post-election reflection

Whether or not you’re happy with the results of the 2008 Presidential election, you might be troubled by this:

Rick Shenkman, associate professor of history at George Mason University, recently published Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.  Below is a YouTube video he created and shares on his blog, aptly named howstupidblog.com.

How much can we trust all the rhetoric about how stupid Americans are?

Most accusations of American anti-intellectualism, ignorance, and unreason come from academics.  So, I’m wondering what nonacademics think.

• Just how stupid (or not) are Americans?
• How do we react to such accusations/arguments?
• Does this year’s election support or refute Shenkman’s argument?

conventional wisdom

This past week, I made a conscious effort to catch the major speeches at the Democratic National Convention (including Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Barack himself).

“But why?,” I was asked last night.

Hmmmm…. because I’m a Democrat?  Because I study rhetoric?  Because I’m trying to decide who to vote for?  No, no, no.

Really, I guess it’s because I want to be inspired.  Because I want to hear motivating speeches that promise Americans the best, that tell us we deserve the best, that make me feel a part of something larger than myself… a part of a big community that shares my social, cultural, and political values and goals.

Is that, in fact, the sole (or “soul”) purpose of these conventions?  Because, let’s face it: these politicans don’t tell us anything we don’t already know, they can’t possibly accomplish all they claim they will, and they never really tell us what exactly they’re going to do and how they’re going to do it.

Is it all about the use of rhetoric to INSPIRE–to MOTIVATE the American people? to stir our emotions just enough to reinstate our belief in the government and to cast our vote in November?

Well, these 6 people did that for me.  They told me exactly what I wanted to hear.  They made me feel exactly how I wanted to feel.

Watching TV Makes you Smarter?

Yep.  At least that’s what Steve Johnson claims in his 2005 New York Times Magazine article with that title.  And…it’s an argument worth considering, especially given our penchant for dissing Americans in matters of intelligence. (Consider, for starters, Susan Jacoby’s recent book The Age of American Unreason, former Vice-President Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, and Richard Shenkman’s new book Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.)  H.L. Mencken wasn’t mistaken when he once said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

So, maybe it’s worth overestimating the intelligence of the American public, or at least reconsidering some of our criticisms.

Here’s the gist of Johnson’s argument:  a number of contemporary television shows, including The Sopranos, 24, The West Wing, and ER (keep in mind this was published in 2005) are actually demanding of some of our mental faculties.  The mental faculties he’s referring to include attention, retention, the parsing of complex narrative threads, and the deciphering of quick dialogue filled with information most viewers won’t understand.

He uses The Sopranos to illustrate his point about complex narratives.  In one episode, the viewer has to untangle at least 3 different narrative threads with layered plots in just one scene.  And, he says, the narratives build from previous episodes and continue on in future episodes.  ER is an example of a show full of quick dialogue packed with complex terms and a vocabulary unfamiliar to most that the audience must wade through to follow the story.

All of this, Johnson argues, requires the audience to focus–exercising the parts of the brain that map social networks, work to fill in missing information, and help make sense of complex narrative threads.  What Johnson’s crediting here is the structure and design of the shows…not the content.  The content, he acknowledges, is probably more immoral and sensational than ever.  But that’s not the point in this examination.

So, is this a valid point?  Do others agree?  What shows on TV right now might be comparable to the ones Johnson cites to make his argument?

meant to be?

As I push and shove (or, rather, swing and duck) my way through my dissertation, I’ve been thinking lately about the topic I once promised myself I’d write my dissertation on: the rhetoric of fate in American culture. You see, there was a time in my life about six or seven years ago that I had a major philosophical shift in my thinking. Previously, I had been a faithful believer in fate and predestination. Everything was, of course, predestined—where I’d go to college, who I’d meet, what career I’d have, whom I’d marry, if I’d marry, etc. After some pretty heated discussions with several people I respect and admire, I toyed with the idea that maybe everything wasn’t based on fate, or wasn’t predestined.

To make a long story short (or, to spare you a personal story more interesting to me than to others, I’m sure), I’ll cut to the chase. In the process of shifting my thinking, I asked anyone and everyone what they believed about fate. Did they, too, believe that everything was predestined? What did people mean by fate? Predestination? Most profound to me, and pertinent to Harlot, is the contradiction I found over and over in what people believed about fate, and in what they said about it. Most didn’t really believe in fate, but I could easily catch them speaking as if they did.

For example, my mother firmly stated that she didn’t believe our lives were predestined—that we had independent thought and choice in what we did. She did, however, routinely utter such comforting statements as, “Don’t worry, Kelly, it wasn’t meant to be,” or “If it’s meant to be, it’ll work out.” My best friend confirmed that she, also, did not believe that our lives were predestined. However, she would often ask the question, “Where is Mr. Right?” “I guess I’m not meant to find him yet?”

What I’m still curious about is why many of us (not to mention popular culture) often speak as if things are meant to or not meant to happen if we don’t really believe it. Do we really believe, on some level, that things will work out? Do we need to believe that? Is it all just rhetoric we’ve heard and repeat out of habit?

Obviously, I, at least, wasn’t predestined to write that dissertation. Long way from there…

packaging obama

Personally, I’ve always been a fan of the New Yorker cover.  One of the greatest visual forms of satire of American culture, I find it funny and smart, always saying a mouthful.

But the latest cover of the New Yorker is, for many, hard to swallow.  Its depiction of Barak and Michelle Obama, New Yorker defenders say, is meant to satirize how the Obamas are being portrayed, not who they really are.  Take a gander at the cover, and see what YOU think. As for myself . . . I’m still chewin’ on it.

the art of the folksy persuasion

So, I’m troubled…still.  Troubled by the attachment of intellectualism with elitism, and how it plays out in American politics.  Let me be more specific.  It seems that American politicians continue to back away from their privileged educations and shine the spotlight on their “folksy” characteristics (simulated or not) in order to win the American public’s vote.

We’ve all heard/read/talked/laughed about references to Bush and his distance from intellectualism.  The President of Barnard College, Judith Shapiro, just wrote/spoke about this topic, in reference to the Clinton/Obama battle:

“Here we had two candidates vying to run for President who had been educated at institutions that are among the most distinguished in our country: Wellesley, Yale, Columbia and Harvard.  Both candidates were obviously highly intelligent and knowledgeable.  Yet both felt the need to play down their claims to intellectuality–and the winner may still feel that need in the general election.  Hillary Clinton chugalugged beer and sought to attach the dread lable of ‘elitist’ to her rival.  And Barack Obama felt compelled to follow one of the most honest and sophisticated political speeches in recent memory with strenuous displays of folksiness” (”Staying Smart in Dumbed-Down Times”).

I guess I’m concerned by and wondering what others think about the need for political candidates–presidential candidates–to market themselves this way.  I’m all for candidates with balance: an intellectual drive and sophistication alongside a strong sense of humor, silliness…say, folksiness.  But how dangerous is a public association of intellect with elitism, and the consequent backing away from such characteristics?  And, what does it mean when the art of persuasion for political candidates rests on playing down”intellectuality”?

Going Public

A few days have passed since Friday’s presentation.  And, as Katie expressed in her post, the experience has left me reflecting not only on the organization and design of our presentations but also on the design, theory, and practice of Harlot.  Personally, Friday’s discussion with the audience was exactly what I needed.  In many respects, since I first jumped on board, with a genuine personal and intellectual interest and devotion to the project, I have not really stepped outside of it or forced myself to see the project from multiple views.  Some of the issues raised during the question/answer session on Friday forced me to begin that process–an important one, and a timely (kairotic, perhaps) one.

It’s a good time to reflect on what we’ve done so far–what we’ve put into action–and how well it fits with our goals and philosophy.  One of the greatest challenges we face (and we were reminded of this on Friday) is gaining interest from and facilitating engagement with the public…and this is central to Harlot.  How will we capture the attention of the public?  How will we gain their interest and respect?  What will make them want to participate and to continue to participate in Harlot?

Though this week we need to focus our attention on revising our presentations for the Fem(s) Rhet(s) conference on Friday, I think when we return, we need to spend more time working with the public on Harlot.  We need to talk to more non-academics as we move forward with this project.  We need to “go public.”

to educate and/or to entertain?

They say that when you’re working on your dissertation, you can’t help but think of everything in relation to your project.  I’d like to think that doesn’t apply to me, but, in fact, I do find myself thinking about all things as they relate to the issues of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism in American culture (the focus of my project).

Bear with me here.  Recently, I’ve been researching the 19th-Century lyceum in the U.S. and its role in fostering or stifling intellectualism.  In brief, the lyceum consisted of a series of public lectures; town meetings, debates, and discussions; and various newsletters and journals–all with the goal of “disseminating useful knowledge” to the American public.  Though this relates to Harlot in a number of ways (of course), one important issue in the literature about the 19th-C. lyceum pertinent to a discussion of Harlot is the relationship between education and entertainment.

Both the organizers and participants in the various forms of the lyceum in the U.S. emphasized the importance of making the lyceum both educational and entertaining.  The lectures, the discussions and debates, and the publications all had as a part of their mission to provide “useful knowledge” AND entertain.

Isn’t that what Harlot is and will be doing?  We want to have interesting, thoughtful conversations (thanks to 21st Century media) that are also fun and entertaining–in various forms, with a variety of participants.

Wow….everything really does (or can) relate back to your own research.  Whew….

Making Harlot Happen

I second Katie (and Tim’s) shout-out of thanks to all who are making Harlot happen!  As we discuss our plans for our upcoming presentations about Harlot, its origins, its purposes, and the philosophy behind it, I can’t help but acknowledge how important the support of others has been.  Though I wasn’t a part of the original conversation(s) that produced Harlot, I was happy to join the troupe because I agree with the philosophy of Harlot–as do many others.

My personal philosophy–as a scholar, a teacher, and a citizen–is centered on initiating, supporting, and participating in conversations bridging sometimes hidden/sometimes obvious gap between the university and the community.  It is in those conversations that the real intellectual work happens–and blossoms.

Tomorrow is the due date of the submissions for the pilot of Harlot (yeah!), and I look forward to seeing what conversations are initiated…and where they take us!