Uppity Cultural Prudes Unite!
[Hi all -- I'm publishing a day early because I have jury duty tomorrow and will be nowhere near a computer.]
One of the more effective conservative tricks of the last couple of decades is the accusation that progressives are in bed with Hollywood and the purveyors of popular culture – the movies, television shows, music, and video games whose graphic violence, profanity, and explicit depictions of sexuality are causing the moral decline of our nation. It is probably fair to say that almost anyone who is a parent is concerned about the quality of the entertainment her children consume. And it is unquestionably true that a lot of what’s out there is negative and potentially harmful. But is it true that progressives, and “liberalism” in general, are to blame for the race to the bottom in popular entertainment? Or, alternately, that progressives don’t care about the harm that this stuff may cause?
In my view, it’s no on both counts, the second a bit more qualified than the first. This is an issue that crosses party lines, and on which trying to divine a person’s position based on how they vote is imprecise at best.
Progressivism as I know and understand it could not possibly be responsible for the rise of trash culture, which is so bound up in backlash against feminism that it’s impossible to mistake it for being left-anything. (Exhibit A: Howard Stern; Exhibit B: The Man Show; Exhibit C: Maxim, FHM, Stuff, and the fifteen other soft-core porn magazines competing for the 15- to 30-year-old male market). No, if anything, the rise of raunch is driven by the love of money, and the protection of the right to make money, above all else. This is a value that I associate with the right. The desire to objectify and dehumanize women is certainly not at all progressive. Reality tv, as I read it, promotes competition over cooperation and takes pleasure in publicly humiliating people. This is antithetical to the values that I hold as a progressive. These are just a few examples of the ways in which toxic culture does not scream "Liberal!" to me.
But the way in which the left (and I use the term advisedly, as there is no left to speak of in the United States outside of universities and the Bay Area) has screwed this up royally is to equate speaking out against bad entertainment with censorship. For example, I am mostly horrified by pornography – and even more horrified by the fact that men who consume it daily walk by me on the street each day. That the stuff must contribute to misogyny and general moral rot cannot be any clearer to me (see Pamela Paul’s recent book Pornified for reflections from real men about how porn affects them – it was eye-opening reading). But when I have asked friends on the left about their views on it, all most will say is, “I don’t believe it should be censored.” End of story. And these are people who, mostly, would never consume pornography themselves! But they have bought the pornographers’ lie that saying something is morally wrong is tantamount to saying it should be subject to prior restraint, that those two things cannot be separate questions. This fear of (right-wing) government intervention has caused the left to be silent on a lot of things about which it might have something to say.
On the other hand, I can’t say that the fears of government intervention are wholly ungrounded – and I lay the blame largely at the feet of the right for dumbing down political debate to the point at which any view that takes more than 30 seconds to voice goes unheard, and distorting it so that any word can be twisted, taken out of context, and used to slander its utterer with no regard for honesty, integrity, or the principles of fair dealing. (That some Democrats have started to emulate this technique does not make it right, nor change the fact that it originated in its current form in the Republican party). So some on the left have felt that they had no choice but to say, “no censorship,” because what they might like to say is too nuanced for much of the public to be able to understand. Or that it might be called “inconsistent,” or, God forbid, “flip-flopping.” Which is not to say that there are not those who call themselves Democrats who could care less about, or even embrace, the coarser aspects of our culture. This has been facilitated by Democrats’ waltz to the center on economic issues, allowing libertarians to feel at home in the party. These folks are not progressives in my view. Which is why it is impossible to pigeonhole people on this issue by party affiliation or self-proclaimed place on the political spectrum. I can't count on people who otherwise generally agree with me politically to agree on this issue, and the Religious Right can't count on much of their party to feel exercised enough about it to do anything concrete.
Another thought: this issue is a divide between people who have kids and people who don’t. It’s easier to filter the bad stuff out or understand it on a sophisticated level when you have more years of life experience and education behind you. But kids are more prone to take entertainment literally, and therein lies the problem. Some people would say that parents should exercise more control over the entertainment their children consume. That’s an admirable goal, but difficult to achieve when both parents work 50 hours a week and children go to school, where they learn of things from friends with more permissive parents. Short of not having cable and never allowing your child to visit friends’ houses without having done a full background check on the parents first (which I have considered!), it’s almost impossible to totally shelter your child from toxic entertainment. Parents understandably want some help with this. People who don’t have children, or whose children are now grown, often display little sympathy for their plight.
In short, this is only a “left” and “right” issue in a very attenuated sense of those words. The popular understanding of the divide is not really accurate, but persists. On the left: the First Amendment is a good and important thing, and free speech is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. On the right: filth purveyors are filling our children’s heads with immoral ideas and poor values. Both of these things are true. Both of these things are believed by a majority of people on both sides. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
One of the more effective conservative tricks of the last couple of decades is the accusation that progressives are in bed with Hollywood and the purveyors of popular culture – the movies, television shows, music, and video games whose graphic violence, profanity, and explicit depictions of sexuality are causing the moral decline of our nation. It is probably fair to say that almost anyone who is a parent is concerned about the quality of the entertainment her children consume. And it is unquestionably true that a lot of what’s out there is negative and potentially harmful. But is it true that progressives, and “liberalism” in general, are to blame for the race to the bottom in popular entertainment? Or, alternately, that progressives don’t care about the harm that this stuff may cause?
In my view, it’s no on both counts, the second a bit more qualified than the first. This is an issue that crosses party lines, and on which trying to divine a person’s position based on how they vote is imprecise at best.
Progressivism as I know and understand it could not possibly be responsible for the rise of trash culture, which is so bound up in backlash against feminism that it’s impossible to mistake it for being left-anything. (Exhibit A: Howard Stern; Exhibit B: The Man Show; Exhibit C: Maxim, FHM, Stuff, and the fifteen other soft-core porn magazines competing for the 15- to 30-year-old male market). No, if anything, the rise of raunch is driven by the love of money, and the protection of the right to make money, above all else. This is a value that I associate with the right. The desire to objectify and dehumanize women is certainly not at all progressive. Reality tv, as I read it, promotes competition over cooperation and takes pleasure in publicly humiliating people. This is antithetical to the values that I hold as a progressive. These are just a few examples of the ways in which toxic culture does not scream "Liberal!" to me.
But the way in which the left (and I use the term advisedly, as there is no left to speak of in the United States outside of universities and the Bay Area) has screwed this up royally is to equate speaking out against bad entertainment with censorship. For example, I am mostly horrified by pornography – and even more horrified by the fact that men who consume it daily walk by me on the street each day. That the stuff must contribute to misogyny and general moral rot cannot be any clearer to me (see Pamela Paul’s recent book Pornified for reflections from real men about how porn affects them – it was eye-opening reading). But when I have asked friends on the left about their views on it, all most will say is, “I don’t believe it should be censored.” End of story. And these are people who, mostly, would never consume pornography themselves! But they have bought the pornographers’ lie that saying something is morally wrong is tantamount to saying it should be subject to prior restraint, that those two things cannot be separate questions. This fear of (right-wing) government intervention has caused the left to be silent on a lot of things about which it might have something to say.
On the other hand, I can’t say that the fears of government intervention are wholly ungrounded – and I lay the blame largely at the feet of the right for dumbing down political debate to the point at which any view that takes more than 30 seconds to voice goes unheard, and distorting it so that any word can be twisted, taken out of context, and used to slander its utterer with no regard for honesty, integrity, or the principles of fair dealing. (That some Democrats have started to emulate this technique does not make it right, nor change the fact that it originated in its current form in the Republican party). So some on the left have felt that they had no choice but to say, “no censorship,” because what they might like to say is too nuanced for much of the public to be able to understand. Or that it might be called “inconsistent,” or, God forbid, “flip-flopping.” Which is not to say that there are not those who call themselves Democrats who could care less about, or even embrace, the coarser aspects of our culture. This has been facilitated by Democrats’ waltz to the center on economic issues, allowing libertarians to feel at home in the party. These folks are not progressives in my view. Which is why it is impossible to pigeonhole people on this issue by party affiliation or self-proclaimed place on the political spectrum. I can't count on people who otherwise generally agree with me politically to agree on this issue, and the Religious Right can't count on much of their party to feel exercised enough about it to do anything concrete.
Another thought: this issue is a divide between people who have kids and people who don’t. It’s easier to filter the bad stuff out or understand it on a sophisticated level when you have more years of life experience and education behind you. But kids are more prone to take entertainment literally, and therein lies the problem. Some people would say that parents should exercise more control over the entertainment their children consume. That’s an admirable goal, but difficult to achieve when both parents work 50 hours a week and children go to school, where they learn of things from friends with more permissive parents. Short of not having cable and never allowing your child to visit friends’ houses without having done a full background check on the parents first (which I have considered!), it’s almost impossible to totally shelter your child from toxic entertainment. Parents understandably want some help with this. People who don’t have children, or whose children are now grown, often display little sympathy for their plight.
In short, this is only a “left” and “right” issue in a very attenuated sense of those words. The popular understanding of the divide is not really accurate, but persists. On the left: the First Amendment is a good and important thing, and free speech is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. On the right: filth purveyors are filling our children’s heads with immoral ideas and poor values. Both of these things are true. Both of these things are believed by a majority of people on both sides. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
posted by Sandi | 8:35 AM
2 Comments:
What a well-reasoned presentation, concluded by such an important question.
The argument from the "right" makes sense to many Christian folks because, although they are huge proponents of capitalism, they argue that at the same time "bad things" should not be allowed.
The opposition from the left comes from seemingly not wanting the religious folks to base the definition of "bad things" on religious grounds.
Finding a middle ground is tough, but what seems to have emerged is some version of the basic rule of law: do no harm. You can do "bad things" yourself, and free people can choose to do "bad things" - but protect the innocent/unwilling.
Still, in practical terms, this is difficult (ratings systems, etc.).
To your original point: I think the equation of Hollywood and "the left" is a desperate attempt by Christians wanting to feel persecuted on some level to ease their conscience when comparing their lives to that of Jesus Christ. It's good to have a bad guy and poor "us" has to face this horrible abuse of torture-by-movies, I guess.
:-)
Thanks for a good article.
Malki,
I think you ask great questions -- I should spell out what I mean by progressive and conservative. We know them mostly as a collection of policy positions, but what holds them all together and what are the core values? Until I read a really good book that offered a theory on this, I was going on instinct plus information that I learned in my classes (once I got to college -- before that it was all instinct).
But it's important to articulate what the core principles are when you're going to use terms and expect people to understand what they mean. So I promise to devote my post next week to explaining, as best I can in a non-book-length medium, what I mean. And a sidenote: the longer time goes on and the more I learn, the less I enjoy using labels with respect to my views because there's so much disagreement about what different things mean. I will not give up on "feminist," though, since there's no other word I'm aware of that communicates a devotion to, for lack of a better phrase, equal respect for women.
The way I use "progressive" is both in agreement with what you describe and also not. In fact, objective life conditions for people in the West are continuing to get better (I've been reading Gregg Easterbrook's book The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse, the past few days and he goes into lots of detail about this). But what I mean is more like what Al says: the principle of "do no harm" and also the Golden Rule, writ large. My political views flow from these principles. More on this in my next post.
Post a Comment
<< Home