Democracy as Spectacle

[kallipolis]

Have I suggested that? That is a very strong and very foolish claim.
I have called him a liar because he is one.


He can defend himself. If he dares.

I am sure that he will dare.

 

[ThreeCrows]

OK, what are you wiling to bet? Because "cowardice" is in his nature. And I am sure that you will lose. Easy win for me.

 

[kallipolis]

OK, what are you wiling to bet? Because "cowardice" is in his nature. And I am sure that you will lose. Easy win for me.

I am not a betting man, thus will lose nothing by not betting.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'll stop right here before I read any of the responses that come after this post.

Henry Giroux's subtleness of expression can lull one into a false sense of security when believing that he is above the cruel rancour that so often masquerades as well considered opinion on JUB forums.

You still have my attention:

Moreover it could also be said that Giroux's appeal may be discovered in his (deceptive) manner of appearing to be objective, whereas his agenda is patently calculated to attract the more sophisticated anti Republican reader, (note: I have not said Democratic Party supporter)

Doesn't matter, I'm personally looking for quality of discussion here, not quantity....

in search of a writer whose compositions appeal to their political outlook, and appear not to be divisive, rather pragmatic in their appeal to the reasonable, and moderate observer seeking consensus across the political spectrum.

Please go on...

Much can be said, and has been said of the obsessive, and highly defensive posters who spend so much time on these forums ridiculing those whom they deem worthy of their vitriolic displays of cruel rhetoric designed to humiliate those who attract their disfavour. We know who they are. I ignore them. I also appreciate that particular personality conditions are only too evident.

And I'm saying, by even presenting this essay for discussion, is that perhaps there's more to it then seems obvious on the surface.

As evidenced by some of the posts here, construct and myself have still been trying to determine exactly which point that you''ve been trying make here.

I truly appreciate and respect the perspective that you share based upon the literature that you've read, the films that you've viewed, and the places that you lived, not to mention your appreciation for the history which enabled those stories to be told, and the art that came out of it, and why you appreciated living there.

So are you dismissing Giroux out of hand because of your knowledge of him as writer, or me for taking stock in what he had to say in one of his essays?

I'm willing to accept either.

I'm not taking any of this personally.

Giroux's words, in the essay that I linked to resonated with me.

Many of the responses, including yours have resonated with me as well.

I just don't know!

I'm trying to put some things into a context which my country, and it's media, and it's political parties, and it's apparent "mainstream religion" are attempting to capitalize on into a more compassionate perspective that maybe I can do something about changing.

If not through a crowd of people, but perhaps one individual at a time.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm truly enjoying the discussion in this thread thus far: True, honest opinions, perspectives, and what helped to shape them.

Thanks to each of you who've sincerely contributed so far.

So now I'll go back to reading the rest of the posts...

 

[Centexfarmer]

Laika is young, inexperienced and passionate in defence of his political allegiances. His experiences here acts as a good teacher for all that he should not being doing, and what he needs to do. I also post here for this reason.

Experience teaches all of us that none is flawed.

I hope that Laika continues to post here with as much enthusiasm as he can muster to support his beliefs.

I agree, and it's been no secret amongst myself as a member, and as a moderator that he needs to bring just a little more; even if it's as something simple as an original thought on his part.

Maybe he's just not capable of articulating, just yet, what that original thought might be, or he's just parroting what his environment is telling him what the "truth" is and he's just reacting to those who are in opposition to his truth.

Either way I "think" that I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt (both as a member and as a moderator of this forum) over others.

I would dread to think that this forum would be reduced to a gaggle of left wing obsessed, fanatics dedicated to ridiculing all and every body who dares to abuse their sense of importance as the oracles of all truth.

Me too!

And as someone who's helped to moderate this forum for going on nearly four years now, I've made more friends outside of JUB with the so called "conservatives" of this forum than I have with any of the so called liberals.

As a moderator I get more HATE comments, and PM's because apparently I allow certain individuals to even post here, much less to even allow to exist here.

And what's FUNNY, is that I get those comments from both sides.

But my Friends, the people that I've actually met through this forum, and JUB as a whole, and who I've been able to "rub elbows" with over a pitcher of beer in person, we're not as far apart politically as we present ourselves as being here in CE&P.

Do I think that some of them are still misguided and ill informed?

No more than they think that I am, still doesn't mean that we can't be friends.

And they feel the same way, which is why we're friends.

But the whole "us v them" gets really old after awhile.

It's all "chorus, chorus, chorus."

How can one mix a dance remix to that?

BORING!

Not to mention repetitive.

For me what truly matters in a Democracy is that we can speak all of the platitudes that we want, but what truly matters is how we vote (if some even bother to do so at all), and then whether or not we're voting for equality for all, our out fear of the "other."

Fear is the mind killer. ~Frank Herbert

 

[evanrick]

when people injuring themselves is a form of entertainment (Americas funniest home videos)
and violence is deemed more acceptable than sexuality
(video games)
clearly we live in a warped culture.

 

[Kulindahr]

I decided to skip quoting anyone and go to a point I consider serious:

the cruelty in American culture has always been here, and it came with the Puritans and other early religious settlers. Even de Toqueville described them as cold and harsh, with archaic practices.


But as long as the churches in the U.S. were in the main interested in the Gospel and spreading it, the cruelty stayed low-key. Then triumphalism got spliced into evangelicalism, and the attitude of outsiders as "them" more than as people God commanded to love on came to the fore. With the Old Testament as source of justification, "Christians" took on war as a metaphor, not just in the sense of the spiritual battle of "Onward Christian Soldiers" but of temporal power.

With one of the main strands bringing compassion to America flipped, that cruelty is becoming common isn't at all surprising.

 

[construct]

I decided to skip quoting anyone and go to a point I consider serious:

the cruelty in American culture has always been here, and it came with the Puritans and other early religious settlers. Even de Toqueville described them as cold and harsh, with archaic practices.


But as long as the churches in the U.S. were in the main interested in the Gospel and spreading it, the cruelty stayed low-key. Then triumphalism got spliced into evangelicalism, and the attitude of outsiders as "them" more than as people God commanded to love on came to the fore. With the Old Testament as source of justification, "Christians" took on war as a metaphor, not just in the sense of the spiritual battle of "Onward Christian Soldiers" but of temporal power.

With one of the main strands bringing compassion to America flipped, that cruelty is becoming common isn't at all surprising.

When do you think that change in attitude and rhetoric occurred, and do you think it remains in place by and large in American churches today?

Are American churches (or American Christianity in a more general sense) propagating this culture of cruelty or have they simply become infected with it? Whether they intentionally infected themselves or just caught the infection may or may not be material, but that also might be an interesting inquiry.

I guess the preaching in the churches has some impact. One poll I noticed reported weekly church attendance at about 40% which is what I would have guessed. How much of that is in churches that embrace this attitude and rhetoric? I don't know. What's your guess?

 

[zoltanspawn]

What sort of annoys me about Giroux's article (aside from an overuse of the word pedagogy ) is the sense that there's something especially terrible about the particular cruelties of America at this moment. I agree they are pretty shitty, but then again isn't that the nature of cruelty?

When he writes lines like, "Underlying the culture of cruelty that reached its apogee during the Bush administration..." I recollect certain other eras of American cruelty by which even the present day compares favorably. Apogee? Is it really?

And then, not simply in time, but across geography isn't cruelty only common? Consider the recent internal history of, oh I don't know, Liberia for example and I'm rather pleased with America's gentler version of violence. We must look only to Italy or the Ukraine within this thread for plenty of evidence that cruelty is banal, hardly to farflung locales like ancient Babylon or the middle ages.

I'm sure that sounds like I'm dismissive of the problems he raises. I'm not. I find the political problems in particular he identifies very compelling. But I dislike the posture that our cruelties are notable. When cruelty is unfortunately everyday and everywhere. Perhaps it's the problem that seems a bit abused to me??

 

[Telstra]

when people injuring themselves is a form of entertainment (Americas funniest home videos)
and violence is deemed more acceptable than sexuality
(video games)
clearly we live in a warped culture.

I don't find people getting hurt funny.
Maybe they put laughing sound on top.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I don't find people getting hurt funny.
Maybe they put laughing sound on top.

Over on the hot topics favorite quotes thread, I just included one of mine from Mel Brooks:

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."

People getting hurt is eminently funny.

 

[kallipolis]

As evidenced by some of the posts here, construct and myself have still been trying to determine exactly which point that you''ve been trying make here.

So are you dismissing Giroux out of hand because of your knowledge of him as writer, or me for taking stock in what he had to say in one of his essays?

I will repeat my words:

I am always impressed, even enthralled by Henry Giroux's well presented opinions but also feel uncomfortable with his easy attempts to divide Americans between them, and us in order to justify his belief that he has a monopoly on all the right remedies that will resolve the problems currently besetting America.

I will quote just a few pertinent words, from Mr. Giroux in order to further illustrate my thoughts:

"In an alleged democracy, the image of the public sphere with its appeal to dialogue and shared responsibility has given way to the spectacle of unbridled intolerance, ignorance, seething private fears, unchecked anger, along with the decoupling of reason from freedom. … What this decline in civility, the emergence of mob behavior …suggests is that we have become one of the most illiterate nations on the planet. I don't mean illiterate in the sense of not being able to read … The new illiteracy is about more than learning how to read the book or the word; it is about learning how not to read the world. … As a result of this widespread illiteracy that has come to dominate American culture we have moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting, and in doing so have restaged politics and power in both unproductive and anti-democratic ways."

These words accurately demonstrate the culture that exists on this forum; a microcosm of reality in wider America. In this sense you, and I agree that there is a level of ignorance permeating the American political arena.

One my might say Rupert Murdoch's farm yard politics has taken grip in America, as much on the left as on the right, or even the moderate centre which feels oppressed and also perceives a need to be heard above the grunts, groans and elevated shrill that today passes for political discourse.

Henry Giroux ignores the fact that such ignorance is not confined to the right, but is as apparent on the left as this forum evidences only too well.

My dilemma with Mr. Giroux's fine opinions is his easy willingness to judge the right, guilty as charged but ignore those on the radicalised left who imitate the extremist rants, and raves that so often pass for educated opinion from right wing pundits viz. Glenn Beck.

Henry Giroux has written, "this is a war waged by liberals, conservatives, corporate interests, and religious fundamentalists."

The French, and Russian revolutions illustrate how easy it is to judge, guilty those whom Giroux conveniently packages into guilty parties.

The them, and us syndrome is a dangerous route that inevitably creates a demarcation between them, and us. I reject such easy, and simplistic definitions that appeal to the revolutionary fervour of change by those motivated by an agenda that we should all embrace to satisfy our intellectual masters who believe that they possess all the right answers.

If life were so simple, then......................

 

[ThreeCrows]

I am sure that he will dare.

Still sure about that?

 

[Centexfarmer]

I will repeat my words:

I am always impressed, even enthralled by Henry Giroux's well presented opinions but also feel uncomfortable with his easy attempts to divide Americans between them, and us in order to justify his belief that he has a monopoly on all the right remedies that will resolve the problems currently besetting America.

I suppose that I was drawn to the fact that someone, anyone was pointing out the "us" v. "them" paradigm first, and then acknowledged "culture of cruelty" aspect after the fact.

I see where you're coming from though.

You seem to be taking a much more broader perspective of the whole than I was when I first read this essay.

I will quote just a few pertinent words, from Mr. Giroux in order to further illustrate my thoughts:

"In an alleged democracy, the image of the public sphere with its appeal to dialogue and shared responsibility has given way to the spectacle of unbridled intolerance, ignorance, seething private fears, unchecked anger, along with the decoupling of reason from freedom. … What this decline in civility, the emergence of mob behavior …suggests is that we have become one of the most illiterate nations on the planet. I don't mean illiterate in the sense of not being able to read … The new illiteracy is about more than learning how to read the book or the word; it is about learning how not to read the world. … As a result of this widespread illiteracy that has come to dominate American culture we have moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting, and in doing so have restaged politics and power in both unproductive and anti-democratic ways."

These words accurately demonstrate the culture that exists on this forum; a microcosm of reality in wider America.

My personal "microcosm of reality" (even as a Moderator of this forum) isn't necessarily formed, or informed by what's posted here.

What I do see posted here, seems counter to what my friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors see and hear, and read every day outside of this "microcosm."

And Giroux spoke to that, as it appears some of the posters in this forum tend to do from time to time.

In this sense you, and I agree that there is a level of ignorance permeating the American political arena.

Not only that, but a complete and utter intolerence for any views that are perceived as a threat, and are therefore answered with cruelty as well.

So I'm not claiming that the "culture of cruelty" is indemic to one particular "side" but a part of American Culture and our Politics as a whole.

One my might say Rupert Murdoch's farm yard politics has taken grip in America, as much on the left as on the right, or even the moderate centre which feels oppressed and also perceives a need to be heard above the grunts, groans and elevated shrill that today passes for political discourse.

Henry Giroux ignores the fact that such ignorance is not confined to the right, but is as apparent on the left as this forum evidences only too well.

And once again we agree.

My dilemma with Mr. Giroux's fine opinions is his easy willingness to judge the right, guilty as charged but ignore those on the radicalised left who imitate the extremist rants, and raves that so often pass for educated opinion from right wing pundits viz. Glenn Beck.

I see where you're going with this, and that's part of the whole reason WHY I wanted to share Giroux's essay here.

But like I stated previously in this post, I don't see ANYONE on the "conservative" side actually making his argument.

In fact, because the "right" isn't pointing this paradigm out, it only gives creedance to those on the left who make such claims.

I viewed this essay as a response by Giroux to point out a part of what's become wrong with what is considered as "debate" or "public discourse" in America, and by extension gives the most polarizing views more attention, and comment, as opposed to what actually constitutes compassionate or rationale dialogue toward dealing with the issues that truly need to be dealt with here in America.

"If it bleeds it leads, even if we're the one's who have to draw first blood!"

Let's admit it, that's effed up!

So if you're making the observation that you feel that Giroux was doing the same thing with publishing this essay, I can see where you're coming from.

Henry Giroux has written, "this is a war waged by liberals, conservatives, corporate interests, and religious fundamentalists."

The French, and Russian revolutions illustrate how easy it is to judge, guilty those whom Giroux conveniently packages into guilty parties.

But he fails to mention in the same mindset "guilty parties" of the Spanish and Italian Fascists, the "Socialism" of Depression Era Germany, the Khmer Rouge of post U.S involvement in Vietnam.

Or would those comparisons be too extreme, and therefore detract from the atrocities that were committed under "all of the above?"

History show's (and I'm sure that you'll agree) that extremes, left un-checked, usually results in suffering, misery, and death for millions of people.

As an American, I'm not hearing anyone on the right acknowledging that fact, except maybe Glenn Beck who seems to be making the argument that if they don't listen to him that the Socialists, Trade Unionists, and Liberals, are going to be coming after everyone while images of Hitler's Nuremburg play on the green screen behind him.

The them, and us syndrome is a dangerous route that inevitably creates a demarcation between them, and us. I reject such easy, and simplistic definitions that appeal to the revolutionary fervour of change by those motivated by an agenda that we should all embrace to satisfy our intellectual masters who believe that they possess all the right answers.

If life were so simple, then......................

The problem that I see is that American candidates who either come forward, or who are chosen for ideological reasons to run to represent us, are neither "intellectual" or even truly "educated" for that matter.

I can only make a judgement call at some point as who is pointing toward an area of discussion that perhaps many of us haven't considered yet.

If we find a flaw in it, then I think that we should be discussing it.

If you're finding a flaw as a comparison to what's posted in this forum, then please forgive me, because that's not where I was attempting to go with this.

In my personal experience, my late Grandfather always told me, "If we don't stand for something, then we'll fall for anything."

I'm not sharing any of this for the purpose of sharing what I stand for, or to extract from others how they view this essay written by Giroux's, but rather attempting to illuminate; to put a light upon some of the hows and whys that might be influencing our perspectives without even being aware of it.

We can always make comparisons (in my view), and we can point out some that are less or more evil than others.

I'm just afraid that we might have gotten to a place where it's easier to "slay the messenger" than it is to pay attention to anything that the message had to say, or to even question the message that's being presented to us.

As what usually happens in this forum, the majority seems to have already determined who's for us, and who's against us based upon either the letter D or R in front of their names, or are to quickly dismiss the "source" because they already see a bias/agenda from the link that was provided (the messenger) without giving the proposed topic/discussion any further merit.

I didn't do that here.

I presented an essay, from what amounts to a blog, because I first saw this essay on truthout.org, and for some reason it wasn't there anymore.

I wanted to share it, and to see if those within this forum could actually discuss something in an in-depth conversation, and so far I haven't been disappointed.

 

[Kulindahr]

When do you think that change in attitude and rhetoric occurred, and do you think it remains in place by and large in American churches today?

I'd say it began about the time of the "Moral Majority", an exercise in self-righteousness that started painting the Christian/non-Christian divide in Old Testament terms, as Israel/Philistines. A standard image for dealing with "the world" became "bringing down the walls of Jericho" -- a very adversarial picture with no room for mercy.

Are American churches (or American Christianity in a more general sense) propagating this culture of cruelty or have they simply become infected with it? Whether they intentionally infected themselves or just caught the infection may or may not be material, but that also might be an interesting inquiry.

Interesting question. The formation of the Moral Majority was in response to perceived persecution, which in some cases was admittedly quite real, but in most ways was the uncaring/disinterested working out of the implications of the Constitution. But whether or not they were infected with it, they have been enthusiastically and energetically propagating it. Hagee's notion that God "raised up" the Nazis as "hunters" to get the Jews back to their ancient homeland is an example of how the notion of "us" v "them" gets fed, intentionally or otherwise, by painting it as okay to use violence to accomplish "God's work", and it also contributes to ignoring the New Testament (love, mercy) in favor of the Old, giving a sort of imprimatur to talk of stoning and even burning "sinners".
So venturing into politics becomes "warfare", leaving no room for compromise of course, and all the attitudes of war get employed.

To go 'way back, though, a case could be made that this cruel streak is the fault of churches from the beginning, with the stark, cold, and even cruel attitudes of the Puritans (however much they may have protested that the theory was love), who brought to these shores the attitudes of the Spanish Inquisition.

I guess the preaching in the churches has some impact. One poll I noticed reported weekly church attendance at about 40% which is what I would have guessed. How much of that is in churches that embrace this attitude and rhetoric? I don't know. What's your guess?

Churches overall.... not gonna venture a guess. "Evangelical" churches, I'd guess between 3/5 and 3/4. Then there are the Roman Catholics and Mormons, neither with a historical record of mercy and compassion; they may not preach it from the pulpit so much, but they have bishops and archbishops who fan the flames with gusto.

 

[construct]

Churches overall.... not gonna venture a guess. "Evangelical" churches, I'd guess between 3/5 and 3/4. Then there are the Roman Catholics and Mormons, neither with a historical record of mercy and compassion; they may not preach it from the pulpit so much, but they have bishops and archbishops who fan the flames with gusto.

Thank you. The rest of your post confirms what I was thinking as I read your earlier contribution, and it fleshes it out with greater nuance than I would have.

In my own mind, I included the Catholics but excluded the Mormons. Mormons call their places of worships 'churches' so I guess we'll count them. And I guess we'll count the Unitarians, too. But the influence of preaching was the issue I was getting at. I don't think the preaching of churches leftward from evangelicalism typically employ this rhetoric of cruelty. Catholic preaching probably doesn't either.

I'm not sure how much weight to place on the pronouncements of bishops or the resolutions of conventions because the preaching (and the liturgy more broadly) is where people have their primary experience of church. They are important as public documents and might be viewed as marching orders, white papers, or position statements, so their effect is less ephemeral, but how much do parishioners really pay attention to them?

That brought me to thinking about whether the rhetoric of preaching, taken as a whole, incites or merely supports the callousness Giroux (and the rest or us, too, I guess) is blaming for our severe political policies.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you. The rest of your post confirms what I was thinking as I read your earlier contribution, and it fleshes it out with greater nuance than I would have.

In my own mind, I included the Catholics but excluded the Mormons. Mormons call their places of worships 'churches' so I guess we'll count them. And I guess we'll count the Unitarians, too. But the influence of preaching was the issue I was getting at. I don't think the preaching of churches leftward from evangelicalism typically employ this rhetoric of cruelty. Catholic preaching probably doesn't either.

I'm not sure how much weight to place on the pronouncements of bishops or the resolutions of conventions because the preaching (and the liturgy more broadly) is where people have their primary experience of church. They are important as public documents and might be viewed as marching orders, white papers, or position statements, so their effect is less ephemeral, but how much do parishioners really pay attention to them?

That brought me to thinking about whether the rhetoric of preaching, taken as a whole, incites or merely supports the callousness Giroux (and the rest or us, too, I guess) is blaming for our severe political policies.

If we include printed material as preaching, Catholics and Mormons get it, too. They aren't likely to get it in church, but the mail and e-mail material can be just as bad as anything I've seen from "evangelicals". Of course, when you get Catholic or Mormon movement leaders endorsing Bachman and praising Perry, and urging their people to support that prayer thing in Texas, they may as well be evangelicals.

How many are they? I have no idea.

 

[construct]

If we include printed material as preaching, Catholics and Mormons get it, too. They aren't likely to get it in church, but the mail and e-mail material can be just as bad as anything I've seen from "evangelicals". Of course, when you get Catholic or Mormon movement leaders endorsing Bachman and praising Perry, and urging their people to support that prayer thing in Texas, they may as well be evangelicals.

How many are they? I have no idea.

Well, yeah. The Mormons might as well be evangelicals.

But I'll tell you one thing. I doubt the Episcopalians are going to be much impressed with that prayer thing, nor a lot of Methodists or Presbyterians or Disciples either.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, yeah. The Mormons might as well be evangelicals.

But I'll tell you one thing. I doubt the Episcopalians are going to be much impressed with that prayer thing, nor a lot of Methodists or Presbyterians or Disciples either.

Ironically, this crowd is the "offspring" of the folks who used to condemn the above people for acting as though the Kingdom of God could come by social action.

 

[ChickenGuy]

This is an interesting discussion, and I only wish that I understood it better. I'm afraid that some of it goes too much over my head for me to comprehend.

Observations/questions....

We know that in other parts of the world there are atrocities on a far worse scale than those we have in the West. I'm thinking of the horrific things that happen in places like the tribal wars in Rwanda and Congo where mass genocide took place.

But then you notice that sometimes it can surface in places you don't expect - for example, the ethnic cleansing involving Serbs/Bosnians/Albanians in the former Yugoslavia, or the violent gang murders amongst drug cartels in Mexico.

If you take the United States, you have to go into the past to see widespread and numerous instances of violence by ordinary members of the public, for example, the lynching mobs in the South, or before that the witchcraft fears and the burnings at the stake.

Now even in the most homophobic parts of America, we would never see a situation at present or in future where gays would be hung in the streets or kicked to death by crowds. Yes, individuals or very small groups can still be guilty of crimes, but not the mainstream populace.

Some JUBbers suggest that there may be a return to increased violence, a 'de-evolving' of some of us when those groups are exposed to sustained fearmongering and extreme religious prejudice. Whilst I don't deny that these practices take place, I don't see it translating into increased attacks and crimes. Quite the opposite is happening, as I understand it.

Am I wrong? Aside from the 'standard' religious indoctrination, what mental conditioning could possibly occur beyond what is already happening that could possibly result in the removal of human conscience and empathy on a mass scale?