Torgeir,
In regard to your final sentence . . .thanks . . . I think . . .??? . . . J
As to your assessment of cultures and nations, I agree right down to your
paragraph on Brexit. At present I subscribe to the London Review of Books and
the TLS. One of them, or perhaps some other I subscribed to at the time,
invited subscribers to vote on whether Britain should leave the EU or not. I
voted that it should and ever since have followed events as Brexit is being
played out. Yes, you are right in regards to the legality of Britain’s
secession, but in regard to effecting the thing being sought, it seems to be
more elusive than the tenor of your statement implies. . . e.g., you are free
to leave the room. Pay no attention to this gun I have pointed at your back.
I’m probably not going to use it . . . or if I do, I’m probably going to wound
you only and you are sure to recover . . . eventually, albeit in a weaker
condition . . .
Also, since you are discussing nations “from approx. the 18th century,” South
Carolina, did in fact initiate a breaking up of the U.S. into its constituent
states. Our Civil War was fought over slavery, to be sure, but it was more
overtly fought over “states rights,” whether states had the right to secede
from the nation. Nothing in our constitution forbade it at the time, and
nothing forbids it now. It would take, if I remember correctly, a certain
percentage of the states voting for this secession, before it could take place
(something very unlikely to ever happen). I live in California, and there are
serious people attempting to break it up into smaller states. California is
larger, richer, and more powerful than most nations; yet the segments do not
agree with each other. A few cities have the population necessary to keep
California Democratic, but there are more Republicans in California than there
are in any other state in the nation (if I remember correctly). Southern
California (where I live), much of it, resents the power wielded by the
Sacramento/San Francisco region, sometimes called “northern California, a term
resented by true “Northern Californians” who are is as redneck as those living
in Idaho, eastern Oregon or Montana, and thoroughly hate the “leftists”
wielding power in Sacramento. . . If California were permitted to break up
into four or five separate states, the new, predominately Republican states
might very well influence future national elections in a manner the Democratic
power brokers would not appreciate; so there is little chance that the breaking
up of California will ever become a reality – even if most Californians were
for it, which they may be.
Now in regard to your phrase “inherited or acquired characteristics,” we began
as a British colony and “inherited” almost everything, at least to start.
Since then, while we have had disagreements over who had the upper hand, we
have matched the British in almost everything – although there are many who
would say that nowadays, the British are more concerned about matching us. And
as to this “matching” phenomenon, I continue to be amazed at Japan’s “matching”
the U.S.; although I’m sure there are some suspicious of this current
phenomenon pointing out that Japan has a history (in the time period you
mention) of imitating the nations and qualities with the most effectiveness and
power and end up using them for their own ends.
As an overlay to all these matters is the current fact that “liberal democracy”
is the prevalent economic and cultural force in the modern world. Liberal
Democrats largely agree with each other on matters of economics, laws, and
morals.
As to American popular culture, I do not find it as “lovable” as you describe.
I sympathize with the Chinese who find it appalling . . . But yes, I have
“binge watched” many of these series; although I wonder if one can call it an
American phenomenon any longer. I binge-watched the three movies based on
Stieg Larsson’s Millennial novels beginning with The Girl with the Dragon
Tatoo, became thoroughly captivated by Noomi Rapace as apparently many in
Hollywood did as well because she has since become a major Hollywood actress.
The above are just current opinions, which may all be wrong, and which I am not
willing to defend . . .
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 12:46 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Polling and masculinity
Dear Lawrence and all,
It seems we have a shared view to avoid the hottest fires of controversy, so
with this in mind here's some thoughts on nations:
1. When it comes to national characteristics (Americans are like this, the
British like that, the Germans, etc.) we should not too abruptly renounce any
speculation into this. Whether these are inherited or acquired characteristics,
it is possible to find statistical variation (Big Numbers) that are significant
and durable. Let's return to the potential *content*of such structures.
2. There is a long and multifarious tradition of naturalising nations. (Let's
restrict ourselves to nations in the modern sense here, from approx. the 18th
Century, for the sake of clarity.) Thinkers as different as Rousseau, Herder
and Stalin all embraced some version of "national essence." To Rousseau our
(national) character was shaped by the natural conditions of our country, so
that people growing up in a windy country would be stormy, etc. Herder held
that national essences where natural and deep-seated, and not susceptible to be
influenced by events or long-term developments. Stalin, in direct opposition to
Trotsky's internationalism (the idea that communism is only truly actualised
when nations are a thing of the past) held that nations are natural and
inheritable entities, and that each national community had (believe it or not
when we regard Stalin's actual historical practice) a right to
self-determination.
3. No-one would realistically demand that the US were to break up into its
constituent states. Conversely, to Federalists the organisation of the EU is an
internal matter. The major distinction between the US and the EU, however, is
that while the former is a nation-state in the modern sense, only the
federalists seek to establish the EU as the same, modeled on the American
experience. The events in Britain the last few years demonstrates this key
difference: each EU member state is a voluntary member, and there are but few
restrictions on what Americans would call secession. Thus the European debate
isn't on *whether* or not Britain may withdraw, but the *conditions* for such
withdrawal.
One more note: what is lovable about the American national character is the
popular culture it has produced, and particularly its televised mass
entertainment. While bypassing of European broadcasting legislation with
satellite technology in the 1980s no doubt was instrumental in securing the
near-monopoly of a few, dominant vendors, we're more interested in reading the
actual content of these cultural products, and to ask about specifics.
We're watching House of Cards these days. (We're about half way,so no spilers,
please!) What stands out about this TV-drama is it cumulative verisimilitude:
actual newsanchors, encyclopedic adherence to the election cycles, real events
mirrored or alluded to, sets, costumes, you name it. This kind of blending of
fiction with the (news) documentary is genuinely (if not solely) American, and
-- to speculate slightly -- could be due to the low esteem for the high arts on
the continent. Drawing on the more accessible and popular genres of newscast,
romance, melodrama, etc. House of Cards is able to weave together a believable
and highly engrossing serial narrative at least on par with the classical
serial narratives of the Western aesthetic tradition.
Your poetry, Lawrence, stands at odds with this rather rudimentary analysis!
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/> : taking you to who you are ~~
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 15:50, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Torgeir,
I’ve been away from such discussions and so probably can’t put the particular
nuance upon your terms that you intend. However, in regard to your third *, I
would like to make a small comment about the inclinations of “older people,”
being one of them. Someone as old as I am has lived through the second world
war. I was young but precocious at the time, cutting out maps of battles from
newspapers and collecting them in a scrap book. I didn’t at the time and still
don’t understand how the majority of a nation could support Hitler. Were they,
in keeping with Nietzsche’s sister, convinced that Hitler was a charismatic
hero that should be followed simply because such charisma was to be trusted in
difficult times? I don’t know.
Time passes, Germany is once again the most powerful nation in Europe. You
over there next door to Germany believe it is filled with those who knew not
the name of Joseph, that they for the most part grew up not knowing what it was
like to be thrilled by a speech of Hitler or to support him during the war.
Teen-agers perhaps grew up appalled at what their parents had believed, and are
currently seen as a sign. But why now the haste to assemble around what
Europeans are convinced is a kinder, gentler, Germany?
Old people, many of us, remember, that it was Britain along with its former
colonies who stood most effectively in the West against Germany, and this old
man squirmed not a little when he read about EU goings-on. Brexit seemed like
a good idea just in case Hitler redivivus should reappear.
Francis Fukuyama, in a recent interview about his The End of History and the
Last Man, conceded that history may not be ending as quickly as he surmised,
but his “and the Last Man” warning was still valid, It descrived Charismatic
leaders who refused to be like these “last men,” men without chests. Can you
in Europe rule out the idea that some charismatic leader could not in a few
years reawaken a martial spirit in Germany and change the complexion of the EU?
Younger people may be appalled that their parents could revere Hitler, and yet
they appall some older people be revering what seem to be the most bizarre and
inane “rock stars” and cluster in frenetic mobs to shout their praise.
And if that happens, a Rock-Star political leader with charisma to spare
develops a devoted following willing even to go to war if he believed it was
necessary; then Childe Roland might once again put the slughorn to his lips,
call his former colonies together, and to the dark tower go.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 1:04 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Polling and masculinity
Dear Carol, and all,
Thank you for contributing. Gone are the glorious days of yore when Speranza
and Geary would post in consort with yourself to muster up a lit-ideas storm.
Nah, well. You're still here, and that's what matters.
In respect of current events we all are made to look slightly silly when
there's something we obsess about. This state of affairs is exacerbated when we
are put in a situation that's beyond our control.
Consider this scenario: in your quest for freedom you decide to acquire an
automobile. You get behind the wheel, content with the way the stick works,
that the tank is full, etc. Then, as you have been on the road a while, the
vehicle is running on empty, so you stop to fill it up. A bit further ahead the
stick starts to malfunction, and you can only use some of the gears. Soon your
wheel isn't working as smoothly as it used to, making it more tiresome for you
to make turns and drive responsibly.
Now, all things considered, have you not now arrived at a situation when you
have the sense that it is no longer you who is driving the car, but the car
that's driving you? This is the impression we get of Basil; he's no longer
running or driving his hotel, but is driven by it. It makes him act
erratically, as it might with any of is in a similar situation.
Now as to the question of dim-wittedness, would you be OK with looking at some
polling figures? As a snap-election is approaching Ipsos Mori has polled the
Brits with regard to their preference correlated to social background and
previous voting behaviour. There are some interesting finds, such as
* the Brexit question cuts across all other divisions, making it more likely
that how a specific candidate is perceived to approach this question decides
the outcome of their voting preference;
* support for the Conservatives has surged considerably since the new PM took
office;
* older people, men, working-class and non-working people are far more likely
to support the Brexit party;
* home-owners, leave-supporters, people without formal qualifications, and the
elderly are more likely to support the Conservatives.
This correlates well with voting preferences in e.g. Norway, where
small-business owners, men, people with little education, and the elderly are
far more likely to support the far-right party, while women, public-sector
employees, well-educated, and young people tend to support parties on the Left.
Without delving too much into speculation we are still allowed to wonder what
the larger economic shifts will do to the demographics that parties on the Left
have relied upon thus far. Is is stupidity that leaves people without
employment, without the opportunity to get formal, higher education, and that
enables people to live longer than we used to in the past, or are the
underlying causes substantial shifts in the organisation of the private sector,
the inability of the public sector to resolve the tasks it has shouldered, and
an ongoing and escalating rupture in structured perceptions of social
relations?
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/> : taking you to who you are ~~
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virusfri.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
www.avg.com
