Just a quick thought or two about Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Have been watching his show lately with a view to analyzing what he does best. I think his strong point is something that runs deeper than the obvious wit and the various parodic characters who add silly-serious variety: it's the host's civility. More particularly, it's the fact that with regard to civility, Stewart acts upon the insight that this quality need not, and should not, entail compromise on one's principles. Civility doesn't consist in abandoning your core beliefs – or indeed any beliefs – merely to ingratiate yourself with someone who thinks differently. Doing that is weakness, not civility, and it is consistently and justly rewarded with contempt.
What civility entails is a willingness to listen – at least to the extent tolerable to a rational person – and to treat one's opponents like human beings rather than propagating lies about them or demonizing them and the entire view they stand for. I think the August 20, 2009 interview Stewart conducted with Betsy McCaughey is a fine example of the method that flows from this understanding. A lot of commentators simply describe this woman as "the originator of the death-panel canard," and she may or may not in fact deserve the appellation, but Stewart was able to hold a substantive and polite conversation with her without ceding anything of substance on the argument in favor of health care reform. Now that is truly impressive.
What I solicit by this brief run-down of one major program generally associated with a liberal or progressive viewpoint (Stewart himself might not agree with the link between his name and such terms, and I see no reason why he should) is some thoughtful commentary about the style and substance of other such programs and hosts – Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, and others may come to mind. Any Keithers, Rachelites, or Maherians out there have something better than silence to opine? Say it here on Swash Zone, or be square.
Without Flash Player (which 8pus tried to download for the third time - Apple Safari user that I am), your intrepid cephalopod will have to remain square until I get past this major impediment. New assignment, or rephrase the question?
ReplyDeleteOcto, yes, I've had problem from time to time (using Firefox versions) getting Flash to work consistently. It's working for me now with the latest version, but I don't know anything about Safari, so I can't help there. Maybe there's an Apple forum where they explain how you can get video stuff to work.
ReplyDeleteWill add the following to my original post:
Part Two of the Original Post: Might have added that the Latin words civis (citizen), civilis / civicus (of citizens, civil, civic), civiliter (citizen-like, as becomes a private citizen), and civitas (the condition of a citizen … membership in the community) help in elucidating what is meant by our word "civility." The Roman republicans certainly had a strong cult of the familial ancestors and a deep regard for personal integrity and intimate friendship, but at their best these things seem to have served as vehicles for a sense of responsibility to a community larger than oneself and one's immediate kin. In other words, called for was a measure of public-spiritedness, of strong "civic virtue," if you will. It's been said often but bears repeating here that our own tendencies towards virtual and material tribalism don't fare well in light of our early republican predecessors; hunkered down in front of our tv and laptop screens, we may well be closer to a nation of wired and plugged-in Goths than to the cosmopolitan, urbane and humane republic we would like to think we are.
It's fair to suggest that the sheer complexity and volume of what is available to us by way of information, misinformation and disinformation may induce despair and thereby justify our tribalism. Every time I mosey through a lengthy blogroll, I get the same feeling I get when amongst stacks of impressive books in mortar-and-brick libraries: too much to learn, too little time to do it in. And then comes a wave of Eeyorish sentiment, culminating in the sorry admission, "No point in bothering." But in the teeth of surrenderism, I suppose, it's best simply to take our cue from Emerson and write "Whimsy" above our study door, in hopes that Whimsy will, at least from time to time, go in mystical accord with Serendipity. "You can't always get what you want," as the song runs, "but if you try sometimes, you get what you need."
Anyhow, the Greeks, too, had it in for the merely private sensibility – while their word ''idiotes'' isn't always negative in its connotations, it references not only triviality and ignorance but the quality of being "a private person, one in a private station, opp. to strategos, a private soldier" and to "an individual, opp. to polis (city, country, state)," a "layman" as opposed to someone with professional knowledge, such as a doctor.
It isn't that what we moderns would call individualism or the individual was condemned; rather, it's that the Greeks and Romans had some insight into the need to relate the private person to a larger entity. Socrates, after all, expressly cast his determination to submit to the horrid verdict of that "death panel" convened just for him (the citizenry of Athens, I mean) rather than break with either his mission from Apollo or his fidelity to Athens, in whose wars he had fought. In spite of all our claims that "the individual" is a modern invention, the ancients didn't need Hegel to tell them that our sense of who we are is formed and sustained dialectically, in relation to the larger communities into which we are born. There is no new thing found under the sun.
Bloggingdino: "There is no new thing found under the sun."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand your drift, I understand it within the context of myth and symbolism and the relationship of the individual to one's own society and the Universe. In anthropology as in history, we understand the rituals that bind.
Yet, I find it difficult to frame contemporary debate in these terms. We are no longer simple or homogeneous. We have not one mythos but many, not one archetype but many; not all are compatible, and we are a fractious lot.
Perhaps Octo is too much the simpleton to adduce contemporary politics in these terms because the concepts of civic and civil no longer seem compatible given what we are seeing right now. Let me think again and return later.
Octo,
ReplyDeleteI don't read the Romans as having been simple or homogeneous, either. I don't think they ever were, either in material or mythos-related terms.
Dino! There's too much in both Parts 1 & 2 to respond too!
ReplyDeleteFist to Socrates - in a sense, was he not an early J. Stewart? Ahead of his time? So willing to engage in civil discourse that it drove his fellow citizens to distraction? Or perhaps his nemesis Aristophanes is a better example of an ancient J. Stewart - in fact, Dino, now that I think about it, I use Stewart, Monty Python etc to explain to my students about Aristophanes. But I had never thought about it in terms of civility. This is interesting food for thought.
As for Socrates - if Plato is to be believed - was it not his almost excessive civility in the face of great INcivility that brought about his conviction?
And - was is not his great sacrifice of self for state - his refusal to run - that shines such a bright spotlight upon his individualism? What does it say that we remember him - laud him - both for his civility & loyalty to the polis, AND his sense of individuality? So.....like I believe you said in your post - being civil does not mean sacrificing one's self or one's beliefs.
(I hope I am not rambling - I've only yet consumed half a cup of coffee)
Then the Romans . . . impossible to narrow into a clear discussion as their culture changed over the centuries - though the ideals of the Republic (which the Empire tossed to the winds - mmmm a lesson in that?) do say much a about MALE civility. (sorry - but I must point out the terrible maleness of our revered ancient world!) I think Stewart would have survived the Republic but not the Empire - there were NO Aristophaneses in the Roman world for a reason.
THEN . . .(gulping more coffee) you asked about others today. I am a fan of Maddow & I do think she also subscribes to civility. Like Stewart she can be blisteringly sarcastic, but when she interviews people she is civil. If memory serves me correctly she's even had Cheney's daughter on a few times - the woman wouldn't have come back if she'd felt attacked & "invalidated" as having the right to hold her opinions.
As for CNN & FOX - both networks, I think, deliberately pursue INcivility. FOX is obvious about it, CNN is more coy. But when CNN holds talking head sessions it is obvious that they want the heads from each polarized side to stay in their respective corners NOT for the sake of civil discord BUT rather to intensify the divisive line between them because sensationalism - even when packaged in CNN's velvet glove - raises ratings - or so they cynically presume.
Dino - I no longer remember if I am being responsive to all you said - I hope I landed on a few in my pseudo-caffeinated state!
(Yes, even squid's live slavish existences to caffeine)
Squid,
ReplyDeleteThoughtful reply, especially on half-caffeination. I cannot think at all without my morning coffee or my mid-day coffee.
On Socrates, yes, I like the comparison you make -- both JS and Soc are "wiseguys" whose civility and accuracy gets under the skins of foolish blowhards. One thing that did Socrates in -- not that he had a chance anyhow, I suppose -- was his proposal that his "punishment" should be free meals for life. I think that may have made them angry.... Not only does he corrupt the young and trash-talk the wild and crazy gods, he supports WELFARE!
As for the Romans, yes, they were as male-centered as could be. Still the model of integritas, amicitia, and those "city-words" (cives, etc.) seems valuable to this day.
I like Rachel too -- she and her staff seem oriented towards bold, accurate tracings-out of who has conflicts of interest and connections with whom. That is invaluable in an era of journalistic cynicism and puffery, in which "trifles, light as air, are to the jealous [and ignorant] confirmations strong as proofs of holy writ."
I think Maher and Olbermann play a necessary role -- both can be quite acid-tongued, but they are often also incisive about important things others won't address head-on. One of my favorite satirists, Chris Kelly, now writes for Maher's Real Time. And Kelly is drop-dead hilarious.
I almost never watch FOX unless I'm holed up in a hotel room during a conference -- usually, I just can't stand to watch them otherwise. CNN I also largely ignore, never having found much there to interest me.
I've probably said this before, but I think most of us progressivistas are sufficiently informed and stocked with reasoned reflections of our own so that we may watch less news on average than our right-wing brethren and sistren, who seem to crave reaffirmation. That might account for right-wing radio and cable having a larger audience.
Speaking of Stewart, I had to marvel at how he utterly humiliated what would have been an irresistible force when he confronted Betsy McCaughy who claimed the death panel stuff was on page 425. One of the most masterful pieces of TV journalism ever and he never raised his voice.
ReplyDeleteWhy the hell are the professionals so damned slow witted that they let these blowhards walk all over them?
Day three: Still no Flash plugin player, so I'll wing it.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy, one can't control people by means of force, so you invent ways to control their minds. Long ago, advertisers learned ways to create demand for the superficial things in life, i.e., fancied wants and invented needs. These days, politicians know how to create the "virus effect" that propagates lies and enlists the fervor of malcontents and misfits to derail an honest debate.
When this happens, is this democracy? Or is this what Joseph Goebbels had in mind when he said:
"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle."
Civility is not merely about refraining from personal, ad hominem, attacks upon a person but a tacit understanding that one is at least having an honest debate. It is reasonable to raise these concerns when one sees dissembling in words and a deliberate repetition of the word “circle” to describe a “square.” It raises eyebrows. It makes one wonder if the duplicity of logic masks duplicity of intent.
Now, Octo is not so naรฏve as to dismiss dissembling and dirty tricks as a fact of political life. For me, the issue is the magnitude of the lie that transcends mere partisanship, the one that says: “I am no longer a participant.” This time, the lie is of sufficient magnitude for Joe Klein to say: The GOP is a Party of Nihilists. Octo agrees.
One need look no further than the preoccupations of conservative blogs for the past week: Non-stop character assassination and trashing of liberal bloggers BY NAME, but NO discussion of issues or news headlined within the same time frame.
This is not just a superficial game played by oppositional defiant children. Mature and honest adults with a vested interest in democracy may misbehave but at least there is some basis for participation. Not this time.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteYes, JS's performance was stellar -- he was at his best against a self-assured opponent who turned out not even to be able to make a coherent defense of her argument. Argument? That so-called argument, I found, boiled down to little more than a mantra-like repetition of the phrase "page 425." Just the sort of thing that impresses too many on the right: "page 425! Everybody knows!"
Octo,
Yes, civility is rooted deeper than mere restraint -- it's what the restraint stems from that matters, as you point out. The willingness to have an honest conversation implies at least an acknowledgment that one is part of a common project called "civilized life and rational debate." Obfuscators and liars are clearly not willing to acknowledge as much and they prove it every day with their sordid piffle.
Not to beat a dead Socrates horse . . . but he's been on my mind courtesy of Dino this weekend . . .
ReplyDeleteWhich leads me to thinking, in response to Octo's comment, that there is a further analogy in the case of "Socrates versus Aristophanes."
At his trial - as recounted by Plato, Socrates laments to the "jury" that all of his troubles began with "that damn play!" He was referring to Aristophanes' play THE CLOUDS, written decades before. He was claiming that his public reputation was forever damaged by Aristophanes' satiric lampooning of both himself and his brand of philosophy in The Clouds.
Significantly, Aristophanes was a crank - a political and social conservative who routinely used the hugely influential Athenian stage to UNcivily target his political opponents (who were often seated in the audience). He was once even sued for slander. As for his send-up of Socrates in THE CLOUDS - it is willfully inaccurate, to say the least. Socrates represented a new way of thinking and Aristophanes didn't like it.
Is Aristophanes' use of the Athenian stage an early example of Goebbels' cunning use of the media to alter perceptions for political gain? Perhaps that's a bit strong. Perhaps not. Scholars still debate the impact of THE CLOUDS on the ultimate fate of Socrates. Many think that his trial was an attempt to make him the fall-guy for the recently failed Sicilian Expedition lead by a former pupil of Socrates', Alcibiades - so, yes, his comment about "that damn play" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. However - his comment is a reminder of just how powerful the political comedy of the Athenian stage was in terms of public perception of political issues. And, as I said, he was once sued for slander.
If nothing else, Aristophanes' use of the stage to air his views IS an example of free speech - however, does it also represent the limits of the fair use of free speech when such speech becomes libelous and/or is willfully distorted? - a question hinted at by Dino.
Socrates does not name A's play by name. He didn't need to. Everyone would have know to what he was referring - to me this speaks volumes about the play's influence and/or notoriety.
If we equate live theatre with tv media today - might this ancient analogy not teach us something about, as I said, the limits of the fair use of free speech. Is it still "fair" when it is used to willfully misrepresent in favor of one political way of thinking?
(OK - DINO! You've successfully cluttered my head this weekend! After giving me a hearty chuckle when you reminded me about the bit about Socrates asking for welfare meals! I've always imagined him asking with a straight face - though he clearly knew he was doomed!)
OOPS! Clarification!
ReplyDeleteWhen I said that Aristophanes used the stage UNcivily - I was defining his use of it in Octo's terms. in other words - Socrates was not part of the debate - he was not invited by Aristophanes to stage to offer his side of the argument. Atristophanes held the stage, so to speak.
Make sense?
Makes sense to me, Squid -- excellent thoughts on Harry Stophanes. It's hard to say exactly what's to be done when people start using democracy's arsenal against it.
ReplyDeleteBloggingdino: It's hard to say exactly what's to be done when people start using democracy's arsenal against it."
ReplyDeleteSocrates understood absolute truth, beauty, and goodness as immutable. Inasmuch as life is transitory, one can subordinate a life to those core beliefs and accept martyrdom. Admirable and understandable. Yes?
Now lets bounce ahead almost two millennia to the age of Milton; evil is defined as the perversion of goodness. Is this not akin to using democracy’s arsenal against itself?
Although I don’t like Leo Strauss as a political philosopher, I have to admit. His ideas about the progression from decadence (my preferred word would be “corruption”) to nihilism to fascism have a certain ring.
I had trouble with the roots, civis, civilis, and civiliter, because, for me, the concept of nihilism, a quantum leap far beyond the ancient cynics, is a uniquely modern experience with no ancient analogues whatsoever. Perhaps this is an admission of gaps in Octo’s cephalous, but I understand our times best in these terms.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteOn the mousiness of some professional journalists, sure seems like they are compromised by their access to or proximity with the great and powerful. I'm guessing that when you often interview and brunch with some grand politician, you start supposing his or her intentions are better and more consistent than they really are. It is amazing, as you suggest, how journalists take at face value some of the obvious nonsense politicians and big business types spew. Even the rest of us poor schlocks can see what's really going on, but our intrepid journalists take it all as gospel. I mean, I suspected and many of us suspected the Bush Admin was talking trash from the very beginning of the runup to the Iraq War, but the right questions were seldom asked forcefully at high enough levels to rattle anybody up in the political stratosphere. And then there's always the money concern, so easily attended to by means of sham journalistic objectivism. "Some insist that 2+2 = 4, while others argue it's 11. It's not for us to say...."
Octo,
My old friend Milton! Hard not to like someone who penned "Devils to adore for deities" (1.373) and lines as good as "To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: / Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n " (1.262-63). Satan claims to his peers that his plan is "To wage by force or guile eternal War / Irreconcileable, to our grand Foe" and seems to think that just by defying and losing to God, he already possesses half of a "divided empire" alongside an absolute monarch (whose power he mistakenly glosses as material). But yes, the goal is sheer negation: to bring evil from good.
Nihilism – well, it depends on what we mean by the term. When Nietzsche or some of those C19 Russians use it, it's not altogether void of futurity. There was supposed to be a clearing away (by violence) of the status quo, which would open up the possibility of a fresh start, or a "revaluation of all values" (Nietzsche's phrase, as I'm sure you know). If the right-wing jerks currently ruining health-care reform are nihilists, it's in a darker sense: I'd say they are trying precisely to preserve the status quo because they don't give half an unsatisfying dump about anyone or anything except the Great God Mammon – "Mammon, the least erected Spirit that fell / From heav'n, for ev'n in heav'n his looks & thoughts / Were always downward bent, admiring more / The riches of Heav'ns pavement, trod'n Gold, / Than aught divine or holy else enjoy'd … (Paradise Lost 1.679-84). If it's meant in that Miltonic or universal sense, we might say that nihilism has always been with us as the lower sort of materialism combined with cynical relativism. Or maybe for the ancients the closest they could come to an utter negation of civilization was in the Greek term barbaros, barbaroi – foreigners, barbars, so-called because of the un-Greek and therefore dreadful sounds their tongues made. Well, Nietzsche always said that if we could read the Greeks – really read them, "in Greek", as he put it, we would shudder (rather than take delight in their tranquility and sunshine). Anyhow, I'd still like to hold on to those Latin words for their ancient vim and vigor.
It's not only journalists who are so awed by the presence of power and celebrity that they will prostitute themselves for no charge in order to gain acceptance by power and celebrity. I've watched people turn to fawning idiots at chance meetings with the famous. I'm sure that if I hadn't slept through so many Sociology classes, I'd have a name for it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if we'd retained a hereditary but impotent monarchy they would be able to divert us from worship of villains and giving away our birthright.
To some, nihilism is only a defense against the hopelessness and despair of watching our potential paradise tossed.