Managed to basically take yesterday day off. I played through Beethoven piano sonatas and most of my favorite Prokofiev piano sonata (No. 2).
The beautiful G# minor slow movement (played above by Russian pianist/conductor, Mikhail Pletnev) felt like an elegy both for the Japanese tragedy of the earthquake/tsunami and the local tragedy of the death of a young professor.
I also finished off a couple of books I have been reading.
Schiffrin has been in the book business for a long time. In The Business of Books he argues that the conglomeration of publishers into new larger corporations has changed the book business. He has witnessed the new emphasis on only publishing books that make money without considering the responsibility of investing in new and important books and the ideas in them.
He quotes Klaus Wagenbach whom he describes as a “noted German publisher and Kafka scholar”:
“If books with small print runs disappear, the future will die. Kafka’s first book was published with a printing of 800 copies, Brecht’s first work merited 600. What would have happened if someone had decided that was not worth it?”
Schiffrin himself puts it this way:
“[I]f the domain of ideas is surrendered to those who want to make the most money, then the debate that is so essential for a functioning democracy will not take place. To a large degree it is this silence that has overtaken much of American intellectual life.”
“Books today have become adjuncts to the world of the mass media, offering light entertainment and reassurances that all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds. The resulting control on the spread of ideas is stricter than anyone would have thought possible in a free society. The need for public debate and open discussion, inherent in the democratic ideal, conflicts with the ever-stricter demand for total profit.”
The phrase, “best of all possible worlds,” is a sly nod to Voltaire’s Candide. He also quotes from another book I have read and was happy to see him refer to:
“Freedom of speech is the very foundation of democracy. To allow private interest to monopolize the most powerful means of reaching the human mind is to destroy democracy. Without freedom of speech, without the honest presentation of facts by people whose primary interest is not profits, there can be no intelligent basis for the determination of public policy.”
Robert McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy
Incidentally, McChesney is not talking about the current crisis when he makes this comment. Rather, he is talking as a historian about 1903s debate about funding for radio. But Schiffrin (and I agree with him) thinks it applies to now. Schiffrin continues this riff later:
“The idea that our society has been fundamentally affected by the importance of money is widely recognized. Other values that have been looked to as countervailing forces are fast disappearing. Not only our belongings but our jobs and, indeed, our selves have become commodities to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. There have been other times in history when such changes have taken place. But now, linked to globalization and to the industrialization of the media, the effects are all the more staggering.”
If some of my readers (Ray, David) disagree with me and my weird ideas (see comments to the previous post), I hope this might help them see the logic in them (or that I’m not alone in them) even if they think I’m wrongheaded and off base.
I didn’t go looking for quotes to back up my responses from yesterday. These parts just leapt out me as I was reading last night.
Also finished William Jelani Cobb’s interesting and moving The Substance of Hope.
Cobb traces the phenomenon of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and first year of his election. He is a historian who specializes in post-Civil War African-American history, 20th Century American politics and the history of the Cold War. I saw him speak on C-Span and was very impressed with his historical understanding of the present. So I interlibrary-loaned this book. I was not disappointed.
Last night I finished off the chapter where he picks apart the comparisons made between Obama and FDR and Obama and Lincoln (“Mandates and Metaphors: Of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Obama). He does this in a very nuanced way and I recommend reading him. He delicately observes that FDR’s wheelchair disability and Obama’s race worked in similar ways in their candidacy and subsequent presidency . Neither man could point clearly to what was the elephant in the room, but both campaigns and presidencies represented important changes in American life. And there are other comparisons like the wars and the economies these men had to deal with.
Regarding Obama’s race, I like this story he tells:
“In 2002 reporters asked Denzel Washington what it meant for three African Americans to be in contention for Academy Awards in the same year. He replied, “It means that three African Americans are in contention for Academy Awards in the same year.” I am tempted to answer the question about the meaning of a black presidency with the same terms: It means that the president is black. And anything beyond that will be left for time to tell.”
I also like his nuances about Lincoln and Obama.
After pointing out similarities in their rise to power, Cobb says “Some of this is best left not too deeply explored. Lincoln has come down through history as a champion of racial equality, a cause he never actually endorsed. As a young legislator, he paid little attention to issues concerning blacks in Illinois and made no objection when blacks were disenfranchised in the state…. His earliest draft of the Emancipation Proclamation contained language stating that the freed blacks would be deported to the most reasonable and convenient locale.”
But he ends the chapter point to Obama’s awareness of and homage to Lincoln as evidenced in his use of the word, “lash,” in his inaugural address. Lincoln also used the image in his second inaugural.
Obama:
“For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.”
Lincoln:
Praying that the “scourge of war may speedily pass“… Lincoln allowed that God might will that it continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.”
Cobb is certain that Obama is too careful “a craftsman of words” for this to be coincidental and sees it as a “masterfully subtle nod, a recognition perhaps that Obama is not Lincoln—nor any other presidential predecessor–but that they are nonetheless bound to a common narrative, lashed, in effect, to the same themes of trial and perseverance, race and progress, turbulence and, inevitably, change.”
This book was an excellent read and I will watch for other titles by this brilliant contemporary observer.
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
YOGA BODY by Mark Singleton reviewed by Wendy Doniger – TLS
from the UK Times Literary Supplement: “Yoga is a rich, multi-cultural, constantly changing interdisciplinary construction, far from the pure line that its adherents often claim for it”
*********************************************************************
Cassini spots rainstorms on Titan’s surface (Wired UK)
********************************************************************
Justin Davidson on the New Generation of Composers — New York Magazine Classical Music Review
This article mentions a composer I recently started listening to, Tyondai Braxton. I thought it would be interesting to check out the others.
*********************************************************************
NPR’s Toothless Defense Strategy – Newsweek
Howard Kurtz describes NPR as self destructive.
*********************************************************************
UNcivil disobedience: the Media ignores unions’ political thuggery–Glenn Reynolds – NYPOST.com
Conservative Glenn Reynolds points justly to recent incidents of deplorable behavior towards conservatives. Use of the word, thug, seems to commit the error he is deploring, however.
*********************************************************************
A Very Liberal Intervention by Ross Douthat – NYTimes.com
Regarding the recent international back no-fly zone in Libya.
*********************************************************************
The War on Elizabeth Warren by Paul Krugman- NYTimes.com
“Elizabeth Warren..[is] the law professor and bankruptcy expert who is in charge of setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”
“Nothing could be worse, from the point of view of bankers and the politicians who serve them, than to have consumers protected by someone who knows what she’s doing and has the personal credibility to stand up to pressure.”
*********************************************************************
Unbreakable Bonds by Iris J. Lav – NYTimes.com
“[F]ear of an imminent bond crisis reflects a profound misunderstanding of the differences between the short- and long-term challenges facing state and local governments, and what these governments can do to address them.”
*********************************************************************
Tracking the Decline of the Omnivore | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune
Miller-McCune seems to be an Australia news source.
“A new … study finds the group of people who regularly attend arts events is both shrinking and getting less active.”
**********************************************************************
What Ever Happened to the Antiwar Movement? | Britannica Blog
David Boaz asks the question: “Could a new antiwar movement hook up with the Tea Party movement in a Stop the War, Stop the Spending revolt?”
*********************************************************************
Publishers risk DRM black-hole | The Bookseller
Are book publishers making the same mistakes music distributors have made over and over?
********************************************************************
How funny. This is classic Jupiter Jenkins baiting for more rhetorical conversation. In regards to your reply to my post the other day, your reply exemplifies my point.
“Where I disagree with you two gentlemen is that I understand corporations operate only at the behest of the state/community and the profit they accrue is not private personal wealth but is regularly siphoned off to stockholders who are mostly concerned about optimizing their investment.”
Again, corporations are not people and do not exhibit behavior in a relative sense.
Let me back up. I have studied business from both a sociological perspective as well as a psychological perspective. The sociological standpoint dictates that we understand businesses, corporations, institutions from a collective holistic perspective. The psychological perspective dictates that we look at the prior entities from an individualized perspective. There is no quandary with you looking at things from the sociological perspective, for it can be a useful way to understand how institutions may look like they “behave” in certain manners. The reason I argue for the psychological perspective is that you are continually interjecting into your blog about the importance of intimacy and respect of the individual relationships that you struggle with, relate to and revel in.
In this sense, I will continue….
“Corporations (like Chevron and AT&T) need to be held accountable at all levels”
From the psychological perspective, Corporations don’t need to be held accountable, but rather people need to be held accountable at all levels. Corporate executives need to be and are often held accountable for their actions and behaviors whether it is private (ENRON, Exxon, etc.) or public (Bell city CA, Bill Clinton, etc). Considering they represent a small portion of the general population who are often in the limelight, we can see this as a society and make accountability happen.
“The prudent thing would be for a person/corporation, of their own volition, to contribute to society in a meaningful and long lasting manner so as to benefit society as a whole as opposed to being forced into anything.”
Maybe this statement was not fully understood. If I were to rephrase this statement it may look something like this:
“It is highly likely and probable that we will continue on this journey of selfish intrinsic motives for our behaviors until we as a human species at all levels change our mindset to be motivated to ‘give’ as much as we ‘want’. From the CEO to the pick-swinging ditch-digger we are very much motivated by what is important to our own interests as opposed to societies as a whole.”
Since the bottom line of any corporation is dictated by the people who are involved with it, the change must be with the people not the mindlessness inhuman entity. This is true for anything. Other examples (maybe cliché), “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. How can we hold a gun accountable? Money does not make the world go round; people make the world go around. How can we hold money accountable? Corporations don’t need to be held accountable, the people involved need to be held accountable. I realize that this subject is a lot more complex than these oversimplified examples, but I am exacerbating the situation to make the point.
“[I]f the domain of ideas is surrendered to those who want to make the most money, then the debate that is so essential for a functioning democracy will not take place. To a large degree it is this silence that has overtaken much of American intellectual life.”
The people who hold the domain of ideas are both individuals as well as part of a collective whole. People will always debate at multiple levels for we are a verbal species, which along with opposable thumbs sets us apart from animals. The democracy is made up of people and if the democracy is “dysfunctional” it could be argued that it is a direct reflection of the people who make it up (just like a family system).
“Freedom of speech is the very foundation of democracy. To allow private interest to monopolize the most powerful means of reaching the human mind is to destroy democracy. Without freedom of speech, without the honest presentation of facts by people whose primary interest is not profits, there can be no intelligent basis for the determination of public policy.”
Another way to look at this powerful paragraph is from the psychological or individualized perspective. It could be argued that individualized intellect is the foundation of democracy, for without individualization speech, thought, and democracy would not be an idea. This paragraph is also riddled with political overtones, which these days are very demonstrative in nature. We as a society are continually debating our own interests (democrat verses republican, liberal verses conservative, tomato verses tomaughto etc). We do this through speech, but we base this on our individuality which is made up of our lifetime of experiences and life education.
“The idea that our society has been fundamentally affected by the importance of money is widely recognized. Other values that have been looked to as countervailing forces are fast disappearing. Not only our belongings but our jobs and, indeed, our selves have become commodities to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. There have been other times in history when such changes have taken place. But now, linked to globalization and to the industrialization of the media, the effects are all the more staggering.”
To me, this statement professes that we are a product of our hybrid society that is somewhere between capitalism, socialism and imperialism.
“If some of my readers (Ray, David) disagree with me and my weird ideas (see comments to the previous post), I hope this might help them see the logic in them (or that I’m not alone in them) even if they think I’m wrongheaded and off base.”
None has said that your ideas are “weird” or that you are “wrongheaded”. These are your own words that you place on yourself. I know where you are coming from because I have known you in some respects all my life and you have me. I just simply see the world a little differently than you and Mr. Hinkle regardless of our agreements or disagreements, which consequently should be my earned right as an individual whom makes up this democracy, contributes to it and has literally served it in vocation and country service (regardless of how dysfunctional or strayed from a textbook definition democracy is viewed these days). What would really be scary is if everyone agreed with everyone else. Droids come to mind (the Matrix, Terminator series, Logan’s Run etc….).
There you have it, I have said my piece and took the bait. Let’s see if I this subject can be reeled in, swallows the hook, or breaks free…
David J
David,
Sorry if I seemed to be “baiting” you in today’s post. I put in the paragraph about you and Ray in today’s blog because I thought it was obvious that the ideas that I had run across in my reading the night before were related to how I think about democracy and corporations and I didn’t want to seem like I was trying to look up stuff that supported my way of thinking and refuted yours.
I am interested in conversation. And I thank you for responding online to my silly blog. I sometimes think that you and I are talking at cross purposes. Since you are my son I would much prefer to have conversations in person with you, so that I could catch your affect as well as your words. You are an intelligent, articulate person. Both with words and body language. It would be very helpful to be in the room with you when we talk about stuff like this. We definitely often seem to see things differently. I am okay with that. I respect you and your ideas and points of view and figure I can learn from them even when we don’t agree.
The topic we are talking about (individuals versus institutions or corporations) is not one that I feel too strongly about. I agree with many of your ideas about individualism. I definitely see that the American history and culture is one of individualism and that I, myself, operate from this point of view. I think of Granpop Jenkins who was definitely a strong-willed self-conscious individualist.
If I understand your objections to my wanting to hold corporations accountable, you are saying that it is the individuals in the organizations that are accountable for their actions. I certainly don’t disagree with that.
And it also sounds like you are alluding in places to the classic concept of “Moral Imperative.” which I understand to partially mean that all people should treat each other the way they want to be treated. The equality notion you mention.
I certainly am for that.
Where we probably part ways is that I feel like incorporated institutions are hurting our society by the actions of the few individuals in them. When they represent the interests of these corporations at the expense of many individuals in our society, it troubles me. I think these institutions have got to be regulated by the society not by themselves. I think the business community (especially the large conglomerates) has lost sight of the idea of “Servant Leadership” which is where the individuals in institutions factor in the good of the larger community as they make decisions.
My suspicion is that we are witnessing the emergence of new societal entities in which multi-national conglomerates are acting above and beyond states and countries and vying to supersede them.
I see that you are coming from an entirely different angle and that Ray comes from a third point of view.
Another place of disagreement might be that individuals do what they mean to do in the context of institutions and it is they who should be held accountable not the organization. I think systems work differently than that. I think that the culture of an institution often takes over and people act in ways they would not if they were acting solely for themselves. They are influenced by the context and sometimes act in ways they are think they are expected to act (hence the idea of a culture of an organization) of even are affected unconsciously. This is certainly true of groups of people in religious communities.
This talk of institutions reminds me of my father quite a bit. He had some pretty strong ideas about institutions and used to say that after an organization gets going the purpose of the organization changes from its original chartered purpose to basically perpetuating itself at all costs. I know he was thinking of his experiences with the institutional church when he said that.
Anyway, I’m not consciously trying to provoke you. I like it that you comment.