My Problems with Stuff that Doesn't Matter

Last night was one of those rare occasions where B discussed the happenings in her novel, which she’s apparently rewriting from scratch. She’s essentially beaten the life from this text for the greater part of two years, and it finally seems like, at least conceptually, she’s making some headway. While I wouldn’t normally blog about such a development, what brought a smile to my face was that she managed to include Nietzsche’s slave morality and some small Rortian tidbits in her description. So, philosophically speaking, she’s developed a good framework, and she has always been good with character development. I have high hopes for being a golf / poet husband by the time I’m 30.

I’ve almost finished with The Idea of Culture by Terry Eagleton (sadly, I won’t be able to finish before Thursday because of classes). He’s done an excellent job of outlining the evolution of culture – culture as civilization, culture as something aristocratic, and culture as certain productions or activities. But, as it seems is always the case with Eagleton, I’m able to articulate my (dis)likes of him quite clearly, especially when compared with other theorists.

The third distinction given above seems increasingly dubious for two reasons. One, culture as an activity is increasingly being re-assimilated into culture as something aristocratic of privileged. Check out the prices at your local theater house and you’ll see what I mean – how often can you afford to have a good vantage point. Moreover, do you have the resources (time, money, etc.) to pursue a culturally-enhanced life? Second, in such a seemingly transaesthetic culture (B’s been talking to me about this, though she hasn’t used the term transaesthetic) where almost every facet of production, politics, and the economy is aestheticized to some degree, it’s increasingly difficult to point to one activity as culturally superior to another. Is Shakespeare more important than cinema? Not necessarily – the films by David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick are certainly important cultural guideposts. And it’s increasingly difficult to identify the appropriate criteria on which to judge culture relevance or superiority. Granted, I still think Of Mice and Men is superior to Epic Movie (without having seen it) or Tom and Jerry in many regards, but how do I make this judgment and are there still redeeming features of Epic Movie or Tom and Jerry that lift them into important cultural status? Or is everything just apart of the collapsing high vs. low culture dichotomy, which is B’s stance.

There’s an interesting chapter on culture ways where he polemics that Western culture is becoming stagnant and uninspired without a political / spiritual / culture ideal, some metaphysical goal or object of desire. This statement in and of itself isn’t startling or original – Baudrillard has been doing this for decades (sometimes literally repeating himself for decades) – but he brings it into perspective quite nicely by comparing Western culture with fundamentalist Muslim cultures where everything gravitates toward spiritual culture. The major difference, according to Eagleton, is that culture’s energy, its central focus that generates such energy. Almost off-handedly, he notes that ecological concern has almost become a legitimate universal principle ala religion or capitalism. While Eagleton doesn’t explicitly advocate a return to increased spirituality or Enlightenment ideals, anyone familiar with Eagelton understands his modernist leanings and amusement with all things pomo.

But I’m getting the most amusement out of his number of Rorty references. It’s almost as if he’s a spurned lover. Yes, anyone familiar with postmodernism knows Rorty: the liberal ironist, the man who insists there’s no one correct discourse or way of living, the man that undermines any attempts to posit evaluative criteria, the man who quietly glosses over that his philosophy is a purely Western creation based on Western ideals and ideally situated for the privileged University of Virginia professor lifestyle. Eagleton makes no small effort to repeatedly point out these issues with Rorty’s philosophy as if no other pomo philosopher has these leanings. I haven’t read every Eagleton work, so maybe he reserves a book or two for Foucault, Lyotard, and the gang. It certainly seems as if there’s a white guy feud going on between the two though. I’ll need to purchase a new book by Rorty to keep dibs on the tabloid-ness. Nothing like two well-to-do white guys abstractly beating up on one another. My conceptualization of Enlightenment culture undermines your outdated metanarrative! Your mother sure liked my metanarrative!

My final major interest with the book is an underlying contradiction in his section discussing nature vs. culture, i.e. what shapes humans. The popular pomo stance is that humans are purely cultural beings, completely malleable according to their surroundings. Think Foucault. Eagleton, in his modernist suit, argues otherwise, positing that there is something essentially human in our ability to feel pain or our aversion to death (nature). I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for such existential, evaluative criteria, but it sure seems to grate against his anti-essentialist leanings, essentialism in this context meaning that you can define humanity or history by one idea or theme (think classical Marxism). To me, modernism and essentialism, in many respects, went together hand in glove, but perhaps I missed a distinction that he made between the two. Either way, he gives a big nuh-uh to those who visualize humans as cultures with skin.

Like I said, I haven’t finished the last chapter, but I’m pretty sure that he’ll advocate some modernist criteria that unifies rather than fragments. I’d like to see something work, but Eagleton isn’t an analytic or technical writer so, more than likely, he’ll propose a system and leave its development to others. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as focusing too much on the technical issues often obscures the central themes.

Sorry for waving my philosophic phallus about like that. Next time, I’ll post a warning and bring wet naps for all. But isn't it more clear than ever that this blog, for me, is a bitter outlet for my 8 to 5 life? Golf / poetry husband by 30 -- remember that!

-j