Good post. Not cranky and not ironic. Tune in to some TV, esp late night TV and some "reality shows".
For me the issue is the "decline of deference." Which to me will translate into increased inability to govern. All well and good some say. But how much is too much. And be careful of what you wish for. Some on the left and the right see a coming societal collapse and overtly or covertly welcome such an outcome. And so they see the decline of deference is but one stage in removing the props from aging and corrupt structures of government. Again be careful of what you wish for. arthur -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] How to Live Without Irony - NYTimes.com Re. Arthur's post about: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live-without-irony/ I wrote: me> I can't decide whether this is 21st Century Navel Gazing by the kind me> of person who will only be happy when she has a regular me> psychiatrist... and further derisory remarks. Arthur replied: Arthur> Did you read the entire article? Yes. Arthur> The concern of the writer seems to be that much of the serious Arthur> discussion about current affairs will disappear in an ironic Arthur> giggle or a knowing wink as on the Colbert Report and nothing at Arthur> all will be done about it since, ironically, nothing ever has Arthur> been done. Well, I *did* write: me> I can't decide whether this is 21st Century Navel Gazing...or if me> this is really some kind of problem in urban culture today. I really don't know. I'm an oldish geezer at this point. I haven't hung out with urban professionals for over 15 years and then it was with a rather narrow group of technically oriented people. I've never seen the Colbert Report. So I really don't know if the author's irony thing is a pervading cultural pattern or not. But I do read a lot of stuff. If I were asked to proofread, edit and critique that article by the author, I would say something like, "Jack up the hood ornament and drive a new article under it. Put that text into your working notes and rewrite the piece identifying and addressing the underlying mechanisms -- the etiology -- that induces the 'ironic ethos.'" Then I would point her at "cognitive dissonance". In the past few months we (moreso those in the US) have been inundated with the rhetoric of patriotic democracy, the privilege and responsibility to take part in self-governance. Simultaneously, we've been exposed, via the media, to all the conniving, manipulation, demographic and political trickery and blatant posturing to sway putatively gullible voter blocks. And we've been expected to believe and accept both of those contradictory perspectives at once. We're given advertising that claims to well represent good products at the same time that everyone knows that the advertising industry is the most cynical and devious patch on the street. Another pair of contradictions that we're supposed to believe simultaneously. People are expected to exhibit loyalty to employers, even harbour real loyalty in their hearts while knowing that corporations follow Friedman's dictum which relegates them to the status of disposable commodity. It's gone way beyond hypocrisy. It's not worth anybody's time to maintain credible hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of Victorian London society -- upright Anglican gentlemen who slummed in Whitechapel at night -- was bad enough. Now we're all expected to quite publicly believe, even evangelize, multitudes of contradictory ideas. What's a rational response to that? Never mind rationl: what's a livable response to that? In it's simples incarnation, irony is language the literal meaning of which contradicts the meaning understood by the informed listener. The public face -- the media face -- of politics, banking, commerce, consumerism, even religion embodies overt contradiction, so overt that the nudge and the wink are themselves ironic. >From the article: Here is a start: Look around your living space. Do you surround yourself with things you really like or things you like only because they are absurd? Listen to your own speech. Ask yourself: Do I communicate primarily through inside jokes and pop culture references? What percentage of my speech is meaningful? How much hyperbolic language do I use? Do I feign indifference? Look at your clothes. What parts of your wardrobe could be described as costume-like, derivative or reminiscent of some specific style archetype (the secretary, the hobo, the flapper, yourself as a child)? In other words, do your clothes refer to something else or only to themselves? Do you attempt to look intentionally nerdy, awkward or ugly? In other words, is your style an anti-style? If the author's readers all give the wrong, "ironic ethos" answers to those question, why are they as they are? I didn't think the article made much headway in "identifying and addressing the underlying mechanisms -- the etiology -- that induces the 'ironic ethos.'" Or maybe I'm just a crank, writing way too late at night. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [email protected] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
