The shithead won

 The Dems win all the wrong elections. If Clinton had lost in 1992, we'd have a much better Democratic party. If Biden had lost in 2020, the shithead would be heading out the door. And what in my life would have been worse if the shithead had his second term then? Cannot think of much. Abortion rights lost? Check. Corruption on the Supreme Court allowed to flourish? Check. Gazan systematically murdered in an American abetted genocide? Check.

Still, I voted for KH cause she was young, comparatively, wasn't the Shithead or Biden, and I thought in the end she'd be better in the Middle East.

The Dems ran, once again, as the respectability party. What this means in the neolib era is combining a vague Civil Rights culture with untrammeled plutocracy and financial capitalism. It is a mix that leads to wider and wider wobbles in our politics.

Summing up the Biden disfunction was the popularity of explaining economic discontent with the term vibes. The people only think they know what economics is - it has to be explained to them they never had it so good! That is a joke. Coming off of the COVID interregnum, people got a taste of a truly extended social security net. Money from the gov! That was rolled up, and inflation hit seriously, and where was the Biden people? Well, they were on tv, explaining that we never had it so good. 

In a final twist to the whole false synthesis of neolib economics and civil rights culture, we get it explained that economic malaise vibes is really an excuse for racism. Which I suppose explains the Shithead's success with black voters. Or doesn't. Guess which households have been hit worst by "vibes" -- if you guessed black households, you'd be right. 

Next four years of Shithead being in everyone's mouths makes me tired. I'm tired and old. I want to do something else.

I'll add this, from June. Back then, it was France, but the same system dynamic is at play in the U.S. I have been searching for a term to encompass one of the great features of capitalism – the non-necessary synthesis. I guess I will call it the mock synthesis.

A mock, or synthetic synthesis is the repeated putting together of two sets of concepts that are not necessarily joined together, creating a “discursive” necessity – or what I would call a mock necessity.

The third way, that ghostly nineties thing, corresponds very well to the synthetic synthesis model. A certain neo-classical economics is retrieved from the conservative opposition to social democracy, and is synthesized with an ideology that came out of the class struggles that brought about social democracy: that is, the struggle for civil rights of oppressed subjects in a liberal nation-state. So, for instance, the type of economic policies that favous a great increase in economic inequality, with its deregulation, its guarantees of support for the financial sector, its lower tax rate for the wealthy (in all its parts, including the blind eye turned to offshore money and the whole system of tax avoidance for the wealthy) is joined to an increasing concern with the legal equality of the oppressed subjects.

In the synthetic synthesis, the former left assumption – that class struggle is the shaping force of capitalist modernity – is simply dropped out.

Synthetic synthesis produces a certain type of managerial self. In corporations, in academia, in politics, in journalism this self is encountered over and over again. It is a self that is rhetorically virtuous, but anchored in every way in an economics of exploitation. The synthetic progressive.

That these syntheses are not grounded in necessity – that is, in any approximation of a total view of society – means that these managerial selves can easily adopt attitudes that go violently against the civil rights ideology that legitimates them.

In France, right now, we are seeing in real time how this works, as Macron – an almost ideal managerial self – and the National Front (the RN, but I’m going to refuse to call them their new audience friendly name) are tentatively reaching out to each other. Last year, Le Pen’s party joined the left in its criticism of Macron’s reactionary attacks on Social Democratic institutions, symbolized by the fight over retirement. Symbolized, I should say, by the theft, by the political establishment, of years of the life of the employed classes, from clerks to mid-level managers to every employee of every public service. The last named have long been the target of Macronist contempt, contempt at the deepest level.

On the way to assuming power, the National Front, much like some Marxist caricature of fascism, erased its dispute with Macron over economics. And, indeed, in the turning of these wheels, the fragility of the synthetic synthesis comes into full view: why not attack social democracy and promote racism? It is as necessary, or non-necessary, as its opposite.

One of the great terms that has arisen in the social media is “gaslighting” – and gaslighting is symptomatic in late neoliberalism of the grinding sound at the base, as the money that flowed into the plutocracy due to neoliberal policies starts flowing to the reactionaries and fascists. The billionaire philanthropists, it turns out, are billionaires first, and philanthropists only as it gains them power and tax breaks.

It is hard to get one’s mind around a society that has so amply and fully adopted to synthetic syntheses – as it makes the life-world seem, ultimately, a sort of petty game, where nothing is serious if you don’t have serious money. Democracy can be cast aside because it empowers “non-serious” people. The serious buy their seriousness with serious money.

On singing in the shower

 Who among us is not aware of shower tourism? By this, I do not simply mean the always tentative exploration of hotel bathrooms, with their varying accommodation for the traveler, their little tubes of cheap shampoo and body gel, which one nevertheless pockets, their towels of varying thicknesses, and their surprisingly common problem with retaining water in the shower or shower/tub area – the latter being home to a curious penchant among hoteliers for what is called, in the industry, the “flexible curtain track”, which allows ample space to pull the curtain shut – but which always produces a sizeable puddle at the end of the lustration process. That puddle into which the showerer plunges his feet, with a light grimace, when removing himself from the shower – how well we know it. Unlike our bathroom, however, the puddle is a matter for someone else to clean up. Yes, the hotel bathroom deserves a whole chapter to itself, but at the moment, I am talking of another facet of this micro-world, which consists of using the showers of others – of friends or family with whom one is staying, or who are staying with one. Both aspects are noteworthy – tourism is, in this sense, a transitive property, since if you have guests staying with you, your quarters are, for the length of the stay, going to be somewhat alien to you. In other words, the tourist is a catalytic creature at whose touch the familiar becomes a tourist site. It is this logico-magical property that makes for the tragedy of tourism, as the tourist searches for an authenticity which his very presence destroys.

Myself, I have stayed with many a host. I have entered naked into many a tiled domain in apartment and house, and, testing the water from the shower head or wand, surveyed the various unguents stored there. Sometimes, of course, I have entered carrying my own; sometimes, I confess, I have “borrowed” alien creams, soaps, shampoos and the like. This, you will say, is pretty un-guestly. It is a sort of vice. But it is also part of our everyday novel-writing – since we all engage in living through, or parasiting, other characters now and then. The grocery clerk surveys the line and sees Mrs. X and Mr. Y and that girl who always comes in and buys one item and the old woman who makes you go through endless rolls of curly edged coupons, the auto saleman guesses at the libido of the 20 year old guy, etc., etc. The self comes and goes, it doesn’t preceed self-interest so much as it follows it, becoming at worst a ghostly selfishness, and at best a moral worry.

So it is with conditioners. As we know from Kracauer and Benjamin, the houses and apartments we live in are potentially only repositories of clues for the classic detective. The doilies in the living room may be bought for decorative reasons, but ultimately they serve to soak up the blood from the murder victim, along with the velvety pillow. The shower contains – like the computer and its files – a veritable history of the owner of the shower for those with the eyes to see. Are the hair products bought from the low end? Are they cheap and general? Or are they bought from the high end, and are they expensive and specialized? Is the language on them, by any chance, French? Or English? Do the shower gels refer to milk? To almonds? To glowing skin?

The shower process itself nourishes speculation. We stand under the fierce beating down of warm drops and we think. We ponder the day, the tasks. We make up verses. We make up grocery lists. There are, of course, people who simply shower to get clean. But as every tv ad for shampoo or soap makes clear, cleaning is secondary to the ecstasy of soaping and rinsing, to swinging, fresh hair, to sparkling eyes, to the smell that film is just on the edge of throwing at you if it could – the whole transcends its tawdry utilitarian purpose as much as advertisement’s speedy expensive car transcends that mere metal carapace stuck in traffic jams and hustled into parking lots. Advertisement has a way of changing the purposes of the acts of everyday life. In the case of the shower, it has cinematized our experience.

There is a reason that some sing in the shower. This is my song.

pity for the word "excited"

 I have lately been feeling pity for the word “excite”. The origin of the word is respectable, and even stuffy – from cite, or move, come forth. Cite appears in English first, as a legal term: a summons. Excite is a summoning too, but one that was connotatively associated with the body. When I learned French in high school, one of the things we were told that made us giggle is not to use “excite” in French, since it was vaguely sexual – a summoning of the libido.

To me, as an American, exciting is associated with more innocent things, or at least libidinously compensatory activities. “Isn’t this exciting” was inevitably ironic, for high schoolers. It was the type of thing the Sunday School teacher said about some dreary game meant to amuse us and edify us biblically.

Exciting still carried that whiff of the bogus, that eyeroll quotation marks, into the eighties. But at some point – perhaps when business schools overtook the humanities as the degree of choice – exciting was revived, a gadget for the new age of Babbitry. It was not only revived, but it started its march towards omnipresence. You could not announce you were taking a dump without saying that you were “very excited by the opportunity to take this dump.” If you were freelancing, and you have, as you must, a twitter account, you must always announce your feeblest initiative by saying how excited you were by it. Trevor Noah, for instance, wants you to know that he is “excited to announce my new 2020 tour dates!” Just to announce the dates! As a tv personality, you would think that he would be a bit blasé, but not Trevor. Bill Gates is “excited” about everything: about Boston Mills new “innovations” in steel production, about technology to “fix” flaws in photosynthesis (a big agro-business moneymaker that is “exciting” because it will, of course, help “poor people”), he’s excited all over the place about innovation. Anybody who has anything to announce nowadays – that they are taking a job or quitting a job, that they are going to school or just that they are one degree above comatose – must be “excited” to announce it. They are never sad, or indifferent; they are never simply announcing, telling, whispering, purring, etc. No, they are always excited. We live in a population that is carbonated on excitement, with bubbles of excitement entering their blood stream every second. You can hardly nail us down – so much are we jumping for joy.

All this excitement leads to a curious letdown feeling, in actuality. It is as if we have exhausted surprise itself, and nothing is exciting, since everything is. I do not deal in predictions, since I am so bad at them, but still, I’m excited to announce that I think excitement is about to take a turn for the less frequent. In the future, people will not be excited to announce anything. They will be, perhaps, ecstatic, orgasmic, or on the edge of their chairs; they will be cool, they will be beady eyed, they will be stoic, they will be anything but excited. This might seem impossible. It might seem like excitement and excited are set in stone, and that the seven habits of highly excitable people will follow us to the flooding of the coastal cities and beyond. But change is possible!

And I’m so excited about it!

The evolution of ghosts: Caspar R us!

It has long been my contention that there is no story about life on earth that does not boil down to an evolutionary story. The creationist version of life on earth has, since the 19th century, made large use of the notion of intelligent design – but anybody who knows anything about design knows that it evolves. The intelligent design argument is a mess, since the standards it uses to critique Darwinism are, of course, entirely absent when it tries to construct the meaning of intelligent design. Just as we can trace the evolution of the design of the watch by the material left behind in its wake – diagrams, tools, etc. – so too, if intelligent design were true, we would be able to see the material left behind in its wake – proto-humans, for instance. At this point, intelligent design simply gives up the intelligent part and opts for supernatural design, a design that defies the same physical laws that, on its critique side, intelligent design uses to try to de-legitimate Darwinian evolution.

Of course, creationists aren’t the only ones to ignore the evolutionary nature of all accounts of design. Philosophers, much to my distress, often assume things like zombies without having any sense that a zombie has to come with an evolutionary story, and that has to be packed into their account that a zombie doesn’t sense like a human being. This simply proves that philosophers are bad intelligent designers – something I think Wittgenstein spotted long ago.

At the same time, not all evolution is Darwinian evolution – that is, the statistical effect of selection, while definitely having some effects at the cultural level, does not play the role it plays in Darwinian evolution. Evolution on the cultural level often takes the form of assemblages that bring together different developmental paths as overlapping associations.

All of which is the wordy and way too wordy intro to what I want to do for a lark: understand the evolution of the ghost shape that one sees, in paper cutouts and cartoons, on Halloween.

Jean-Claude Schmitt, the author of Ghosts in the Middle Ages, lists six ways in which ghosts were depicted in the 13th and 14th century: the Lazarus, or resurrected man; as looking like a living person; as looking like a small, naked child, a common way of depicting the soul; wrapped in a diaphonous shroud; as a decomposing corpse; and as invisible, with the convention here depending on the text. In the last case, the text speaks of the ghost being sensed, but not seen.

It is striking how closely this list corresponds to features one finds in the common, commercial construction paper ghosts that are bought before Halloween in the store and strung up on doors and windows to create the “haunted house”.

However, in the age of drawing, painting and stonework, there were certain possibilities, mixes of the above categories, that were beyond the technological imagination. Clearly ectoplasm, that gross but fascinating presence in much of the spiritualist photography of the 19th and 20th century, is a compromise, a condensation, of the decomposing corpse and the diaphonous shroud. It was diaphonous matter in a state of decomposition. And yet, this decomposition was astonishingly lively – presaging the world of synthetics, the jello world, that came after 1945. Which was incidentally not only the year that the war gave up its ghosts, but also the year Casper the Friendly ghost was launched, a sort of Cold War parable – a friendly presence that was doomed to scare those it wished to greet. An image of American ambition throughout the world, or at least through American eyes, where we came with the noblest intention of helping and only seemed to scare and enrage the people we helped – so that we had to help them through other means, for instance, by bombing them or overthrowing their governments. We were the world’s Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Owen Davies popular history of ghost beliefs, The Haunted, proposes a close relationship between the way corpses were dressed for burial and the appearance of the sheeted ghost. The winding sheet as the last bit of clothing a mortal wears was, in the seventeenth century, supplanted by an increasing use of clothing – and yet still a white robe was often worn. “John Aubrey recounted that the Oxford philologist Henry Jacob, who died on 5 November 1652, appeared a week later to his cousin, the doctor William Jacob, “standing by his Bed, in his Shirt, with a white Capon on his Head”, which was presumably how he was dressed in the coffin.” Here we see an evolutionary fluke: the white sheet takes on a life, or afterlife, of its own with the ghost, as the human corpse is dressed increasingly in other raiment. By the nineteenth century the “bedsheet ghost” image had become standard. Davies thinks that the belief in ghosts, however, liberated itself from the contrivance of the bedsheet due to twentieth century movies. Early comedy silents and talkies extensively used the bedsheet ghost for hilarity. Since ghost belief is usually not about the funnies, but about the unheimlich, ghosts were seen not in sheets, but in their clothes – or sometimes wounded, or bleeding. There was, in the evolution of the ghost costume, this break in “seriousness”, with the children’s bedsheet ghost continuing its iconic run while the real ghost of ghost encounters lost the white sheet entirely.

How racism works

Racism has a double aspect: there is a racism of sentiments and a racism of structure. It is a mistake to think that these aspects are governed by the same dynamic, and will reflect the same “moves.” And yet, they are “aspects” – ultimately, sentiments and structure form a unity.

In a society that has bought into the myth of methodological individualism, the unity becomes ever more mysterious. According to that myth, if we operate on the individual sentiments, we are engaged with the determining cause of racism. If, that is, we could through some process make sure that nobody “feels” racist, then we eliminate racism.

Although intellectually many liberals think that structural racism is semi-autonomous, in some way, in everyday discourse these liberals tend to reflect the hegemonic position that it is sentiments that count. Thus, without considering that, objectively, those who achieve some success in a society that is structurally racist are themselves complicit in racism – or to be less wishy washy, are racist – they will much prefer looking at some other as the bearer of racism – the white redneck or trailer trash being, of course, the popular bugbear.

This is understandable. The relationship between sentiments and structure is a complex one, and not always easy to unentangle.

But even if the source of the racism, the aspect that is the larger factor in a particular instance, must be subject to analysis, one can still spot it pretty easily if we think about it. To give an example off the top of my head: Robert Caro’s analysis of LBJ’s election to the senate in 1948. This is how the NYT chose to summarize it:

“Mr. Caro maintains that although ballot fraud was common in the late 1940's in some parts of Texas, the Johnson campaign of 1948 raised it to a new level. Mr. Caro supports his charge with an interview with Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County who said he acknowledged his role only after all others involved in the theft had died.

Determined to Win at All Costs

It has been alleged for years that Johnson captured his Senate seat through fraud, but Mr. Caro goes into great detail to tell how the future President overcame a 20,000-vote deficit to achieve his famous 87-vote victory in the 1948 Democratic runoff primary against a former Governor, Coke Stevenson. A South Texas political boss, George Parr, had manufactured thousands of votes, Mr. Caro found. Johnson died in 1973, Stevenson and Parr in 1975. Mr. Caro says the election showed Johnson's determination to win at all costs as well as his coolness under fire and his ability to select gifted lieutenants, whom he then manipulated.”

One notices that the focus on ballot fraud lightly skips over the fact of real voter suppression in Texas in 1948. According to the Census of 1950, the population of Texas was 12.9 percent black, or 977,458, but until 1944, the state law allowed the Democratic party to exclude at its own will voters in the primary. That law was used to create a so called “white primary.” In one of the most important cases that the Supreme Court has ever decided, Smith v. Allwright, the Court ruled that this was an illegal infringement on African American civil riths. Interestingly, the 1948 senate race was one of the first statewide races after the Supreme Court ruling. So instead of speaking of “ballot stuffing” under the assumption that elections before 1948 were more licit, one should be asking whether lifting the long term illegal suppression of black votes made the 1948 election more democratic. More, I say, since grassroots voter suppression of black votes in Texas was still going on. It is only in the context of this much larger scandal that we can talk, with some historical understanding, about white election irregularities.

But the NYT synopsis of Caro’s research doesn’t touch on this, or even seem aware of the irony of talking about election irregularities in a system founded on a gross, systematic election irregularity. After all, that part of the story is in a separate compartment.

feuilleton and psychogeography

 

I came across a fascinating reference in Michael Bienert’s Die eingebildete Metrople – a study of Berlin the the feuilleton of the Weimar Republic – which led me to the Berlin Tageblatt for January 1, 1929. The editor, in a little burst of genius, had the newspaper pay eight writers to take rides on different routes of different buses going through Berlin from Potsdamer Platz to the Halensee neighborhood in Charlottenberg. The headline was “a relay race of writers”: in affect, these writers were to jot down their impressions, in whatever style and whatever way they wanted to. To use a term invented in the 1950s, they were given the task of writing short psychogeographies.

The eight writers were Alfred Doeblin, Alfred Polgar, Oskar Loerke, Arnolt Bronnen, Walter Mering, Walter von Mole, Alice Berend, and Arnold Zweig.

I can imagine some paper, say the Brooklyn Rail, doing the same kind of thing in present day New York. It would be cool.

Walter von Mole was a liberal writer whose sad fate was to have defended Jews in Weimar Germany against Nazis, to have tried to surrender after Hitler’s accession to power, and to be practically destituted by the Nazis in spite of this. His heart was not in pledging loyalty to Hitler, and the brownshirts could smell that. But in 1929, he was a big bestselling author. The little piece he wrote about Potsdamer Platz was a dialogue between a man and a woman who were going to see divorce lawyers, and exchanging spicy barbs about their mutually unsatisfactory sex lives on the way. It is a perfect little piece of mock eavesdropping, which ends at Potsdamer Bridge, where they get off. In the brief argument one gets a sort of precis of the post-war German breakup of sexual and family assumptions. This is the Berlin of decadence, Berlin Babylon, but in a minor key. Doeblin, of course, writes about Alexanderplatz. There are observations about the passing stores, monuments, and prices of goods. But the trip is also about the way the bus shakes, and its big engine – a Maybach engine. The voice is all about such things, the machines that make up the modern metro.

The only woman – Alice Berend – is given Tauenzienstrasse. As Mel Gordon, whose Feral House classic Voluptuous Panic is all about erotic Berlin, “TAUENTZIENGIRLS [were] Bubikopfed streetwalkers in the latest fashions (sometimes in mother-and-daughter teams), who silently solicited customers on Tauentzienstrasse, south of the Memorial Church.” Berend was a figure in the expressionist avant -garde, and a fairly well known novelist. One of her novels was a roman a clef about Carl Schmitt, who she knew in Munich, and who apparently filled her in with the sexual details of his relationship with his wife (Schmitt was the kind of guy who toted up his ejaculations in  his diary – for what that is worth). Her account is of the usual Berlin miseries, the socially come down, the former piano teachers selling postcards, etc., but no hint of Tauentziengirls, unless this is a distant reference: “Women in furs, with red lips, all young, however old they might be…”

Bienert’s thesis is that the feuilleton was an essential part of the metropole. His book is full of fascinating facts. Did you know, Frankfurt School groupies, that Kracauer’s paper, the Frankfurter Zeitung, was financed by I.G. Farben? We ponder the cracks and gaps in which the left intelligentsia had its say. We wonder: is this all going to be horribly relevant?

contempt

 

Mépris is French for contempt. Among aging American cinephiles, Godard’s film Le Mépris is enjoyed best if one retains the title without translating it, much as oeniphile prefer French terms to talk about wine.

The multi-disciplinary Jean Duvignaud – a sociologist, novelist, theater critic and the lover of Clara Malraux – wrote an essay on mépris which takes the word into an etymological socio-historical frolic – my fave kind of thing. The title of the essay is The counterfeit of contempt (La fausse monnaie du mépris) and he finds, in the word’s base, pris, or prendre – to take – a market gesture:

"Here we are at the market or the fair, long before Rabelais. “priser » to take or retain, as one does with a fish or game because it responds to a need, a desire, an expectation. And this give it a price (prix). To take is also to sniff, to aspirate by the nose, and the word was recognized by the Academy in 1878 in a hoomage to this secular practice.

From words grow gestures. Those who turn away from the fish or the duck – it smells bad, or its color is repugnant – disdain or have contempt for, as was meant in the 12th century the prefix “mes”. At what moment, and why here rather than there, did these words become ideas?”

This passage struck me, because lately I’ve been reading Jenny Erpenbeck’s The end of days, and there is a powerful passage connecting the collapse of the Austrian economy at the end of WWI with the daily life of a Jew among anti-semitism. They are somehow joined by the way the vendors of fruit and meat in Vienna are dealing with the influx of refugees, country people who come to a market and touch the goods: by posting signs forbidding, harshly, handling the goods and showing shopkeeperly contempt for those people who look like the type of people who handle goods.

“Every morning she goes to the market and gets in line. In the second year of the war, when she was still new in Vienna and there wasn’t yet a vegetable shortage, she liked to finger the carrots, potatoes, or cabbage, just like back home.

Hands off the merchandise! the Viennese shouted at her, sometimes even slapping her hand away as if she were a disobedient child.

Surely it isn’t forbidden to look a bit before one buys.

Look all you like, but no pawing.

Later they simply pushed her away when she wanted to touch something intended for her stomach. Fire, locusts, leeches, plague, bears, foxes, snakes, insects, lice. But did these people ever stop to think about what it really meant to introduce things growing in the world into their bodies?”

The vast contempt of the Viennese shopkeepers for the peasant, the urban ethnic contempt that flowered there, the way it is connected with touching, smelling, and forbidding touching and smelling – there’s a powerful nexus, here, the way contempt transmits itself in the socius, through small but forceful gestures. Erpenbeck is a marvelous suggester – the whole that waits out there, that the reader is conscious of, intrudes in these market interactions.

“In her own shop back home, if she had forbidden the customers to touch her wares, she’d have gone out of business right away. When she thinks of all she left behind when she fled — the eggs, the sacks full of flour and sugar, the barrels of herring, all the apples — she could weep. People here are insolent, and they won’t even give you what you are entitled to according to your ration card. When she stands in line unsuccessfully, she sometimes gathers up a few cabbage leaves, rotten potatoes, or whatever else may have fallen into the snow around the vegetable sellers’ stands, and puts them in her bag.”

I have been away long enough from Publix, from Winn Dixie, from Krogers that I don’t entirely remember the protocol. But I always handle the veggies. Smell strawberries. Sort through the vrac, to use the French term. And I’ve noticed that increasingly, the veggies are put in plastic. Nothing shocks me like seeing broccoli, which you should pick through, feel with you fingers, embalmed in plastic. I feel like they are being strangled in there. It is a feeling that leaps out of my heart of digestive system without me thinking about it at all.

Ah, the sources of contempt, it is a long topic casting a vast shadow over us, the fingering masses.