Attacking God, America, and the Eternality of the Republican Party
I was reading a little and writing a little the other day, and something came to me rather abruptly. Has it every occurred to you how despicable and lamentable this so-called phenomenon of "popular culture" is? I mean, it would be presumptuous of me to make a blanket generalization denying all worth of popular culture, but for the most part it is an idiotic machine that idolizes the worship of stupidity. Yes, that's my opinion of the matter, as vehemently as you may disagree. There are finer aspects, such as cyclist Lance Armstrong or "pop" physicist Brian Greene, but the more despicable elements like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (yes, this seems diplomatic, but it's truly honest) gain all of the attention, precisely because the essence of the culture is to idolize the bone-headed. Duh! It is also worthwhile to note that popular culture is now the dominant culture of America. Now you know why Muslims hate us (not that stoning women for coming out of burning buildings without wearing veils is any better). Well, okay, so that's not really a new thought; that's been jiggling around in my skull for a while now, and it's probably not very interesting to you either. So here's the good part.
How exactly does a society come to this stretch of the journey? Have we become so weary of the pointless burden of spiritual/religious social existence that we now give up all decency to collapse into unproductive nihilistic society? Maybe, but that's a matter of interpretation. The importance lies not in where we are, but how we got here.
Return your mind to 1800 or so. In America, let's say. Individual towns were largely self-contained because of geographic isolation, giving way to more varied cultures. A frontier town was dramatically different than a southern plantation, which was dramatically different than a Northern city. Compare that with today, where you can go from suburbs in the Northeast, to suburbs in the Southeast, to suburbs in the Southwest, to suburbs in the Northwest, to suburbs anywhere, to virtually any civilization anywhere, and there are very few differences. Or at least there are fewer differences than there used to be; America is becoming increasingly homogenized. That's not very interesting either, probably
My argument is that the source of this increasing homogenization is due to improved communications technology. Think of the radio, which was one of the first devices that could deliver the same radio shows to people anywhere (well, not quite). In this fashion, the essence of communication is the capacity to deliver a single product or idea to as many people at once. That means that the diversity in the human experience between individuals is diminished by improved communication.
This explains how American culture has been homogenized, but it doesn't explain why pop-culture is just so darn bad. To do that involves a little bit of economics and a lot of psychology. The influence of the profit motive has meant that communications have become consolidated. A smaller array of individuals control a larger amount of our time and experience in life. This is somewhat of an inevitable effect, whether or not communications had been controlled by private or public enterprise. Heck, at least this way politicians aren't using the media for political benefit... right? Oops. In any case, media corporations are going to deliver what people want to consume. Since the arm of communication's reach effectively encompasses all people in this nation, the consumers' appetite is the lowest common denominator and can be explained by basic human instinct; that is, violence, sex, gore, and gruesome "feats" (i.e. feats of idiocy) are highly intriguing. I could go down this whole other route of Freudian mishmash on instinctual suppression, but I won't. Essentially, they're going to be intriguing as long as human remain anything else that primal hunter-gatherers. I sound so pretentious saying this, but it's true that all people find sex, violence, etc. in intriguing. However, if you had enough intellectual experience, then you realize that there are other things more interesting in life. Now you know why Nietzsche hated democracy: he hated the masses, the "rabble." Well, now you probably think that I'm a hypocritical ingrate, but the point that I'm trying to make is that all humans have basic psychological instincts (when outside their native existence) to like things that make for barbaric culture.
So why haven't other countries fallen into this same disgusting trap? I think they have actually. Look at Europe for instance. Have you ever realized just how bad British television is? Have you ever watched a British sit-com? Whew! It's too much to handle. Apparently the French public just gobble up news of all of their government's juicy scandals. They may seem like they have a vestige of worthwhile culture, but that's only because their societies are too old to be entirely transplanted by this modern insanity. America is a totally modern nation: we think that a building is old when many people even older are still alive. When there are relics lying around from ancient times, and a society has preserved many aspects of its culture through many centuries, things may seem less degenerate. That's somewhat of an illusion. It's a good illusion, but still fake.
So set down your airport novel or switch the box off "Fear Factor" and pick up... I don't know. Pick up something else. At the very least, doing so is kind of quaint.
I'm done now.
Oh, also, the title doesn't really have anything to do with this post, I just thought it sounded rather dramatic. It's the kind of thing that attracts attention.
why do you assume that "intellectual experience" is inherently more valuable than "barbaric" popular culture? most folx think otherwise, so isn't the burden of proof on you here? i.e., maybe you should explain what's so great about whatever it is you do instead of spending so much time looking down on the "rabble."
also, it would behoove you to ditch this "psychological" analysis of yours with the quickness. I mean, "popular culture is terrible because people are savages incapable of enjoying the finer things in life, unlike me of course," is kind of an unsophisticated argument. why not admit that people like different aspects of popular culture for lots of different reasons, and that discovering those reasons involves actually engaging with the culture, instead of scorning it for no reason (which is what you seem to be doing). (and if you don't want to engage, fine, but don't pretend you're some sort of expert when, in reality, the opposite is pretty much true.)
I enrage!! I mean "engage."
This entry was primarily written as an exposition of how improvements in communications have led to cultural homogenization and evolution. While that may have been overshadowed by my disdain for popular culture, that was what I was primarily arguing. For that reason, little evidence was regrettably put forth about whether or not popular culture is "good" or "bad." Nevertheless, I will present that argument now.
It is fundamentally impossible to say that something is "good" or "bad." To Hitler, slaughtering Jews was wonderful, while to the rest the world it was the worst atrocity aside from Stalin's mass murders. "Good" and "bad" are aethetic terms like "pretty" and "ugly." Therefore, when evaluating things, in order to say anything about anything at all, we must speak in terms of causes and effects. To me, as you are aware, this popular culture is aethetically ugly, but as you have justly said, my opinion is (as it should be) meaningless to anyone else if I don't justify it.
With that in mind, there are a few loosely defined points that I have to make. The first is that popular culture tends to worship stupidity more often than intelligence. Just look at the media. From the "Simpsons" to "Anchorman" to the media obsessing over G.W. Bush's less intellectual moments to "Jackass," etc. It's a simple fact that mainstream media focuses on non-intellectual things (I might almost say anti-intellectual things). Ok, so that's still not providing cause and effect. Forgive me for using a "psychological" argument (For the record, I claim to be no expert on psychology, I'm simply using a few very, very basic arguments. It's ultra-pop-psychology, which is ironic), but young humans tend to mimic behavior that they observe early in life; that is, if a child is raised seeing these images of idiocy early from life, he/she will probably choose to mimic them to a certain extent. There are other environmental factors that are going to affect this, but over a large population it will probably be somewhat true. It's the same reason why children who grow up in a very violent environment are more likily to be violent. If you don't provide intellectual sitmulation for someone, then they probably won't care about using their brain much. Call that an unsophistocate argument if you like, but it's just a little true.
I still haven't impacted the issue much because I haven't talked about why "using one's brain" is of any value at all. I have three main reasons for believing that mental activity is important:
1) Having more intellectually motivated individuals in a society improves economic performance and sustainability. If you have a more mentally saavy labor force, then you will probably have a more resourceful economy. Overall, social conditions would probably be better because so many bad choices are caused by failure to make informed decisions. Think also about pointless problems like inequality against women. I can think of very little logical reason for that to exist. If people would just use their brains a little bit instead of latching on to a counterproductive tradition, then they would realize that women constitute more than one half of the world's population and there is no reason to hanidicap them for simply not being men.
2) Popular culture inhibits diversity of ideas because it essentially a culture that is regulated by media corporations which are driven by profit motive. There is no profit in publishing unpopular opinions. Therefore, the mainstream gets bogged down with just what people want to hear. Maybe there's some kind of natural cycle where people eventually reject what was once mainstream, and diverse ideas are welcomed, but I can't say. A successful society needs discourse, like what we're doing right now.
3) The third reason is that the renunciation of the mind that popular culture makes is a rejection of one of humanity's most distinguishing characteristics: the highly advanced cerebrum. This may sound like an aesthetic argument, but its not. Humans cannot go back to their natural and hunter-gather state. It is simply impossible. So, the only alternative is to cognitively progress toward some kind of greater harmony than what have currently reached. I think there are two main routes. One is for society to take a more intellectual approach to its development, which would result in choices that would be better for the whole on average. The other approach is brainwashing, which I think is quite viable and probably less risky. If popular culture and media control were advanced far enough, they could probably serve these functions. We would end up with a stable society. The thing is, I don't want to be brainwashed. Do you want to be brainwashed? Then again, maybe social stability isn't important to you. Most people I know think that it's a lost cause. They're probably right, but I think that the mind is the sort of silver bullet that can take us at least part of the way there.
So that's kind of why I dislike popular culture. I'm not that great of a writer, especially when going off the top of my head like this, but I hope that gets the gist of the matter across. Have you ever read Farenheit 451? I hated the book, but that's part of my mindset.
To respond to some of your other statements: I don't look down on other people, I just disagree with them vehemently. I don't really care how other people feel about my opinions, I only care what they think. Quite honestly, I think people like popular culture because of the instincts that it fulfills. If I think about it rationally, however, it seems to have very negative effects. I don't like vacousness.
By the way, you have a cable internet connection via Comcast, correct? How much does it cost you per month? I'm trying to get DSL, and I'm having the worst time with the phone company. Last I checked, cable was really expensive, but I'm thinking about alternatives to qwest. I hate supporting broken companies.
addressing yr three points -
1. here you sort of seem to be conflating people who are stupid with people who are assholes. I will grant that there's plenty of overlap between these two categories, but I don't think it's right to assume that all assholes are the way they are because they are unable to make informed decisions. "bad choices" are obv not bad to people who make them, and expediency is probably used more commonly than rationality as a criterion for deciding which choices are good (or folx decide that expediency is always rational, which in practice leads to pretty much the same sorts of actions). as for the economic stuff, one could argue that the wealthy elite which benefits most from economic productivity relies on the ignorance of the masses to maintain its power. I'm not sure if I want to, though.
2. I would maybe argue that pop culture does represent a diversity of ideas, at least to a certain extent, bcz of how huge it is and how much work goes into producing it (it is obv important to remember that "pop culture" refers to lots of different things, not all of which cohere very well with each other). not everyone who works in the pop culture biz is concerned with pursuing the agendas of the corporate fatcats who they ostensibly work under - lots of them are even hostile toward said agendas! it's a system, in other words, which contains the seeds of its own destruction.
3. I don't understand at all the pop culture = brainwashing equation you seem to be proposing. maybe some people - lots of people, even - unquestioningly accept everything the tube tells them and use it as an excuse to avoid acting so as to somehow benefit society, but to assume that those people constitute the majority is v. cynical. whether you like it or not, the sort of "intellectual" activity you dig so much has gone out of fashion, and pop culture provides folx who don't dig it so much with a means of coming to terms with this crazy world of ours.
put more simply (?), pop culture -> greater capacity to communicate and share ideas -> more opportunities for achieving human happiness. it does encourage thought, just maybe not the sort of thought you like or are used to. (or maybe you just don't think it goes far enough, in which case I agree completely - but if that's yr concern, I don't know what you think dismissing it's going to accomplish...)
there is obv lots more to say, but I seem to have run out of steam. I feel sort of bad about failing to address yr claims re: glorifying idiocy, discouraging brain use, etc. by way of specific examples, but maybe you will be motivated to figure it out for yrself.
cable costs more than dsl, but it's also faster. it depends where yr priorities lie, I guess.
Gahhh!! Arguing about this sort of thing is so exhausting because we could probably go on for an eternity presenting a multitudinous sea of points and counterpoints. While I couldn't disagree more with your statement: "pop culture -> greater capacity to communicate and share ideas -> more opportunities for achieving human happiness" when pop culture is so intellectual vacant (i.e. how does less brain function lead to more capacity to share ideas? Where do the ideas come from??). Although, like I said, if people are brainwashed enough (which popular culture could do if carried to an extreme), then they will become perfectly happy because they have nothing about which to think or worry. Of course, if that is true, then the total suppression of cognitive function would be the true path to happiness, and I would be completely wrong. And probably that is true. The only caviot is that the life of an automaton is completely inhuman. Should we give up humanity for happiness?
I've gotten way off track, [yawn]. This is the kind of conversation I have with Leeor in the middle of the night. I'm done for awhile, I think. I think I will go with DSL, if I can get it to work. Cable runs on the order of $50/month, which is a bit much. By the way, who is this?
I was sort of trying to argue that pop culture isn't intellectually vacant, at least not entirely, but I didn't do a very good job bcz, as mentioned, I didn't give any specific examples. but well uh the simpsons, for example, is very smartly written, or at least it used to be. the same goes for lots of other stuff you probably see as glorifying idiocy. I know this isn't a sufficient explanation, but I still think you're looking at pop culture the wrong way. for one thing, your version of it is a strawman; it's impossible to make such general statements about something so big and all-encompassing. for another, you're expecting it to be something it isn't, then getting all disappointed when it fails to live up to yr expectations. my contention, in case I failed to get it across last time, is that (some) pop culture provides a reasonable substitute for "intellectual activity" for people who aren't self-important fun-hating bores (no offense). and there's still lots more to say, but I'll save it.
also, please get off this brainwashing tip, it's incredibly condescending. for the record, a world where there is nothing to think or worry about is, for me, about the worst thing imaginable. complete social stability isn't possible, and that's a good thing.
it doesn't matter who I am; as of tomorrow (or so), I am history. (not that my life is coming to an end or anything, I just won't be commenting anymore.)
Hah! I know who you are. No worries. Have fun at college.
I think it's a bad sign when the comments are longer than the actual entry.
I agree wholeheartedly. The length of these comments is a little alarming. Of course, considering that I may be a "self-important fun-hating bore," it's maybe not too surprising.
Oh, I also agree with the anonymous poster. You have stereotyped pop culture (it sounds impossible, but you have achieved it). But I won't bring up any more points, for the sake of killing the arguement.
I'll read that when I find myself a free week. *yawn*