So anyway, I hope to post more through the Manitoba election season (we'll see), but for today, I'm going to talk about right-wing populism. I was reading Margie Gillis, The Media, and Them High-Falutin' Ideas on Nothing in Winnipeg and thought I'd respond. I'll start with the caveat that I did not watched the news segment discussed for more than a couple minutes and got bored, but the segment itself is not that important to the discussion.
Before I begin, Sun News is the voice of right-wing populism in Canada, just as Fox is the voice of right-wing populism in the US. The Sun News channel was specifically created to fill this market. There is no major left-wing populist media outlet in North America as traditional left-wing populism has been almost wholly abandoned outside the intelligentsia and public service unions (whose membership base is often not in full agreement with the more activist agendas of the unions). More on this in a bit.
That anything that doesn’t enjoy the support of the majority must be “elite,” and thus suspect. (False.)
...
* To be fair, there are people in the arts who could certainly be considered elite — I would point to the many extremely wealthy private citizens who are often prominent or silent donors, board members, and fundraisers for everything from the ballet to the most esoteric art galleries. It’s telling that these folks (and I applaud their efforts) are usually not the people referred to when certain crowds discuss the “elite” who support and work within the arts.
This is one misinterpretation a lot of individuals with more left-leaning or centrist beliefs make a fair amount. They miss the presuppositions behind right-wing populism, often imputing left-wing populist assumptions onto them.
Traditionally, the category of the "elite" are viewed based on a left-wing, quasi-Marxist conception of economics. There are the rich elite and then there are the poor working masses who the elites extract "surplus value" from. This class warfare conception forms the basis of left-wing populism and it has been largely abandoned in North America. While there's the occasional "soak the rich" rhetoric, most left-wingers have abandoned the class warfare approach, recognizing that if you "soak the rich" over-much they'll just shut the factory down and move it to China. Most progressives realize that you can not destroy the rich as you need to keep them around to support the welfare state, which the rich pay the lion's share of.
What class warfare politics that does exist generally resides in academia, which is relatively isolated from economic realities due to their centrality in the modern credentialism system, public service unionism, which are also fairly isolated from economic realities exceptingin the occasional public service slash, and in racial minorities, who are still relatively economically disadvantaged but their populism is generally more racial in tone than strictly economic.
Most of the white working class, the traditional base of left-wing populism in North America, has abandoned it because as long as there's a basic social safety net and jobs (which they know will leave elsewhere if the country is to punitive the rich), they live fairly comfortably.
Despite the abandonment of left-wing populism, the political language and pre-suppositions that formed the basis of it are still in use. The conception of the elite as being economic elites is one such remnant.
Populism in North America has largely become the domain of the right, but it is a different animal. This populism traces it's routes back to the "silent majority" reaction to the 60's counter-culture. It is not based on economics (although, the Tea Party movement may change this, but it's too early to tell). Rather, it is based on culture. The counter-culture tried (and succeeded to a certain degree) to radically alter North American culture form its traditional value and right-wing populism became the go to of the "silent majority" in reaction to this attack on traditional values. At this point, the basis of political disagreement began to move away from economics to post-materialist values. Thus the "culture war," the original basis of right-wing populism.
Knowing this, we see that when right-wing populists talk of elitists and elitism, they are not talking about the traditional economic elites, rather they are talking about cultural elites. The economic philosophy of right-wing populism is generally somewhat producerist in tone, setting "producers" (ie. workers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc.) against "parasites" (ie. "welfare bums", "corporate welfare", public bureaucrats, etc.). Most economic elites, excepting those seeming to survive primarily off corporate welfare and rent-seeking, would be among the producers and would be seen as models rather than enemies.
To the right-wing populist, the elitists consists of those who are seen as those who are becoming wealthy by being parasitic (ie. the bureaucratic and political elites) or the gate-keepers of culture who are seen as hostile to traditional values. (It should also be noted that right-wing populists often use "elitists" and "elitism" rather than "elites" as "elites" has a more economic connotation, while elitists is more to the point).
Now, we'll isolate art in particular. First, we must make a rough distinction between "high art" and "popular art". Right-wing populists generally don't have a problem with popular art in general (except where the values being espoused by a particular piece of art are antithetical to right-wing populist values). Except for some extreme religious fundamentalists (which are a small and waning sub-section of right-wing populism and have never really had any strength in Canada) there would be little political objection (taste is another discussion entirely) to Hollywood movies, popular music, trade books, classic paintings etc. that were not directly espousing hostile values.
The problem is more with "high art" such as modern theatre, interpretive dance, and modern paintings. I know these categories are rough and over-lapping, but this distinction is essential.
The first problem is that "high art" is generally "parasitical" these days; it is funded in large part by government through taxation. I'm not going to start the art funding debate, but this "parasitism" is one of the primary reasons for populists dislike of high art.
Second, is that much "modern" art is generally inimical to right-wing populist values. (At this point, we should also distinguish between "modern" and "classic" art. The "classics" like classical music, Shakespeare, paintings that aren't "modern", etc. are less prone to dislike. As defining features of Western civilization there is some love for classic art among right-wing populists. There is less hostility towards this and more mixed feelings about public funding). Modern high art generally embraces leftist values and generally are hostile to traditional values.
The third is perceived condescension. Nobody likes feeling that they are being condescended to, right-wing populists are no different in this regard. The arts debate feels condescending to populists and, to some degree, the general public at large. If say, a metalhead and country-western lover disagree, they might argue that the other's taste is horrible, but, generally, no one suggests that liking one genre or the other makes you an inherently better person, but high art is different. Those who support high art often give off a strong tone of superiority in taste and that those who don't like high art are lacking as a person. This is often the basis of why high art is argued as deserving of government funds where popular music might not be. (Whether supporters of high art mean to be condescending is irrelevant, that is the way they come off to many who do not particularly enjoy high art).
Knowing this we can begin to more accurately understand right-wing populism's (and thus Sun News' and Krista Erickson's) reactions to "art".
No, it’s everywhere, really: the bold and brawny pride of Not Getting certain art forms, or philosophical concepts, is a common feature of American media in particular — and it’s cropped up with some frequency in many Canadian outlets over the years.
"Not Getting" high art would be a source of pride for exactly the reasons illustrated above. It's a form of social signalling that you are not an elitist, that you are not a parasite, and that you are agreeable to right-wing populist values. Sun News and Krista are doing just this sort of signalling to their intended audience.
For similar social signalling reasons, cultural elites would generally turn up their nose at and deride, for examples sake, Tom Clancy novels, which are right-wing military fiction written for the "common man".
And is touting that ignorance as some sort of credential really what we want to be striving for?
Given the basis of right-wing populism, it is excellent credential to strive for if that is who you are appealing to (which Sun News is).
Also, once you understand the basis of right-wing populism that hostility towards the arts becomes perfectly understandable. It would be akin to the left-wing elite deriding Ayn Rand or "Not Getting" the appeal of Tom Clancy. It signals that you are one of the group and that you reject culture that is inimical to the group and its values/culture. There is no good reason to bother to try to "Get It" and some very good reasons to deride it.
Great post!
ReplyDelete"it is excellent credential to strive for if that is who you are appealing to"
I'm not sure if I should reply here or there, but to be clear: I understand completely that this is the goal, and why it is done in that way.
Where I'm focused is that this doesn't seem a very desirable thing to strive for in a media outlet -- but I tend to believe media has greater responsibility than to aggressively validate the beliefs of its target demographic.
I may be old-fashioned like that, though, given how things have evolved.
But this is especially true to me when it comes to the anti-academic streak that has gripped much of the political discourse: the mistrust of "high-falutin'" stuff of science, philosophy, social criticism and art.
This is one of my particular worries, when it comes to how media has operated in the last couple of decades in particular. When media aims only to parrot mistrust of those ideas to signal an "in" with its demographic, that isn't just simple pandering -- it's dangerous, in the long run.
It is vital that the media be positioned to engage in productive criticisms of the work done by academic or artistic "elite," and of government policy in regards to those things -- but aggressively embarking on summary dismissals and validating a refusal to engage them at all serves no-one well, including the target demographic.
All it does is effectively stagnate the evolution of a society, divide people and block productive discourse.
Where that ends up is what concerns me -- partly because I firmly believe that the media's rush to aggressively pander to a target demographic has played a pretty big role in how divisive, stagnant and unproductive sociopolitical discussion has become in the U.S., for instance, where the discourse on most topics of importance has become so narrow that little movement is now possible... even where desperately necessary.
It's certainly not the only player, and definitely not the biggest -- but it has shaped the problem as much as it is reflective of it.
"It would be akin to the left-wing elite deriding Ayn Rand or "Not Getting" the appeal of Tom Clancy"
Point taken, especially since in my music writing days (and even now) I have many times been irritated at having to defend my stance on certain popular music groups because they weren't, uh, hipster enough.
That said, there's a difference between critiquing a work or a philosophy, and between asserting that "I don't get this -- and *therefore,* it is invalid." Most criticisms of Ayn Rand that I've seen or read are possessed of a pretty good understanding of Rand's work and ideas, which is a prerequisite of effective critique.
I would actually suggest that on the left, the better comparison between the "artistic elite" of right-wing populism and a similar view on the left is (particularly in the U.S., though, where it is more of a player generally) the blanket mistrust and dismissal of faith and faith communities by much of the left -- which is also incredibly problematic.
The tendency there is to also see faith and faith communities as parasitic and condescending, with little attempt at understanding how faith impacts communities, cultures or individuals, and zero attempt to relate to faith communities.
That would probably strike me as the more apt comparison, in terms of how it plays out in national discourse.
"Where I'm focused is that this doesn't seem a very desirable thing to strive for in a media outlet -- but I tend to believe media has greater responsibility than to aggressively validate the beliefs of its target demographic. "
ReplyDeleteYou would hope so, but media outlets have always worked towards partisan or ideological ends. Yellow journalism, Pravda, MSNBC, Fox, CBC, sun News, NYT, WSJ: all have worldviews they, to varying degree make implicit and explicit in their press and use to attract and signal themselves to audiences.
"But this is especially true to me when it comes to the anti-academic streak that has gripped much of the political discourse: the mistrust of "high-falutin'" stuff of science, philosophy, social criticism and art. "
Academia, in particular the arts and the social sciences, are distrusted as it was the heart of counter-culture ideology and continues to be so. For similar reasons many on the left distrust economics departments, those havens of free market ideology.
As for science, no one really distrusts science itself, they just trust different aspects of it. The atheist leftist who professes evolution, loathes genetically engineered food and advanced agricultural science. The fundamentalist who loathes evolution, extols the virtues of the green revolution and bases his creationist arguments in "science". It's about values and presuppositions. Few take science as a whole, but rather pick and choose which parts they trust.
"Where that ends up is what concerns me -- partly because I firmly believe that the media's rush to aggressively pander to a target demographic has played a pretty big role in how divisive, stagnant and unproductive sociopolitical discussion has become in the U.S., for instance, where the discourse on most topics of importance has become so narrow that little movement is now possible... even where desperately necessary. "
It is a problem, but it is part and parcel of free media; media outlets will desire an audience and will tailor their message accordingly. The only way to prevent it would be to severely curtail media freedom, something which would be far more disastrous in the long run.
The media has been doing this for as long as it has existed and will continue to do so until the new media makes the old media irrelevant. We've gotten by fairly well so far, and will continue to do so.
"That would probably strike me as the more apt comparison, in terms of how it plays out in national discourse."
I agree, it is a more apt comparison.