the only value of importance is exchange value, irrespective of use or anything else. That is why so much popular culture is garbage, though I think that's actually overstated because plenty of popular culture is quite good.
Finally, speaking as a vegan, I find your throw away line against exploiting non-human animals unconvincing. The fact that something has been done for a long time is insufficient justification for continuing to do it. And I suspect you would readily agree if the practice was something like enslaving human beings, forced genital mutilation, or any number of things I expect we would all agree should no longer be done. No doubt there are many things we justify today that the future will take issue with, such as the genocides in Gaza and the DRC, to name two.
But thank you for taking the time and energy to start this conversation. As always, much appreciated.
> The post-modern critique of les grands reçits or great narratives of history was carried out not as a cavalier assault on tradition but as a way of restoring voices and perspectives typically excluded from official accounts of the past... these grand narratives were subject to critiques which exposed their largely ideological function and opened up space for alternative, inclusive narratives or histories which gave the victims of colonial violence a voice: indigenous peoples, women, Blacks, Indians, gays, etc.
The counterpoint to that line of thought is that the critique of the grand narratives has itself become the grand narrative of our time! What else can you call a school of thought promoted in all of the great capitalist newspapers, by the all of the various liberal parties in their multiplicity of uniformity, and generally throughout academia? The dominant position by far, in these various arms of the ruling class is, at least nominally, inclusive and, indeed, members of the ruling class go to pains to highlight their attention to the concerns of "women, Blacks, Indians, gays" and other marginalized groups. I don't think that the critique of the grand narratives can be called a corrective in the process of being applied when the grand narratives being critiqued are no longer present to be corrected. One might speak of traces left underneath the surface, but any attempt to eliminate those traces will inevitably find itself confused and misdirected as those traces become indistinguishable from the general noise of culture and new narratives must be constructed from those traces to be deconstructed.
> These histories are typically written to justify and legitimate the power exercised to achieve specific outcomes...
Couldn't the same be said about the critiques of those histories? The colonial powers wrote their histories in order to legitimize their use of power to colonize and exploit, and anti-colonial thinkers criticized those histories and developed new histories in order to legitimize anti-colonial movements' use of power to end colonialism and exploitation. Certainly, the latter is more worth justifying, but presenting the issue as simply dialectical and reactive ignores the agency of those members of marginalized groups and their allies, who, like any other group that had secured power, sought to develop an ideological framework to justify and guide the exertion of that power.
It's also worth noting that many specific uses (or even abstentions) of governmental power are themselves justified by narratives which highlight marginalized groups. Affirmative action, restorative justice and increased leniency in prosecution, the disbursement of funds, loans, and offices to members of marginalized groups, refugee policy and asylum, etc. are all legitimized by the idea that these actions are taken to right historical wrongs and injustices as revealed by the critiques that you discuss. Certainly, it's no settled subject whether these are ultimately beneficial or not, but they still constitute exertions of institutional power, and, nowadays, even seem to be some of the most notable and contentious exertions of power made by the various governments of the liberal world! Indeed, much of the current reaction to the critique of the grand narratives comes not because of their rise to dominance in the academic or theoretical space, which most people are ignorant of, but because of their usage to justify concrete exercises of power that are readily apparent to most people.
For what it's worth, I agree with your other statements, but I tend towards moderation when it comes to the various ideological currents within the humanities. Perhaps it is impossible to remove ideology from any science, but I find that it may be present in greater or lesser measure, and ideology in lesser measure produces the more enjoyable study.
You're not wrong about the way in which the materialist critique of official historical narratives ultimately descended into the fractiousness of identity politics in the West, particularly in the United States. And "identity" itself has become little more than a marketing tool fully exploited by corporations. What this demonstrates is the resilience and fluidity of capitalism in its ability to absorb oppositional discourses and normalize them in ways that render them non-threatening to the capitalists.
As long as opposition is expressed solely as discourse - for example, within universities as cultural studies, women's studies, LGBTQ+ studies, etc. - it is happily tolerated and, in some cases, even celebrated as an example of the West's superior, enlightened values. However, the minute that opposition is expressed in the form of political action, as in Occupy Wall Street, BLM or the current resistance to Israel's genocide against Palestinians, the response is swift and brutal. There is zero tolerance for true opposition to capitalist state power.
So, yes, you are correct that the critique of ideology and its various manifestations in the West have been easily contained by threats of violence and/or actual violence, but are treated with indulgence when they are put into the service of reinforcing ruling class and imperialist hegemony.
But that does not change the fact that the critique of ideology is nevertheless essential provided that it is accompanied by rigorous self-critique. Obviously there is no position outside ideology from which one can articulate a pure history since, as Marx puts it, all history is essentially the history of class struggle, of contestation. And Mao Zedong pointed out the necessity of continuing the critique even after the capitalists are vanquished and the proletariat controls the means and modes of production, to use the classical Marxist formulation.
Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion. I used to do this sort of thing for a living but, not surprisingly, couldn't make a living from it at the time and went on to other things. But I try to remain engaged and informed. You clearly do the same.
A few days ago I was watching Mad Max: Beyond The Thunderdome. The film is not held in high regard by fans of the franchise, but I like it. Tina Turner is among that rare breed of pop star who can act convincingly within a limited range. Overall it has aged well. Part of that comes from the knowledge that most of what you are seeing on screen was built and had a physical presence, as opposed to being computer generated.
A pivotal scene in the post-apocalyptic narrative occurs when one of the leaders of a group of children - survivors of a plane crash in the Australian desert who have made a home for themselves in a river canyon - tells the story of where they came from, with the younger children joining in, doing sound effects. It is a tale with a grounding in reality, plugged with whatever cultural detritus happened to be at hand: The plane crashed in the desert. That is true. It is still there, deeply embedded in the sand. Captain Walker, along with some of the other survivors went to find help and, of course, they vanished without trace. The children are convinced that Walker will return and fly them home to the city - a place that none of them remember and can scarcely conceive in their imaginations. Captain Walker is represented by a stock photograph of a pilot in a Viewmaster slide-show reel. A photograph of a chorus girl in the same reel is enthusiastically identified as Mrs Walker.
This oral retelling of history, interwoven with a piecemeal mythology, is performed daily as a reminder of where they came from and where they are going. A moment of pathos and uncertainty, when an old record that has been incorporated into a staff of prophecy is played and turns out to be a course in basic French, is elevated to a moment of awe when the instructor announces "Je vais chez moi. I'm going home".
On reflection, I think that the children in Beyond The Thunderdome have a more cogent grasp on their past and their future than our incumbent government who simply exist. There is no cohesion. Formulating any kind of historical narrative that you can be held to is undesirable. Henceforth there is no cohesive social progression beyond that which might line the pockets of those with nakedly conflicted interests.
Labour, who will almost certainly take hold of the reins of power early on Friday morning, are entangled in conflicting ideologies, seasoned with a hint of authoritarianism, that draws unflattering comparisons with the Trudeau regime in Canada. It is going to a rough ride with corporate interests pulling on those remaining strings that we haven't already sold.
Recently, I attempted to trade-in my paper drivers licence (that is beginning to resemble one of the Dead Sea Scrolls) for a photo card, so that I could do things such as vote in person, but was told that I lacked sufficient ID to make the upgrade. I will not be troubling the ballot boxes on Thursday. It comes as a relief not to have to suffer the indignity of stating which fist (the left or the right one) I would prefer to punch me in the face for the next four years, or which of the fringe candidates I would like to head-butt me.
I echo the recommendation of Rick Beato whose YouTube channel is a recent discovery. His interviews with musicians has re-framed my appreciation of certain bands. In particular I now see Stone Temple Pilots in a new light.
I'm starting a watch of the Mad Max franchise, and look forward to this revelation on the abstractive nature of history.
It is for this reason that I claim that President Trump and Charlie Chaplin's Tramp character will merge in the future's version of the past: he will become President Tramp, the orange everyman.
I found the comment on "living tradition" very incisive. Of interest, perhaps, is that the Orthodox Church is founded and continues based on living tradition. There is actually no process for changing dogma in the Church. And trying to find a systematic, "official" dogma is basically impossible. The Church moves in alignment with Tradition. When something is done (by a priest or group) that breaks from the Tradition, it is slowly brought back into conformity with it. The process often takes years, decades, centuries.... Schism is not an uncommon result, but it is treated as a separation in marriage, not a complete break. One priest I know simply says it is "messy" but it remains the Church. It moves in the ebb and flow of history, over long periods of time, and the caricature you describe never does more than poke at it.
Good article. I find the content you provide to be very insightful into the nature of our current Western "civilization".
Honestly, I feel too dumb to comment about your content after looking up many words for their definitions and re-reading for comprehension. All I can say is, your writing is always fascinating and provocative with much for me to learn and new ideas to explore. I realized yesterday, I must be addicted to X as I sat there tweeting and trolling for 12 hours straight getting out my anger and frustration with sarcastic soundbites. Thank you for your brilliant insights, I can certainly up my game!
Please don't think like that. If anything the fault is mine for being a fussy stylist addicted to irony, and also someone who can never resist an aside on a related (or not) subject.
get off of X and read more good stuff like this great post. More than worthwhile
I am addicted to reading this man's work aloud as my elocution practice. I rarely talk to people and find myself tongue-tied, and I choose writers whose prose I love: Aurelian and Sam Kriss (also on Substack).
As usual (and with the now familiar delay...) here an Italian translation:
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/07/la-politica-dellesaurimento-e.html
I'd always wondered about the seeming similarity between ancient Roman imperial cult and the modern PMC "ideologies." The striking thing about the old Roman imperial cult was that nobody took it "seriously," or at least, no one really "believed it." (Least of all, emperors themselves, especially Emperor Vespasian. Who said Roman emeprors, even when they were dying, didn't have a sense of humor!) The imperial cult was a civil ritual that everyone was expected to perform, even if nobody actually believed it, just because. However, it is something that they were (had to be) willing to kill for, unless they could come up with a legalistic excuse (i.e. people who followed a certifiably old religion older than Roman Empire, or whatever). One could easily imagine how flustered Pliny the Younger was when he had to deal with a bunch of newish cultists (the Christians) who were willing to die for seemingly nothing, i.e. the imperial cult rituals that everyone knew was fake. But, once they defied the accepted norms without a good legal reason, they had to die and all that. Very PMC like mentality, I suspect.
This is, in a sense, notably different from the religious persecutions in the later era: crusaders, inquisitors, etc. actually believed in what they professed to, or at least, there was a presumption of serious belief, enough that they had to be willing to die for what (they said) they believed in. In contrast, nobody was willing to die for the Roman emperor, since it was no more real than the DEI or whatever that modern Liberalism preaches. Indeed, modern Liberalism has to claim that these propositions are "natural" because no one really needed to anything to preserve and maintain them, but they would just maintain themselves if leff alone (a sort of invisible hand theory of morality and rights). Not even Romans believed their stories to that extent, I suppose....
"In the end, this inevitably turns into caricature: in the West, we don’t have politics, we have a caricature of politics, a cooperative satire on politics played not by politicians but by actors playing politicians, full of self-referential irony and the cynical and facile manipulation of symbols and slogans from the politics of the past, when words actually did mean something. All we have left now is the politics and culture of exhaustion. Nothing “means” anything any more, everything is endlessly recycled."
Start liking it.
Anyway, I can tell you why Macron and Sunak called the elections when they did. They want the elections to take place before the direct and open intervention in Ukraine takes place, as any election afterwards will be viewed as a referendum on that war.
In other words, now is the zenith of support and popularity for Macron and for Sunak Both will only become more detested going forward.
One thing I always remember about the Party in 1984 is how diverse the inner party membership is--that it didn't subscribe to racism or whatever. But that fits with being non ideological: it takes a set of convictions to be seriously racist, i suppose.
But DEI today is a bit more than that: nobody "really" believes it, but everyone must practice it in order to go places. A bit like the old Roman imperial cult. Nobody believed its tenets, especially not the emperors (Emperor Vespasian in particular--who ssid ancient Romans didn't have sense of humor, especially when they were dying!). But it's worth remembering that refusal to partake
Well written! Regarding ISIS, here is good but brief (there's actually some supporting evidence for its assertions that it doesn't include) argument posted just yesterday regarding their big come up: https://thecradle.co/articles/made-in-america-the-isis-conquest-of-mosul
Never mind the content, agree or not, there are expressions, analogies, counterpoints, contrasts, irony indeed, and well-crafted sentences, never florid, but effulgent.
“The only way to evaluate culture is how well it sells. The only measure of success in politics is power acquired. And you cannot maintain a society on that basis, still less develop it. The result is that caricature has become the normal means of expression because that is all people know how to do.”
Analytically, consider that argument. It’s really a fusillade. Two confident statements as premises, another follows, the conjunctive that synthesizes, but also piles on, then further contention as conclusion…and, as lead in to further, perhaps, lamentation. Aurelien shall require more words to do so, and we shall enjoy it.
Caricature but without the laughters. One of the conditions of humour is to understand proportions. This is possible only if you have a point of reference of values. Impossible in the anything goes as long as I get my individual kicks liberalism of today.
Please don't think like that; I wouldn't want you to change one tiny thing about your writing, which I love. You should see me on X @karenthedamned pointing out spelling mistakes to posts I don't like, lol!
You were doing so well, until you succumbed to temptation and an simplistic straw man by introducing the “glassy-eyed militant vegan”.
It reminds me of a quote I read in some volume of philosophy where the author describes the typical book on the subject as in Part 1 describing the common errors committed in most such works, and in Part 2 going on to perpetrate them. Only you seem to have done it the other way round here. (i.e. from “glassy-eyed militant vegan” to “Typically, though, they could not say where their heterodox views were based on: they got them from somebody who got them from somebody, who …”).
I am not personally a vegan, but the whole subject of carnivory, animal welfare and veganism involves a range of serious problems which should not be dismissed so frivolously and contemptuously, especially nowadays when methane emissions may contribute quite substantially to global warming.
Apart from that slip though, congratulations on an excellent article.
Actually, I wasn't getting at veganism: I would be happy to listen to a reasoned defence of the practice. My point is that increasingly, absolutist, normative moral positions are being taken without any regard to history, or even practicality.
The story of western veganism: the US went from "Christian by default" to "secular by default" during the 1950s and 1960s. In the 70s we instead 1) adopted a bunch of weird pagan beliefs (biorhythms, Kirlian photography) and 2) discovered that people want to think they are doing good in the world. For the latter, people cast about to Eastern religions and to superficially moral activities like veganism. This is how veganism took root in the West. Sure, there are solid reasons for vegetarianism, but the vegan flourish of avoiding "death cooties" has a definite pagan air.
For our non-US readers: a "cootie" is a child's concept of contagion particles.
Adam Curtis' "Can't get you out of my head" documentary profoundly explores the same questions, juxtaposing Traditionalist East vs Liberalist West, with stunning visuals courtesy of the BBC archives, hypnotic narration, and razor sharp commentary. He avoids the pitfalls of everyday politics, and instead delves head down to the core of the matter: the absurdity of the human condition. Highly recommended, in fact his documentaries should be compulsory viewing for every thinking human being particularly in the "Liberal" West. Free on YouTube
Your remarks on Boko Haram are less than accurate
To dismiss Boko as suffering from a kind of subset of the lack of traditional beliefs methods and procedures of modern western industrial society party political practices is absurd – the Boko are the opposite of modern in their ultra traditional beliefs
Boko kidnaps/inducts children for two purposes – it uses boys for many terrorist/guerilla day to day operations, as being anonymous - buying goods, infiltration, messages, planting x,y and z more easily
And for ransom – I believe this started with the Chibok girls, certainly by then Boko realised how to put pressure the US, the real masters/enablers of the corrupt Nigerian state
-and especially to pressure the fake much despised pseudo ‘African’, Obama, very uncertain of his status/standing in Africa, and entirely submissive to the gender wars dictat of his dominant wife
This worked like a dream PR wise – no Freudian pun intended
– but they did not succeed in their goal of luring the US army into the conflict in a bigger way, with all the possibilities of protection, cash and weapons extraction, the killing or kidnap of US personnel that this promised (c.f. Taliban)
Boko does have a serious quarrel with western influenced forms of education – so would Socrates – or anyone living a life in pre modernity, especially pre agriculture
– you suggest the name came from their attacks on schools, the reverse is the case
Your failure to understand this sort of distorted far from mainstream Islam, prevalent throughout large areas in Africa, is the result of your lack of education – it is ridiculous to medicalise this with a normalising Freudian analysis – when it is the result of desperate poverty and the encroachment of modernity on a only just surviving lifestyle
I don't think I said what you think I said. The appellation came before the attacks on schools, as you say, and I didn't intend to imply anything else. As for the ingredients you'll be familiar with the literature on the bizarre mixture of tradition and modernity that characterises militia groups in West Africa. And I don't think BH had much to do with the US, who have always been minor players in the region.
Boko have not only an ideological dispute with the US, as the icon of western decadence, and as the prime example of the enemy of Islam on display in west and central asia, but practical as the dominant western military power in the region
(In this country, for example, overt presence and evident stewardship is handled by the French, but everyone down to the imported Sahel gardiens know that it is the Americans who call the shots, even if the French take the blame: as a Brit this should ring a bell with you)
The strategy of all such groups is to take advantage of the arms armour and cash the US trails behind them
To caracterise the US as a minor player in the region would seem to indicate the presence of major, it would be hard to name any – in any case by their actions Boko ensured the US would become entangled, as was their intention
After the Chibok kidnapping Obama did rea ct by considerably upgrading intervention, over riding previous concerns about Nigerian government corruption
The US may have had in mind to gain other benefits from intervention, but the named cause and purpose were Boko and the girls
He even said he’d take a trip there! He was always talking about going to Africa and always never going
Since when increasing US association and implication with the policies of the Nigerian gvmts, culminating in the Tinubu implant, has ensured swift decline to the current collapsed state conditions
As Boko has continued to expand operations throughout the country
Do you see a correlation or a cause here – I see both