...and here I go probably breaking all copyright laws: but while reading "The Uses of Disorder" by Joe Scanlan on Felix Gonzalez Torres in the latest issue of Art Forum, I ran into this paragraph, and the words resonated with me. Joe Scanlan is an artist who has been recently appointed to the directorship of the School of Visual Arts in Princeton after teaching at Yale for eight years, and no doubt stands way to the left of me on the political spectrum. Yet the words I copy (probably illegally) below rang a clear bell when I first read them. Having re-read them, they no longer all make sense; but the feeling I first got from reading them compelled me to copy them here, as if doing so were a written form of incantation that would dispel their reality. I must point out that in so doing, I am unfortunately doing Scanlon's article a disservice by pulling out this one paragraph and presenting it totally out of context; after all, the article is about art and about the work of one particular artist, and it is a great read well worth one's time.
...The problem with this contemporary moral rubric is that it institutionalizes unequal burdens of responsibility for entities of unequal means. Since the election of Ronald Reagan ----oh yeah the big bad Ronald Reagan-- here is one of many points of disagreement, since I think you can trace hypocrisy and power plays to way before Ronald Reagan, I dare say even to FDR, to use a democratic example, or any president before him; but I digress proper behavior has been encouraged in the masses (if not legislated)- ok, I hate the use of the words "the masses", it carries so much baggage that long ago stopped making sense to me- but I am older than Scanlan, though old Marxists do keep on existing--- ok here goes: encouraged to a far greater degree than it has been in the ruling class, reinforcing a neo-Calvinist ethic in which power naturally remains with a chosen few. The only way the weaker entities can gain legitimate access to power is by demonstrating the proper moral discipline, after which morality and its attendant virtues--trust, loyalty, patriotism, faith-- become relative. We need only look at the military's "Don't ask, don't Tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve provided they keep their sexuality to themselves though, to tell the truth, the military elite is trying to change that, but after my hearing of a sampling of what enlisted marines had to say about it, I'm not sure who exactly it was that the policy was enacted to appease; but I digress once more; or the BAPCPA law of 2005, in which individual access to bankruptcy protection was made much more difficult while credit card solicitation and predatory lending were left unchecked; or the fact that a shrinking job market and even more ruinous public education ah yes this is where the words start making sense system tacitly produce a permanent underclass of citizens for whom "voluntary" military service is the most viable economic option, provided they don't get killed in one of our equally permanent wars. (p. 166 Art Forum, February 2010)
Ok, the words don't resonate in their totality; but the feeling does: ah my contradictory soul.... I don't see the world through Scanlan's totally Marxist glasses--- but yeah, our ruinous public education system does keep an enormous underclass in place. An underclass that no longer has manufacturing jobs to go to. An underclass for whom military service, which despite Scanlan's inflection, is voluntary, though might be attractive only because it is one of the best options in a set of very limited options. Options made thus limited by, yes, our terrible and entrenched education system. What, as a naturalized and not soil-born citizen, annoys me most about all this, is the hubris Americans exhibit to the world when at its very fundamental core, the system is so rotten.
...This kind of thinking coming, always, from above- in this case from a person who has taught/teaches in two of the most elite schools in the world...
...Does change come from above or from below? ...I suppose the kind of great institutional change I'm thinking of just "is". It occurs, when and if it ever does, without any predetermined path, from above or from below, for good or not, and with no one group being able to effect it... These continue to be interesting times, if not the best of times for most...
...This kind of thinking coming, always, from above- in this case from a person who has taught/teaches in two of the most elite schools in the world...
...Does change come from above or from below? ...I suppose the kind of great institutional change I'm thinking of just "is". It occurs, when and if it ever does, without any predetermined path, from above or from below, for good or not, and with no one group being able to effect it... These continue to be interesting times, if not the best of times for most...
Since I'm in a commenting mood, I thought I'd drop a comment on this post too. I wonder about your comment that this kind of thinking comes from above, from a person who teaches at elite schools. How can one expect the poorly educated "masses" to think of things on this level? Doesn't this kind of philosophical/political debate on grand scales typically come with advanced education? I suppose that's why idiotic tea-partiers think college professors and other liberals are "elitist." I think they are simply in a better position to consider some of these issues, and therefore often have a more sophisticated point of view. I think there is a certain amount of guilt involved when people who have had the best education begin to realize how many people don't have access, and don't have the natural ability to learn. That guilt can be very vaulable when it takes the form of caring for ignorant "masses" who might make bad decisions for themselves without guidance from "above." To whom much is given, much is expected. With great privelege comes great responsibility, and so on.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, I am substantially more liberal than when I was at school :)