Lovely weather we're having: How small-talk masks social injustice

"It's set to rain the next few days"
"gonna be a good sunny weekend for the cricket"
"let's hope it stays dry for Wimbledon"

Safe Topics of Conversation:

These are all examples of interactions that are socially unproblematic. Any combination of citizens thrown together, can talk about the weather without risking political confrontation. One does not have to worry about insulting anyone. There is no danger of being exposed as a snob, a bourgeois, a toff, a bigot, an elitist, a racist, an ignorant, a fool, a philosopher, a psychoanalyst, a Conservative, a Liberal, a fascist or Marxist.

In short: YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER.

So when you come across a culture which falls into meteorological rhetoric at any given opportunity, you know that you are amongst a society that is inherently classist. 

A society that imposes a taboo on talking politics, does so for one good reason: In order that, in true Orwellian style, the oppressed masses are pacified and not stirred to revolt.

The Fine Art of Democracy

Picasso famously said that 'every act of creation is first an act of destruction'. Because to create something means not settling for what is currently held to be right. Innovation will upset the status quo, in the quest for truth.

There is however a delicate dialectical relationship between tradition and innovation. Picasso respected tradition, but knew that to honour the tradition of fine art, he must continue to show that it can progress and have meaning going forward. As soon as one period of cultural tradition is canonised as the definitive model, then the aesthetic loses its status as art, and becomes a political tool or a sentimental cliché of a bygone Era.

When conservative tradition totally denies innovation, the relationship stops being self-regulating and becomes hijacked for political means. To insist that 'Progress stops here!' is the beginning of the end. It is an issue that postmodernism grapples with, when considering where we are going in the world.

The 1980s epitomised much of what postmodernism feared about mainstream global politics. Had we not learned the dangers of fascism? Norman Tebbit, it seemed, had not:

"Bad art was as good as good art. Grammar and spelling were no longer important. To be clean was no better than to be filthy. Good manners were no better than bad. Family life was derided as an outdated bourgeois concept. Criminals deserved as much sympathy as their victims. Many homes and classrooms became disorderly - if there was no right nor wrong there could be no bases for punishment or reward. Violence and soft pornography became accepted in the media. Thus was sown the wind; and we are now reaping the whirlwind."

Norman Tebbit. 1985. Lecture.

Mr Tebbit suggests that any art that disagrees with his conservative taste, should be branded bad by all. This kind of state imposed nationalism would lead to a dictatorship. Moreover, Lord Tebbit seems to forget that his government's greedy privatisation of state institutions, and deregulation of corporate capitalism, is what eroded society's sense of identity and sense of dignity in the first place. No wonder people are not 'behaving' themselves in the Victorian sense of the word. If violence and porn are rife, it is because the Conservative government of the '80s neglected to realise that selling off Britain to the highest bidder, would inevitably lead to putting the welfare of the people in the hands of businessmen; who don't care if your kids are exposed to graphic sex and violence, so long as they are paying the premium channel rate.

Britain felt betrayed by the government which was not acting on their behalf. People will only show respect, when they are respected. To ask them to be clean, well-mannered, courteous, well-read intellectuals, when they are fighting for basic survival, shows how far removed Britain's ruling elite had become.

The perverse state that gives welfare only to the rich: Better to have a paternal state than a maternal state

Post Victorian Britain was a time of great social change. The ruling elite could no longer ignore the public's outrage at the double standards in society. To promote a lifestyle of thrift and moderation is all very well, but the rules of the new capitalist game were not fairly set. The working classes knew that those who were advocating restraint, were living lives of decadent luxury. They knew they were being humiliated and insulted, when rich businessmen rejected giving financial aid (welfare) to the poor, saying 'I worked for it, so I deserve it.'

"It is probably a misfortune that... popular writers like Samuel Smiles... have defended free enterprise on the ground that it regularly rewards the deserving. It bodes ill for the future of the market order that this seems to have become the only defence of it which is understood by the general public. That it has largely become the basis of the self-esteem of the businessman often gives him an air of self-righteousness which does not make him more popular."

F. A. Hayek. Law, Legislation & Liberty. Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice (London: Routledge, 1982. p74

We come to the worrying realisation, that without proper state intervention, capitalism left alone, makes the rich more powerful, and the poor more vulnerable. Nineteenth century American sociologist Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913) believed that the paternalism, which irritated businessmen who advocated laissez-faire economics, was a necessary regulation imposed upon a form of capitalism that was leaving the poor vulnerable and the rich irresponsible:

"The charge of paternalism is chiefly made by the class that enjoys the largest share of government protection. Those who denounce it are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it. Nothing is more obvious today than the signal inability of capital and private enterprise to take care of themselves unaided by the state. And while they are incessantly denouncing "paternalism", by which they mean the claim of the defenseless laborer or artisan to a share in this lavish state protection, they are all the while besieging legislatures for relief from their own incompetency, and "pleading the baby act" through a trained body of lawyers and lobbyists. The dispensing of national pap to this class should rather be called "maternalism", to which a square, open and dignified paternalism would be infinitely preferable."

L. F. Ward. The American Mind: An Interpretation. Yale, 1950. p210

Society today is still structured top to bottom. The labels may have been rewritten, but essentially we have those who feel entitled, and those who feel imprisoned, with those who feel torn between the two, sandwiched in the middle. The American Dream, or the 'Self-Help' initiative coined by Samuel Smiles, pretends that the shackles of classism, snobbery and bourgeois culture, have been removed, giving all who work hard enough, the opportunity to achieve a better life. There are many problems with this point of view. It is a naive wish. It is ambiguous and politically elitist. Smiles displays the kind of partisan rhetoric typically used by capitalists wanting to undermine the genuine argument for a social welfare system that protects the oppressed masses working long hours for little rewards:

"Labour is toilsome and its gains are slow. Some people determine to live by the labour of others, and from the moment they arrive at that decision, become the enemies of society. It is not often that distress drives men to crime. In nine cases out of ten, it is a choice not necessity. Moral cowardice is exhibited as much in public as in private life. Snobbism is not confined to toadying of the rich, but is quite as often displayed in the toadying of the poor... Now that the "masses" exercise political power, there is a growing tendency to fawn upon them, flatter them, speak nothing but smooth words to them. They are credited with virtues they themselves know they do not possess. To win their favour, sympathy is often pretended for their views, the carrying out of which is known to be hopeless."

S.Smiles. Thrift. London, 1885. p.154

It seems incredible that Smiles feels comfortable to pass off so many of his political opinions as if they were objective, absolute truths that could not be disputed. Where is the evidence for this political power that 'the masses now exercise'? Where does he pluck the '9 out of 10 crimes are committed out of choice not necessity' statement from? As soon as the social order begins to even hint at trying to bring about better equality, those at the top become defensive for fear of having to contemplate reconnecting with the plebs. His contempt palpable in his comment "... there is a growing tendency to fawn upon them, flatter them..." Smiles speaks about working people as if they were an unintelligent race, who do not know what is best for them.

The only people urging us to knuckle down and work to get rich, are those who never have to. By definition, to be rich, is to be better off than the masses. To be equally well off is not written into the American Dream, or Smiles' work-ethic mantra. It's a hoax that is designed to keep the working people toiling on, with the false dream, designed to disguise the fact that they are being exploited by a parasitic ruling elite who are living a life of luxury and leisure because of them. As Frank Ward says, "Those who denounce [state paternalism] are those who most frequently and successfully invoke it." What a perverse situation, that a democratic government should implement a welfare scheme that works to look after those who need no protection, only to further exploit those who are already made vulnerable through economic exploitation.

In the final insult of this barrage of abuse aimed at the working classes, Smiles states with profound sincerity: "The capitalist is merely a man who does not spend all that is earned by work." [London. 1885:154] Either he is the most naive man alive, or he is a devious politician. What he says may be true, but he neglects to mention capitalism's social responsibility to its people. If it is possible, in capitalist society, to 'earn' disproportionate incomes, leaving others to toil for scraps, then hoarding this money, literally starves a large percentage of the population. I would suggest that the capitalist is merely a man who understands that he holds power over the lives of others, but feels a sense of superiority over those who cannot fight back, and feels no personal responsibility to address the arbitrary imbalance of fortunes amongst men.

Better to be nannied by the State than the Corporates

As we enter the glorious 2014 summer of sport, with cycling, football, rugby, tennis, cricket and maybe more, TV viewers will, if they haven't already, without doubt notice how prevalent and incessant, gambling advertising has becoming.

So what exactly is worrying about all this? After all, advertising has been around since the industrial revolution, and gambling since the dawn of civilization. The gambling per se, is not the real concern. Neither, in fact, is the advertising. Here is the issue:

Who is manipulating our society? Who is not regulating it? And therefore, who is really in power? When we break it down Iike this, we see that the hope of believing in a strong, democratically elected government is a tragic illusion. If unelected, invisible Corporations, who are impervious to criticism, immune from taking responsibility, and driven by nothing more than the desire to increase their material wealth, are running the country, then how can we ever hope that society will make any effort to act responsibly, or genuinely encourage its citizen to behave ethically?

The result of this is that people go one of two ways; both very damaging to society's social fabric. One: They hold contempt for the Corporate state and the feeble government who has allowed it to happen. Two: Broken spirited, they finally assume the role designed for them, and spend their lives in a fearful frenzy, as debt-riddled, emotionally and materially impoverished, confused, and unfulfilled consumers.

I don't advocate a nanny state. But neither do I advocate a government who sells its democratically elected power to a non-elected businessman. At least a nanny state has its people to answer to. A Corporate state ignores the wellbeing of the people, and works only for its greedy shareholders.

Every Instrument has its own Personality

I was wondering about the significance of the instrument that musicians use in order to express their music. The instrument represents great potential for expression, but also constrains the musician, due to its physical mechanics. Any given instrument is both clunky and cumbersome in one set of hands, and lithe and harmoniously responsive in another. So what brings an instrument to life?

I think an appreciation for the instrument's personality is central to discovering its voice. This may seem an obvious observation. We all know the old proverb 'A bad workman blames his tools'. But I think this respect for the instrument can be easily neglected.

We are perhaps willing to accept, for example, that the alto saxophone is more suitable to an attacking style of play than the tenor sax. But what happens when we pick up an alto saxophone that feels quite 'sluggish'. Do we dismiss it as a bad instrument, undeserving of the alto sax pedigree? If the instrument has obvious manufacture faults then this might be an acceptable appraisal. What about another possibility: that this instrument is of good enough quality, but merely has a slightly different personality than the generic, mass produced, sharp-attack alto sax? This instrument seems to refuse to be defined by the rest, yet at the same time does not relinquish its identity as an alto saxophone.

The reason I think it is important to bear this in mind, is that the relationship between the musician and her instrument, requires loyalty. She must not allow herself to doubt the instrument's ability to communicate her musical ideas. It can be easy to slip into the mindset that says, for example, 'the tenor sax isn't designed to play fast', or, 'the alto sax plays the fast licks, so why am I not sounding like Charlie Parker?' This mentality is negative and limiting. It detracts from the enjoyment of playing, and, for fear of not reaching a certain arbitrary standard of the saxophone, the instrumentalist diminishes her chances of developing as a musician.

Jonny Wilkinson: More than just a model sportsman

Recently there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the retirement of English rugby player Jonny Wilkinson. I have been preoccupied with attempting to come to terms with Jonny Wilkinson the icon. What exactly does he stand for that is so inspirational? How should we define him? How should we hold him in our collective memory?

It seems to me that Wilkinson's unique quality, that which gives him appeal to a non-sport-enthused public, is more to do with his personality type, than his undeniably stellar career as a rugby great. It is the way he has conducted himself that impresses us most. He is the person we all admire because even with the fans and accolades he never gave any indication that he was in any way entitled to be seen as great. This dangerous ego never even slipped unnoticed into his manner in the form of subconscious self-indulgence.

We trace his career on the pitch, his many recorded interviews and photos. We cannot find any evidence that this persona is a clever marketing plan. It might make for predictable, even dull viewing, if what we want is a racy back-story to our 'celebrities'. Troubled soul he may well be. To fight off the invading encroachments of the mass media is bound to trouble anyone who tries always the be true to himself. But honesty, dignity, grace and hard-graft are qualities that inspire all people in all walks of life. 

Discipline, Punishment and Control

What does it mean to 'Do the right thing'?

 

Even if we do not always act upon it, we seem to possess a definite sense of moral right and wrong, when deciding on any particular course of action. The complications inherent in our decisions do not usually involve a moral dilemma, but rather a conflict of material interests, which make doing the right thing less appealing. Moreover, if our laws allow us to act immorally, even materially rewarding us for doing so, then Immanuel Kant's idea of moral duty is thoroughly undermined.

Michel Foucault highlights how contentious morality becomes, when seen in light of the restrictions that society imposes upon its peoples. We all understand that to transgress the laws of society leads to punishment from the powers that be. But when the laws that control us are subject to moral scrutiny, we find that what is law is not always ethical; and vice versa. This suggests that the law obeys an agenda other than to promote and encourage people to 'do the right thing'. 

Foucault presents us with a picture of control.

Xref. Postmodernism, Slavoj Zizek, Western political agenda

Not afraid to shake up tradition

It is easy to view history or tradition as an unstoppable progression of linear time, where the latest 'chapter' necessarily defines where innovation must spring from. We seem to think that the culture of tradition has been thoroughly ploughed by the current sensation.

This idea came to me when I was tinkering about playing jazz standards on the piano. I wanted to believe that I could be as relevant to today's jazz, playing in the style of Charlie Parker, as playing the more modern John Coltrane. In other words, what is it about aesthetics that makes something seem 'old fashioned'? What keeps some art forms fresh and relevant, when others slip into the dusty archives of neglected history? 

One simple argument is this: Coltrane had Parker to tap into and learn from. Parker didn't have (the majority of) Coltrane's creative output, and therefore he is not as relevant to modern jazz. I want to disagree with this persuasive argument. But how do we go about undermining it as a reasonable claim? The task is made harder, since both men are undisputed giants of the genre.

So my response to the claim that 'latest is greatest', comes down to the idea that, tradition is not fixed by one narrative. It could be argued that because John Coltrane had Charlie Parker's contribution to music at his disposal, (and because Coltrane was the most innovative jazz musician of his time) then Parker has been 'used up' as a source for creative potential in jazz.

However, on an intuitive level, we already have doubts. How so? I go back to the 'sounding dated' test. Even if some of the corny string section orchestras Parker played with, sound clichéd and passé, his saxophone line seems to soar above the nostalgia, demanding artistic respect. Take Louis Armstrong. His understanding and delivery of nuanced jazz rhythm stands out as marvelous and unsurpassed as much today, as it did in the 1930s. This is why I believe it is important to see tradition not as a fixed linear narrative, but as structurally free, wholly organic, and impossible to order. This is what Theodor Adorno refers to when he says that art can lie dormant and come back to life when we least expect it. (Though after WW2, with the onset of postmodernism and corporate capitalism, he was rather pessimistic regarding the chances of anything ever again becoming art.)

I am not dismissing the concept of tradition. Tradition is real and it is what holds the material with which innovators work to make art. Moreover, respecting tradition is important because it shows an appreciation for the dedication and commitment that is needed to achieve one's (genius) potential. [Xref. Kant] But tradition can and should be explored from multiple angles and perspectives. It can be interpreted in infinite ways. The only constant parameter, as Adorno will not let us forget, is set my art itself. Innovation cannot proclaim itself art. Art either is, or isn't. If it isn't, like the kitch string sections of 50s jazz orchestras, then it is nothing but a stake in the linear road of recorded music history. If it was once art, it no longer is, and remains with us today as pure aesthetics.