A needed perspective perhaps, but at the same time, I don’t think one should be falling into ‘it has always been thus’ complacency. Things can and do degenerate, severely and in the ugliest of ways. Pound may have been ‘controversial’ but I don’t think there’d be a chance in hell that he’d be published today, or if he was, the weight of politics would send him and all his associates instantly into oblivion. Indeed, they already have been. In poetry today, perhaps more than other arts, and perhaps because it is never seen as mere entertainment, aesthetic considerations have virtually no place or weight in the judgement of anyone who has any sway. It is all about social / political import of the correct kind. The folks today who are absolutely certain that all debates are over, purity and enlightenment are upon us, and the ‘end of history’ must be harshly enforced, are ascendant in all significant and insignificant realms. The time may not be unique, but it is ours.
A Spetzari
3 years ago
The offences under its rickety umbrella range from an unguarded line in an interview to serial sexual assault; the punishments stretch from a rough week on Twitter to career annihilation
This is an odd way to frame it. Naturally people are less bothered by the former(s) and more concerned by the latter(s) in that sentence, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of ‘cancel culture’ is vague and unspecific. That’s just listing scenarios where it’s effective and when it’s not.
Second part of the piece is good though. What’s glaringly obvious in this whole episode is that those trying to cancel are acting as if we are at a low point in history for equality – when that is demonstrably absurd and the clearest indication that they are indeed blinded by the ‘narcissism of the present’.
Spot on. That’s why I think it’s slightly different. Another point picked up was the Generation Xers resistance to censorship. I remember the Rushdie Affair well and it horrified me. I will always choose to stick up for ‘offensive’ art rather than support the censors.
Katy Randle
3 years ago
The sad thing is that “bureaucratic control of thought” is exactly what many are calling for. It is no longer enough to do good; one must “undergo unconscious bias training”.
Basil Chamberlain
3 years ago
I often think of C.S. Lewis’ comment, “The present is also a period.” But I also think, like Alan Girling, that we shouldn’t forget that these debates, while always ongoing, can result in pretty dangerous outcomes if one of the “wrong sides” comes out on top. As Mr Lynskey himself writes, “the worst-case scenarios were more than thought experiments” in the 1940s. We are not living in one of the worst-case scenarios now, but we are are closer to them than we were twenty years ago.
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
I like the phrase, “the narcissism of now”. Today’s cancellers show a remarkable lack of self-awareness and an even more remarkable egotism. It doesn’t occur to them that, in a hundred years from now, some impossible to predict aspect of their belief system will be judged to be as horrifying and unfathomable as the acceptance of slavery seems to us now.
My money’s on trans. But I might has a small bet on the multi-cultural society.
Though this all supposes societies remain broadly free to think and speak. With the ability to spy, record, broadcast, persecute, arrest and prosecute, the one world government in waiting might have different ideas and we could actually be living at the time freedom disappears for good.
That’s a tremendous comment which beautifully summarises my own view.
boflynns
3 years ago
Let me restate James Baldwin: “I think that the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further, that the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly.” That includes the history books our kids use in school. And Alan, yes, Pound would be published today. I would scrimp and save to get him published if I had to.
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago
Interesting. I have a feeling that the underlying societal platform for cancel culture also changes over time. It seems in Pound’s time, cancel culture was more about the integrity of liberalism whereas now the basis of cancel culture seems more about the economy as expressed through a politicised ethical consumerism.
For sure, the notion of a civilising mission seem to be the consistent theme underlying the arguments about censorship but whereas then it was about the integrity of the civilising mission itself with liberalism at its heart, today it is more about how the civilising mission is shaped and driven by the economy with possibilities of censorship largely focusing on consumption brands and livelihoods dependent on cultural consumption.
Similarly, whereas in Pound’s time, societal ethics were largely shaped by a clearly defined cultural elite, now societal ethics are largely shaped by a much less defined popular culture.
Consequently, whilst similar themes persist, especially the integrity of the civilising mission, the franchise of opinion formers has expanded exponentially.
So what about the next chapter of our ongoing culture wars, sustaining the civilising mission under harsh conditions of resource scarcity with the franchise extended with the intervention of AI.
ruiz9418
3 years ago
The mother/father of all dualities includes the previous, present and future ages of wo/mankind. That we can and do evolve is a given, though never fast enough or *enough* in one’s own lifetime if one is at the mercy/beneficiary of racism, ethnicism, sexism (in all its forms & manifestations), nationality and religion.
In the 1001 ways we distinguish and distance ourselves from one another, the polarization that is created by the will to harm and the will to censor is ameliorated by only one thing: civil discourse.
johntshea2
3 years ago
Sounds like what C. S. Lewis denounced as “Chronological Snobbery”. Conversely, others have praised “The Power Of Now” above all else. In any case, if the author really thinks it’s all just business as usual at the moment he’s not paying attention.
Claire D
3 years ago
“he had brought the fatwa on himself by writing the damn book in the first place.” Much appreciated.
Have you read the book. It was a fantasy novel as most books are. So censure was only demanded by the muslim world as they decided to take offence. An excuse to fire up young muslims who were getting too westernised. A call to unite with their ideology and fight for Allah, and return to muslim values
I would guess not. It seems almost every critic of this book has never been near anything of Rushdie’s. There was that beautiful story Rushdie told of the young Muslim who had taken part in a book burning of Satanic Verses. His girlfriend had then insisted that he actually read the book. On doing so, he immediately found Rushdie to apologise to him in person.
I hope you realise the profoundly sinister implications of confirming a statement like that. If we do not band together as a society to deny bigots – religious or otherwise – their power to threaten/cancel us, then their power will dominate us. In turn, this will come round to bite you when you say something that fundamentalist Islam (or other ideology) deems unacceptable. Please have empathy for others.
A needed perspective perhaps, but at the same time, I don’t think one should be falling into ‘it has always been thus’ complacency. Things can and do degenerate, severely and in the ugliest of ways. Pound may have been ‘controversial’ but I don’t think there’d be a chance in hell that he’d be published today, or if he was, the weight of politics would send him and all his associates instantly into oblivion. Indeed, they already have been. In poetry today, perhaps more than other arts, and perhaps because it is never seen as mere entertainment, aesthetic considerations have virtually no place or weight in the judgement of anyone who has any sway. It is all about social / political import of the correct kind. The folks today who are absolutely certain that all debates are over, purity and enlightenment are upon us, and the ‘end of history’ must be harshly enforced, are ascendant in all significant and insignificant realms. The time may not be unique, but it is ours.
This is an odd way to frame it. Naturally people are less bothered by the former(s) and more concerned by the latter(s) in that sentence, but that doesn’t mean that the concept of ‘cancel culture’ is vague and unspecific. That’s just listing scenarios where it’s effective and when it’s not.
Second part of the piece is good though. What’s glaringly obvious in this whole episode is that those trying to cancel are acting as if we are at a low point in history for equality – when that is demonstrably absurd and the clearest indication that they are indeed blinded by the ‘narcissism of the present’.
Spot on. That’s why I think it’s slightly different. Another point picked up was the Generation Xers resistance to censorship. I remember the Rushdie Affair well and it horrified me. I will always choose to stick up for ‘offensive’ art rather than support the censors.
The sad thing is that “bureaucratic control of thought” is exactly what many are calling for. It is no longer enough to do good; one must “undergo unconscious bias training”.
I often think of C.S. Lewis’ comment, “The present is also a period.” But I also think, like Alan Girling, that we shouldn’t forget that these debates, while always ongoing, can result in pretty dangerous outcomes if one of the “wrong sides” comes out on top. As Mr Lynskey himself writes, “the worst-case scenarios were more than thought experiments” in the 1940s. We are not living in one of the worst-case scenarios now, but we are are closer to them than we were twenty years ago.
I like the phrase, “the narcissism of now”. Today’s cancellers show a remarkable lack of self-awareness and an even more remarkable egotism. It doesn’t occur to them that, in a hundred years from now, some impossible to predict aspect of their belief system will be judged to be as horrifying and unfathomable as the acceptance of slavery seems to us now.
My money’s on trans. But I might has a small bet on the multi-cultural society.
Though this all supposes societies remain broadly free to think and speak. With the ability to spy, record, broadcast, persecute, arrest and prosecute, the one world government in waiting might have different ideas and we could actually be living at the time freedom disappears for good.
That’s a tremendous comment which beautifully summarises my own view.
Let me restate James Baldwin: “I think that the past is all that makes the present coherent, and further, that the past will remain horrible for exactly as long as we refuse to assess it honestly.” That includes the history books our kids use in school.
And Alan, yes, Pound would be published today. I would scrimp and save to get him published if I had to.
Interesting. I have a feeling that the underlying societal platform for cancel culture also changes over time. It seems in Pound’s time, cancel culture was more about the integrity of liberalism whereas now the basis of cancel culture seems more about the economy as expressed through a politicised ethical consumerism.
For sure, the notion of a civilising mission seem to be the consistent theme underlying the arguments about censorship but whereas then it was about the integrity of the civilising mission itself with liberalism at its heart, today it is more about how the civilising mission is shaped and driven by the economy with possibilities of censorship largely focusing on consumption brands and livelihoods dependent on cultural consumption.
Similarly, whereas in Pound’s time, societal ethics were largely shaped by a clearly defined cultural elite, now societal ethics are largely shaped by a much less defined popular culture.
Consequently, whilst similar themes persist, especially the integrity of the civilising mission, the franchise of opinion formers has expanded exponentially.
So what about the next chapter of our ongoing culture wars, sustaining the civilising mission under harsh conditions of resource scarcity with the franchise extended with the intervention of AI.
The mother/father of all dualities includes the previous, present and future ages of wo/mankind. That we can and do evolve is a given, though never fast enough or *enough* in one’s own lifetime if one is at the mercy/beneficiary of racism, ethnicism, sexism (in all its forms & manifestations), nationality and religion.
In the 1001 ways we distinguish and distance ourselves from one another, the polarization that is created by the will to harm and the will to censor is ameliorated by only one thing: civil discourse.
Sounds like what C. S. Lewis denounced as “Chronological Snobbery”. Conversely, others have praised “The Power Of Now” above all else. In any case, if the author really thinks it’s all just business as usual at the moment he’s not paying attention.
“he had brought the fatwa on himself by writing the damn book in the first place.”
Much appreciated.
Have you read the book. It was a fantasy novel as most books are. So censure was only demanded by the muslim world as they decided to take offence. An excuse to fire up young muslims who were getting too westernised. A call to unite with their ideology and fight for Allah, and return to muslim values
I would guess not. It seems almost every critic of this book has never been near anything of Rushdie’s. There was that beautiful story Rushdie told of the young Muslim who had taken part in a book burning of Satanic Verses. His girlfriend had then insisted that he actually read the book. On doing so, he immediately found Rushdie to apologise to him in person.
I hope you realise the profoundly sinister implications of confirming a statement like that. If we do not band together as a society to deny bigots – religious or otherwise – their power to threaten/cancel us, then their power will dominate us. In turn, this will come round to bite you when you say something that fundamentalist Islam (or other ideology) deems unacceptable. Please have empathy for others.