More Culture Wars
Mark Schmitt makes the important point that even though lots of people express similar-sounding disquiet with the direction of popular culture, it's not clear that all this discontent is actually about the same stuff. You've got some PBS-types on the left who are fundamentally bothered by how lowbrow it all is who at the end of the day make odd bedfellows with the sorts of people Mark cites as being most upset by the fact that television programs will portray openly gay characters sympathetically.
And one could imagine other problems. I've been listening a lot lately to the new Sleater-Kinney album (on which see this excellent Tim Cavanaugh post). One song on it, "Entertain" contains some lyrics that, when you listen to them, are politically charges in a way that I don't think is literally defensible. As a general matter, that's fine. I'm a professional political journalist. The claims I make should be literally defensible and ought to be subject to that kind of scrutiny. Rock songs aren't like that. But when political scutiny of pop culture intersects with the rightwinge culture of victimization all of a sudden you've got a situation where I can't think "I.O.U." is a good song unless I'm prepared to back up the claim that American bombs are typically aimed at 10 year-old girls who mistake them for shooting stars.
I generally come down on the strategic side of the argument, but I think the point is valid that we should not be ambivilent about this. If it is a concern for voters, it should be something our position is clear on, even if it is something as mushy as "I am not a fan of my youngest watching wanton violence on TV, but I do not think the government has the ability to regulate this effectively at this point. My opponents would like a government employee..." blah blah.
Strategicicaly we should also be pushing the true message that the kids are alright, and that the driving force behind the (R)'s positions are moralizing busy bodies who want to tell you what is acceptable for you to watch.
June 10, 2005 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I'm with you -- that is to say, totally mystified by those on the other side of this argument.
Your faux-speech had it just right: politicians should emphasize that they will seek solutions to the material problems that face families -- child care, family leave, health care, control over technology, etc. That's the political response to spiritual or moral problems -- make it easier for citizens to solve them. Politicians can't solve them, and they only fuck things up when they try.
I find those claiming otherwise just incredibly condescending.
By the way, those looking for some spiritual uplift in their music should check out the latter half of John Legend's album, Get Lifted. It's brilliant. Of course, the former half is brilliant too, but that's more about temptation and turpitude.
June 10, 2005 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see why we should cede the idea of decency, as it is profoundly oriented towards the public good and the social commons.
There is a real, if subtle, difference between defending Robert Mapplethorpe's right to put naked gay dudes in a painting and have it be recognized as art, and the "right" of network TV to show a closeup of some girl's boobs in a hot tub. It's not just highbrow vs. lowbrow, it's the forum and the prevalence. But I don't think that Mapplethorpe's work necessarily deserves airing on the most public of all fora - especially now, when you can get content from anywhere you like. We don't have to ally ourselves with the prudes just to push for decency. And there is definitely a disconnect between closely regulating behavior at work, but being unwilling to even touch certain kinds of public expression.
Sleater-Kinney should continue to say whatever they want in songs. But if they're gonna talk about things that kids aren't ready for, we support parents in their efforts to keep the songs away from kids until they are ready for it.
June 10, 2005 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are the lyrics in "Entertain" that you don't find literally defensible? I can see you saying that about some of the more accusatory songs off of "One Beat" like "Faraway" ("And the president hides") or "Combat Rock" ("Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same").
If anything, I find "Entertain" more defensible because most of the lyrics are mocking others through sarcastic hyperbole ("We can drown in mediocrity, it feels sublime") or self-deprecation ("Give it to me easily, my feeble mind needs time") instead of making direct accusations and the few they make are oblique ("Truth is truer these days, truth is man-made").
To what are you referring? "Look around they are lying to you / Can't you see it's just a silly ruse?" "Nostalgia, you're using it like a whore"?
June 10, 2005 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I understand the logic here, but just to bring this full circle back to my original post: you force me to confess that I'm raising perhaps the most dedicated 4-year-old Sleater-Kinney fan on the East Coast. (Although she prefers "All Hands on the Bad One" and "The Hot Rock" to "The Woods"). Am I a bad parent?
June 10, 2005 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be leary of attaching a strict political reading to Sleater-Kinney (excpet for the obvious political songs on One Beat). "Entertain," like so many S-K songs, seems more about being in a band -- in particular, being Sleater-Kinney -- than just criticizing pop culture. I think they can get away with what may sound like high-brow eliticism because they're not just complaining about how crappy rock music is. They're doing something about it: creating their own. And doing a fine job of it too. Maybe if more conservatives would invest a little more time in creating their own outlets of pop culture, they wouldn't see the need to get so exercised every time they find something morally offensive.
June 11, 2005 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink