Category Archives: Arts & culture

Tony Hillerman dies

Mystery author Tony Hillerman died yesterday. New York Times obit is pretty good. Hillerman set many of his mystery books on the Navajo reservation, and his main characters were Navajos; there are a number of scenes dealing with navajo religious events.

From a religious point of view, Hillerman’s books are of particular interest because his characters deal with the tension between traditional religion and contemporary life. One of his characters, Jim Chee, adheres to the traditional Navajo religion, but as (what I would term) a religious liberal; that is, Chee figures out ways to adapt and accommodate religious traditions to contemporary realities. There are other Navajo characters in Hillerman’s books who either reject religion completely, or cling to traditional religion in a fundamentalist way, or reject their traditional religion in favor of more attractive religions that come from the dominant superculture around the Navajo microculture. Each of these religious options — religious liberalism, rejecting religion completely, fundamentalism, conversion to another religious tradition — face each one of us today. Few of us have to confront with the problem that also confronts Navajo people:– to what extent is traditional religion an essential part of their ethnic and cultural identity, and how far can they change that religion before the change leads to cultural extinction and complete assimilation into the dominant Anglo culture?

While Hillerman’s books are “just mysteries,” and therefore suspect from the point of view of “high art,” I have found them to be some of the most thoughtful meditations on the role of religion in contemporary life. For that reason, and for his memorable characters and good storytelling, I’m going to miss Tony Hillerman.

Monty Python and cultural commentary on American politics

Seesmic, the video microblogging site, has decided to move into political commentary — sort of. Well, really we should call it cultural commentary.

Seesmic did an interview with John Cleese, of Monty Python fame, during which they asked him his opinion of Sarah Palin. You don’t have to be a member of Seesmic to watch — they’ve posted it on Youtube. Cleese is not an acute political observer, and it’s clear that because he doesn’t agree with her politics he gives her no credit whatsoever. But this interview isn’t political commentary, it’s cultural commentary. By listening to Cleese in this interview you get a sense of what a skilled professional actor sees when he looks at an American politician. Here’s a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:

“People watching her [Sarah Palin] on television, can they not see that she’s basically learned certain speeches? And she does them very well, she’s got a very good memory. But it’s like a nice-looking parrot. The parrot speaks beautifully, and kinda says ‘Aw, shucks,’ every now and again, but doesn’t really have any understanding of the meaning of the words it is producing, even though it’s producing them very accurately. And she’s been in these training sessions with Cheney’s pals, and she’s learned these speeches, and the extraordinary thing is that so many people are taken in by it.”

Once you remove the ad hominem bits and his obvious political bias, Cleese’s cultural critique of Palin is quite interesting. He’s basically saying that she’s very good at making her hearers feel that she knows what she’s talking about. But Cleese forgets that this is exactly what every politician does, and has been doing for thousands of years; this is simply the nature of political rhetoric, and has been at least since the time of Aristotle. Here’s some of what Aristotle has to say about political rhetoric:

“Since rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions — the hearers decide between one political speaker and another… — the orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own character look right and put his hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind. Particularly in political oratory, but also in lawsuits, it adds much to an orator’s influence that his own character should look right and that he should be thought to entertain the right feelings toward his hearers; and also that his hearers should be in the right frame of mind. That the orator’s own character should look right is particularly important in political speaking…. When people are feeling friendly and placable, they think one sort of thing; when they are feeling angry or hostile, they think either something totally different or the same thing with a different intensity….” [The Rhetoric, Bk. 2, ch. 1, 1377b21-1378a1, trans. Richard McKeon]

So a deepeer cultural commentary on contemporary American political discourse has to take into account that all the tricks used by today’s politicians are really thousands of years old. Political rhetoric is used to sway the emotions, in order to cause people to make decisions. Today politicians use mass meida to reach more people, but the basic principles remain the same. Reading through Aristotle’s Rhetoric has been making me calmer in this very stressful presidential election season — I can see that politics is not much different now than it was in ancient Greece.

Human nature is weak

My friend Elizabeth, whom I met in college and who now works for the Department of labor in Washington, visited us today. “Well,” said Elizabeth, “we could either go to the beach, or go to bookstores in Cambridge.” We looked at each other. It was a beautiful fall day, a perfect day for a walk on the beach. We drove to Cambridge.

We started in Central Square. Pandemonium Books had Doris Lessing’s new novel Cleft in paperback. “I always liked her science fiction better than her mainstream novels,” said Elizabeth. So I bought it, along with a magazine and a game and a Terry Pratchet book.

We walked up to Harvard Square and stopped at Revolution Books. I was hoping to find a used paperback copy of Marx’s Kapital because my old copy has started to smell moldy, but they only had the first volume. I got the latest copy of a communist newspaper instead; I figured they’d offer a perspective on the global financial crisis utterly different from the Republicrats (or is it the Demolicans? anyway, the party that has the purple elephant and donkey as their symbols).

Next stop was Harvard Book Store. I found a 1962 paperback edition of a Perry Mason mystery novel, The Case of the Duplicate Daughter, with an outrageous pink cover showing two young blonde women — the cover alone was worth the two bucks I paid for the book. I also got some books for work: Rethinking the Gospels: From Proto-Mark to Mark, Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, and a couple of others.

From there we walked to McIntyre and Moore Booksellers in Porter Square, which I still think is the absolute best bookstore for used scholarly books in the country. I didn’t get much — just The Crisis of the Standing Order: Clerical Intellectuals and Cultural Authority in Massachusetts, 1780-1833 (another book for work), and a book on subcultural music. Elizabeth, however, bought a lot of books, including an early Beat novel, two books on Quakerism, and a book that traced the intellectual effect of yoga on English-language literature.

“That’s how I first learned about yoga, through literature,” she said to the nice man who rang up her purchases and arranged to ship the books to Washington for her. “I would never find a book like this in Washington, the anti-intellectual capital of the world. What other city could I find a book like this?”

“Maybe Berkeley,” I said. “Cambridge, or Berkeley.”

Having struck our blow against anti-intellectualism in America, we left McIntyre and Moore Booksellers and walked to the subway station. I staggered a bit under the weight of all the books I was now carrying in my canvas bag — human nature may be weak in bookstores, but your arms have to be strong.

Fat cat

And no, the fat cat to whom I’m referring is not Richard Fuld, the former president of Lehman Brothers who received obscene amounts of money for driving that bank into bankruptcy. I mean a literal fat cat, who goes by the name of Mosby. Mosby is trying to lose weight, and he is keeping a blog of his progress.

Well, actually, he’s keeping a blog of his lack of progress because he can no more resist eating kitty treats than Richard Fuld could resist taking home tens of millions of dollars in spite of incompetent performance. The URI of Mosby’s blog is walkingottoman.blogspot.com/ — and yes,Mosby does indeed look like a walking ottoman.

*gloom*

So here’s my gloomy scenario for the presidential election: Barack Obama loses by a slim margin. Immediately, the whispers begin: “The only reason Obama lost was because he was black.” “The only reason Obama lost was because McCain used racial innuendo, called Obama a Muslim.” The country becomes more divided; the racial divide widens more than anything else. Everything gets really ugly.

Since I am (ethnically speaking) half New England Yankee, and half Pennsylvania Dutch, I am by nature a very gloomy person (this is why I’m a Universalist, I need to know that things will get better after I die). I had convinced myself that a slim loss by Obama would be what would happen. A win by Obama would be just as bad, due to the assassination attempts (being gloomy, I know there would be assassination attempts). Now I am trying to convince myself that McCain will win by a wide margin, since it is the least gloomy scenario for me.

Man, I hate presidential election season. It’s almost as bad as watching the Red Sox lose postseason games. The only thing keeping me from total gloom is that the Yankees aren’t in the World Series.

*gloom*

Tin-foil hat time

Let’s just say that I was talking with someone today; it doesn’t really matter who they were. We were talking about how lousy the economy is, and how the cost of everything is rising.

“Except gas. Gas is cheap right now,” said this other person.

“That’s true,” I said.

“For now. For the next three weeks. It’ll go up again after the election.”

“After the election?” I said.

“Yeah, it’s the oil companies trying to influence the election.”

Mm-hm. Of course I don’t believe this. No need to wear our tin-foil hats, folks; we do not live in a world of puppetmasters and vast conspiracies.

And if the price of gas rises sharply in mid-November, it will just be coincidence.

File under “Q”…

File this under “Q” for “Question Everything.”…

Now I’m a political naif, and I still don’t understand why a “red state” is red, while a “blue state” is blue. However, in newspapers I keep seeing maps showing that most of the states in the United States are “red states.” Therefore, since I live in a “blue state,” I must live in a political minority area, right?

The real answer to that question is — not really, or sort of. The “red states” do cover more area, but what counts in an election is population. Back in 2004 and again in 2006, for the national elections in those years, Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman of the University of Michigan created red-state-blue-state maps called cartograms, “in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population.” They created several different cartograms absed on differing analyses of election data, and you can see their cartograms here.

Their cartograms go beyond the red-state-blue-state dichotomy, showing that the political divisions in the United States are not as clear cut as those red-state-blue-state maps you see in the newspapers. Obviously, showing a deeply divided nation makes for better news graphics, but it also makes for less accurate news graphics.

I guess the moral of the story is: Question Everything, especially in the news media.

[Via.]

“On slipp’ry rocks I see them stand…”

Tonight I drove up to Newton to sing with one of the Boston-area shope note singings. In New England shape note singing groups, anyone can call out the number of a hymn and stand up to lead it.

“Number 183,” someone called out, adding: “This one is dedicated to all the Wall Street investment bankers.”

People started chuckling as they turned to number 183 and saw the words which had been written by Isaac Watts back in 1719:

“Lord, what a thoughtless wretch was I,
To mourn, and murmur and repine,
To see the wicked placed on high,
In pride and robes of honor shine.

“But oh, their end, their dreadful end,
Thy sanctuary taught me so,
On slipp’ry rocks I see them stand,
And fiery billows roll below.”

Universalist though I am, I chuckled too. For a moment. Until I realized that those Wall Street investment bankers have placed us all on slipp’ry rocks, financially speaking….

Be that as it may, we all sang the song with great gusto.

Say what?…

The IMF has warned of a possible global “meltdown” — and they’re not referring to global warming, they’re referring to the global economy. In the midst of this tragedy — and if the global economy does “melt down,” it will be an epic tragedy, with a high human cost among the most vulnerable people — in the midst of all this, there have been moments approaching comedy. Like this:

“Late on Friday, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the US planned to invest directly in banks for the first since the 1930s, following a similar UK programme of partial bank nationalisation.” [BBC Web site, 11 October 2008]

Yes, the Republican advocates of small government are going to partially nationalize the U.S. banking industry. For years, political conservatives have joked that a conservative is a liberal who had been mugged; now the political liberals are joking that a liberal is a conservative who has money in a U.S. bank.