This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's nothing that inherently elevates fiction books over other forms of entertainment. In fact (multiplayer) video games are intrinsically social and communal in a way that books are not. I've done a lot of traveling and met a lot of people because of video games.
Of course this conversation is predicated on a distinction between "higher" and "lower" entertainment, and a distinction between "entertainment" and "work" in general. This distinction is dubious:
Imagine some guy lays this on you after you ask him about his hobbies. What an extraordinarily annoying and pretentious thing to say. Adorno’s dripping contempt for the “barbarous”, “horrifying”, “mock-worthy” common man, what he enjoys, how he talks, and what he thinks. All rooted in Adorno's resentment that the rube has again and again rejected marx’ bullshit.
“people are unaware of how utterly unfree they are, even where they feel most at liberty“ - thought bubble of guy in corner at party meme.
I think he's simply correct, and the view he outlined in the passage I quoted is something to be aspired to. Why would you not want to live an integrated life where everything you do is meaningful?
At any rate, even granting that he does have "contempt for the common man", this is certainly not an attitude that's unique to Marxists:
No, he’s not right. Even if we lived on a tropical island before capitalism, when two strangers would meet, among the first questions they would ask would be ‘so what do you do to eat?’, and ‘what do you do when you’re not fishing/hunting/gathering?’ . And when Old Theo would answer ‘How dare you imply my non-work activities are mockworthy and meaningless? I do everything passionately!’, the other man would hit him over the head with a stick, just like in real life.
The negative implications of ‘hobby’ that adorno is incensed about, he put there himself. People do not think their hobbies are meaningless and worthy of mockery.
But Adorno already said that he has no problem with simply listing the activities he does outside of his working hours. He already said as much in the passage that I quoted. His criticism is directed towards the modern concept of the hobby specifically, as something that is distinct from "things you do when you're not working for sustenance".
Now to be clear, I'm not a Marxist. I'm not even sure that this thing they call "capitalism" actually exists, and even if it does, its power to introduce radical discontinuities in human thought are surely overstated. A concept that is at least analogous to the concept of the hobby undoubtedly predates the written word. But nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to Adorno's argument that there is a certain ideological constellation surrounding the modern concept of the "hobby" that can and should be criticized, and we can and should imagine the division of our time being governed by a different conceptual regime.
I imagine that it varies from individual to individual. But regardless, people can be mistaken about what's meaningful and what's not. It's possible that someone might think that they're doing something meaningful, but in reality they're not. So the individual's conception of their own activity is just one data point to consider.
Oh, he has a problem with it, it’s his whole problem. He worries that he doesn’t come off as cool when he tells people what he does with his time:
So when he reads, he reads ‘with all his attention’(as opposed to normal people, who supposedly read distractedly. The point is, he’s better than them, at reading) . And he doesn’t have hobbies, he has a meaningful, holistic life. Please.
We’re all nerds with nerd hobbies here, but this one unloads his inadequacies and frustrations in the most petty, passive aggressive way possible.
This is clearly just a rhetorical gesture on Adorno's part to illustrate the attitude he's criticizing. His actual motivation for thinking the way he thinks doesn't have anything to do with fear of being labeled an eccentric.
Is reading not something that can be done well, as opposed to poorly? Is it not possible to read thoughtfully and carefully, and equally possible to read thoughtlessly and carelessly? (e.g. a student rushing through a novel to cram for an exam, vs someone who chooses to give his full attention to the novel out of genuine interest?)
Adorno was literally paid to read, so ceteris paribus, we'd expect him to be better at it than average, if for no other reason than that he had lots of time to practice.
Do you think that it's possible to lead a meaningful and holistic life, as opposed to one that is not? Maybe it's possible, but not particularly valuable either way, and thus not something to be aspired to? Or do you think that it's both possible and something that is proper to aspire to, but you just have specific issues with Adorno's presentation?
Is "nerd" meant to be a term of self-deprecation here? Do you think that the hobbies you spend your time on are meaningful, or no? (Not that I think that this is the sort of question that could be reduced to a binary choice; but we have to start somewhere.) If you don't think they're meaningful, then that raises the question of why you would persist in doing something that you think is meaningless.
I apologize for the rapid succession of questions, but I want to understand how much of your criticism stems from a disagreement over the object-level points of contention, and how much of it stems from a personal grievance against Adorno.
I only knew adorno by reputation, which in my circles wasn’t great. Now having read these few pages of primary source, I feel I understand him much better, and despise him far more. He’s a bitter, spiteful man, utterly devoid of what one might call, generosity of spirit. Just this morning I was reading about postmodern art, and I came upon one of his quotes “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.“ – That fucking scold, I thought. People have never needed poetry, and art in general, as much as after Auschwitz. Adorno’s chief purpose in life seems to nag and make others miserable.
But you’re right of course, all that is a little ad-hominem-y. Let’s get to what he says, as opposed to the how and why.
Sure, that can happen. But he implied that those who read 'as a hobby' , ie most people, always read carelessly, while he never reads carelessly. That is an unproven, absolute and pointless claim of superiority. It would be like claiming he’s a very good driver, therefore he should never be fined for speeding. While trying to erase the conceptual regime that discriminates between work and not-work, he invents new conceptual distinctions (his reading versus normal people reading) which make far less sense.
Holistic is a bullshit term, as in holistic medicine, holistic science, holistic nutrition, holistic shower gel. I believe people’s lives are meaningful already.
Sure. Take this place. On a very modest level, I think exchanging ideas is potentially helping the world. Even in my most cynical moments, when I think it has no "redeeming social value" and is just for fun, I find that meaningful, too.
I don't agree with this statement either. But just because he says some things that are incorrect doesn't mean he can't also say some things that are correct.
Let's address the root of the issue instead of quibbling over the interpretation of the text. Let's grant that Adorno thinks he's smarter (or a better reader, or just plain better) than everyone else.
...so what? Why does that upset you? Why the visceral reaction?
There are lots of intelligent and skilled people who also happen to be very arrogant. But that doesn't actually detract from the quality of their work. If you refuse to listen to anyone who thinks they're smarter than you, you're gonna have a rough time.
Stephen Wolfram (known for having a huge ego) thinks he's smarter than me (and it's very probable that he is), but that didn't deter my interest in his newest article on machine-generated proofs. I am confident (and in fact I believe it's been explicitly confirmed on one or two occasions) that there are members of this forum who have read my posts, found them lacking, and consequently judge themselves to be wiser and more intelligent than I am. But I harbor no ill will towards them, and as long as they keep writing good posts, I'll continue to read and appreciate their work.
The reason I shared the original quote was because I thought that it managed to paint a picture, in very few words, of what a meaningful life and a meaningful relation to one's "hobbies" would look like:
This has stuck with me ever since I first read it. I think it's great, and it's what I try to aspire to be (although the flesh is weak). And it's quite possible to consider this idea in isolation, apart from Adorno's politics, his view of "the masses", his own opinion of himself, etc. If it just doesn't speak to you that's fine. I just want to make it clear that it can be considered in isolation.
Everyone's life? Is everyone's life equally meaningful? Is it not possible for people to make bad choices and end up doing things that are meaningless?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The teleology of the technology is completely different. Books (and inernet blogs) shape us to follow logical, thought out arguments. The teology of video games is different. Video games put you in the drivers seat, which can be extremely valuable (for example I don't think you could recreate the same thematic coherence of Dark Souls in a book). However, video games cannot put you in the head of someone else the way a novel can. The Medium is the Message.
Most of the games, yes. But some of games can certainly put you in the head of someone else: Disco Elysium, Mouthwashing, Pathologic series, Omori, Signalis. They are much more of an exception to the rule, though.
Most books are written by a single author and you get a look inside a specific person's head. Most games are written by committee and you are less likely to get a coherent psychology and theme. There are exceptions in both mediums.
Reading is a shared endeavor that the writer starts but is completed by the reader. The words the author provides are the building block for the imaginative experience the reader creates in their own heads, supplying the sights, sounds, smells inside.
Gaming is also a shared endeavor, but different. The game developers provide visuals and audio, the player makes decisions and solves challenges.
There is massive potential in both mediums, and I hesitate to say that one could be substituted for the other.
I agree, they can't be substituted and the examples I gave are specifically the exceptions to the rule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link