|
22.1.03
Bob Geldof was interviewed recently,
asked for his thoughts and feelings about the death of
Joe Strummer. He gave an articulate account of what punk
rock was about, what Strummer's role was, and how politics
may (or may not) relate to music. Punk was a reaction
against complacent, bloated and corporate domination;
the Radio 4 interviewer noted "that's where we are now
with music": the banal, manufactured rubbish based more
on sophisticated business plans than creative expression.
And how it's being lapped up, with these Watch Me Become
A Pop Star TV programmes.
Geldof is one of the few 'famous'
people I admire. The Boomtown Rats were not quite a genuine
punk band, but were in the same general category. I used
to like their music ("I Don't Like Mondays" coincided
with my weekly dread of school), and I regard Live Aid
as one of the greatest public events I have ever witnessed.
It was punk rock used creatively, as opposed to a violent
and purely destructive force.
Hooray, Bob. I'm glad he's consulted,
and he's usually got something intelligent to say. However,
his remark about music and politics did not convince me.
Not because of his inadequate perception, but because
of a general and widespread trend which I refute.
The term 'politics' is sometimes
a way of identifying conflicts and tensions that are psychological
rather than doctrinal, individual rather than affiliative.
I once knew someone who habitually smoked marijuana. Her
bosses knew this and objected, and she described the situation
as "political". I regarded it not as a question about
power relations, but the legitimacy and intelligence of
drug-taking - and the reasonable demand for clear-headed
employees. 'Politics' is a way of crystallising specific
situations into wider, commonly identified patterns of
conflict. She liked to assert that it was a political
situation, because it gave her an empowering ideological
stance which condoned her personal habit, and allowed
her to contest her employer's viewpoint.
I've been going to Film Studies
classes, and I've noticed that the critical position -
the viewpoint which challenges established values and
hidden ideologies - has been subtly linked to a left wing,
working class perspective. I first encountered this many
years ago during A level sociology, and it seems endemic
to academia at all levels. In particular, the Marxist
critique is regarded as an eminent method, appropriate
for critical thought. In Film Studies you have - supposedly
- the glossy Hollywood formulas posited against the social
realism of directors like Mike Leigh. One is bourgeois,
the other is working class, and the latter is (sometimes)
implicitly related to a superior critical position because
it revolves around the normal struggles of life rather
than a comfortable and escapist fantasy. Religion is the
opium of the people, Marx said - and I agree. As the overwhelmingly
dominant form of global mass-entertainment, film can be
regarded in the same way. There's no doubt much of it
is like this: an ideological apparatus which benefits
the industry (the executive fat cats and the designer-actors),
by encouraging passive and formulaic acquiescence rather
than critical intelligence. But does this mean the working
class (anti-bourgeois) experience is the more critical
one? I think not.
Critical and genuinely subversive
thought is considerably more complex, less binary, less
doctrinal and more psychological. The dope smoker
was struggling to have her habit accepted; she interpreted
her dilemma in purely structural terms, i.e. an opposition
between A and B with the ensuing conflict of power. She
wasn't questioning or thinking about the nature of drug
taking; perhaps she linked it with anti-establishment
values like the 1960s hippies did, avoiding the obvious
fact that they impair both perception and capability,
and are the ultimate escape. That's why US soldiers used
them in Vietnam, and why the UK drug problem is often
related to poverty and crime. A damaged and painful life
makes you seek out some kind of relief, which provides
no answers but damages your life even more, and you have
a tragic downward spiral which impacts on wider society,
accounting for a large proportion of burglary and mugging.
Is that 'political'? Of course not - the damage is clearly
evident in both personal lives and wider society. The
same point applies to other situations like music-making:
sometimes, what people call 'political' is personal and
psychological.
'Political' music is psychological
at least as much as it concerns social power relations.
Janis Joplin and Kurt Cobain have to be understood psychologically;
Sid Vicious is an even better example. Punk rock was supposedly
a political defiance, but much of it was based on damaged
personal lives. In How
to Survive Without Psychotherapy (1996) psychologist
David Smail notes that the Thatcherite era created a noticeable
increase in the numbers of people seeking counselling.
The political climate was punitive and uncompassionate,
and damaged people's lives. But does that mean "the personal
is political", as feminism used to claim? In many
situations the political is personal - psychological,
that is. Religion is the opium of the people, and post-Marxist
sociology is the opium of the academic.
There's no doubt there are identifiable
social patterns which we have learned to recognise and
formulate in terms of political discourse. But politics
is not a universal intellectual template, despite the
fact that it's often used in this way. The dope-smoker
was engaged in a political struggle; Sid Vicious and wider
punk rock was 'a political statement'. In fact, dope-smoker
was interpreting/using political rhetoric to justify an
escapist dependency and Sid Vicious was a tragically damaged
young man (also taking drugs). Very often, the so-called
realism of Mike Leigh (and others) is based on a corrosive
material deprivation often linked to working class experience,
construed in terms of a post-Marxist critique and legitimate
counterpoint to glossy cinematic escapism and bourgeois
exploitation. But this position is predicated on 'victim
politics' - you are subjected to circumstances - and wholly
material parameters and definitions of human experience.
It lacks psychology. In
many circumstances, what people are actually arguing about
is the desire and need for happiness and fulfilment based
on a healthy sense of personal power, i.e. the ability
to influence the environment and get what you want from
it. Some of this is material; much of it concerns attitude
and personal awareness i.e. psychology. Because
psychological awareness is chronically lacking, the psychological
perspective and thus the necessary language is also lacking.
Everyone is aware of politics, and they adopt its categories
and terms to express their psychological issues.
People like to feel they are morally
secure, and this psychological fact underlies religious
and political affiliation where disputes and arguments
are concerned. This is evident in the proceedings in the
House of Commons and all political meetings. The faithful
followers benefit from glowing feelings of certainty and
belonging, and a unified and collective disparagement
of whatever opposition there may be. They are right, other
people are wrong, and debates are reduced to polarised
and contrary positions where intermediary complexities
do not exist. Religion can be understood psychologically;
this mature position should be extended to politics.
In my Film Studies class, a student
recently attacked the US in the following way: "They
wouldn't sign the Kyoto treaty and now they want everyone
to stand behind them just because 'planes flew into two
buildings". Two things struck me about this. First,
the fact that it is currently fashionable to speak in
this way. Regarding yourself as fashionable makes you
feel good - supposedly - and that is why it is such a
powerful social force. It applies not only to the
clothes we wear, but also to the 'political' views we
espouse. Everyone else is bashing the US, I want to bash
the US and benefit from the sense of belonging it gives
me. No one challenged his remark; why should they when
everyone else is adopting this stance?
Secondly, and related to the first point,
is the illogical nature of his remark. He dismissed the
horror of 9/11, the agony and trauma it caused, the psychopathic
hatred that inspired it, and the concern that there are
people capable of this behaviour. He elevated the Kyoto
issue beyond its real significance, using it as part of
a wider polemic – bash the US (I was angry about
Kyoto, but I acknowledge that signing the treaty may have
damaged the US economy. I would have liked to see them
present an alternative plan or a compromise).
9/11? That’s politics for you
- linked to religion, which also fits this analysis of
mass psychology, irrational belief systems, and a lack
of intelligent and independent thinking. ‘Politics’
(religion) provided an ideology which legitimised the
mass murder of innocent people. Now it provides an ideology
where 9/11 is regarded as a peripheral event, where the
main issue is US imperialism.
We have to use the term ‘terrorism’
in any discussion. Unfortunately it frames, thus subtly
legitimises phenomena in a particular way, as part of
political discourse. The psychological perspective is
important, based as it is on an attempt to understand,
rather than a physical or ideological struggle for power.
It is more neutral. In so called political terms the IRA
and Islamic extremists are indeed terrorists. From a psychological
and humanistic perspective they are psychopaths who feel
they benefit from the deaths of innocent men, women and
children - they are are outside all possible social codes.
What kind of psyche is capable of this?
One that is susceptible, I suggest,
to the persuasions of political rhetoric and the way it
crystallises particular circumstances into wider and more
historic arguments and trends. The method Hitler used
when he reframed his psychopathic and genocidal atrocities
into ‘politics’, i.e. Nazi ideology.
Perhaps what I'm trying to say
is 'can't we try and understand each other, based on that
which is common to all of us (psychology) rather than
fight and argue from entrenched positions?' The daily
news suggests no, we can't. That's why politics sucks,
why it is an effect rather than a cause, and why I object
when it is regarded as a directive by which life can be
lived.
Psychohistory resources:
Principle web site: We
may define psychohistory as the interdisciplinary study
of why man has acted the way he has in history
Some
PDF Essays
Interesting site: If
you have ever read a history book, wondered why this or
that event occurred as it did and felt frustrated because
the writer either did not address this question or seemed
unconvincing, then psychohistory might be for you. Traditional
modes of historical explanation tend to emphasize political,
social, economic, cultural, or intellectual motivations
for events & actions. These are fine as far as they go,
but how well do they really explain why humans behave
in a given way in a given event? In psychohistory we are
always mindful that history is made by men & women evolving
from the past into the present on their way to the future.
Psychohistorians ask why men/women behave as they do in
history, thus we are always drawn back to the role of
individual/shared emotion & fantasy as a major explanatory
factor in history, just as it is in our present lives.
The more traditional fields tend to ignore or downplay
this aspect of human history. We have been accused of
being reductionistic by some, this is not true; rather
we believe and know that we are paying attention to the
real basics. Of necessity, ours is an interdisciplinary
field. It would be a mistake to assume that we seek to
replace or usurp the insights of more traditional disciplines.
Quite the contrary, we use the insights of many fields
to build from, we could not exist without what has gone
before.
Interesting analysis: Susie
Orbach, one of Britain's leading psychotherapists, is
not happy with the state of British politics. She thinks
there is far too much 'bullying, stiffness and conflict'
at Westminster, when what is needed is a bit more 'emotion,
commitment and caring'
|
